NGO Responses on Improving the Drafting of NGO Statements

ICVA has invited NGOs to provide us with their feedback/comments on our discussion paper for improving the drafting of NGO statements and on additional suggestions to improve the drafting process. We will post this input (with permission, of course) publicly on this page so that NGOs from around the world have the possibility to comment.

An NGO side meeting about improving the drafting of NGO statements was also held on 8 March 2007 in the margins UNHCR’s March Standing Committee meeting and an ICVA report on the meeting is available.

Input has been provided by:

• Peter Cotton, Global NGO Focal Point for the Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement (ATC);

• Austcare;

• Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO); and

• International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC)

9 March 2007

Many thanks for this critical and thoughtful evaluation of the “NGO Statements” issue. I think that you have outlined the challenges in an objective and helpful way – and it is incumbent upon the NGO community to reflect on these challenges and endeavour to jointly seek a way to improve the current situation.

As this year’s Global NGO Focal Point for ATC – and as a representative from an impoverished NGO on the ‘absolute underside’ of the globe – I am critically aware of the problems caused by distance, money and staff resources!

As someone who has attended the ATC meetings since their inception, I am also aware of all the hard work and very commendable attempts made by ICVA (and often you in particular) to incorporate, sometimes conflicting, NGO priorities into a single NGO statement for Standing Committees. I personally do not under-estimate the challenge this poses for the drafters of these statements. I have become more critically aware this year (in my role as Focal Point for ATC) of some of the practical challenges.

As indicated in my previous communication, I am personally both aware (and regretful) that I have not had an opportunity to discuss these issues with you in more depth – and I am keen that we find a way to rectify that this year. As your paper suggests, this has been primarily because of the severe financial limitations of RMS, and the costs of life in Geneva ! The travelling time for me to attend ATC is usually at least 3 times the amount of time spent in ATC sessions.

The past scheduling of Standing Committees ‘back to back’ with ATC meetings, has left no real time for NGOs to discuss and formulate unified positions prior to the commencement of EXCOM. Since ATC is concerned with resettlement/protection, the June meetings are by far the most important and relevant for most NGOs at ATC. NGOs have recently reinforced the necessity of these meetings acting as a forum to inform their input into the subsequent NGO statement at EXCOM. However, there has been a serious ‘dates’ dilemma for many NGOs – since World Refugee Day has often conflicted DIRECTLY with the dates of the June ATC. This has created difficulties for many people (including myself) as delegates for ATC are often very involved in national responsibilities associated with WRD.

In our recent survey of NGOs, everyone was agreed on the importance of avoiding WRD in the scheduling of ATC. Unfortunately, it appears that this year (in a genuine attempt to address this problem) Standing Committee has been tentatively scheduled the week BEFORE ATC! This obviously makes it impossible for the outcomes of ATC to inform the NGO Statement. The Chair of ATC is aware of this problem, but it is not easy to solve. It seems that the possibility of exchanging the focus of the Standing Committees (to change Protection to the March meetings) is complicated by the differing budget years of many States. I understand that the Working Group may have discussed this in the past few days?

Unfortunately, I only received your e-mail when I returned home from work today and I realise this reply may be too late for your discussion. However, I have replied immediately in the hope that it may be helpful to your future thinking. I also would like to ensure that we have time together to discuss this when I am in Geneva this June.

Thanks for all you continue to do on our collective behalf.

Kind regards

Peter

Austcare Response to the Discussion paper on Improving the Drafting of NGO Statements

23 March 2007

Thank you for highlighting the issues surrounding the drafting process of NGO statements for UNHCR's Standing Committee and Executive Committee Meetings. In response to your call for NGO feedback and input, Austcare has noted some key points.

As an Australian-based humanitarian aid and development NGO, Austcare faces challenges shared by many NGOs: distance, time and capacity. ICVA provides an important link to the UN agencies, and key international discussions and debates. Austcare welcomes ICVA's initiative to enhance NGO participation and improve the NGO statement process through this series of discussion papers and meetings.

As noted in the meetings and papers produced by ICVA, NGOs can be reluctant to draft, contribute or present NGO statements. This has been attributed to a number of reasons outlined in the papers, together with time and capacity. A further reason for this reluctance could be that many NGOs may not fully understand the UN processes, such as the role of UNHCR's Standing Committee and Executive Committee meetings. Furthermore, some NGOs may not necessarily see the value of contributing to NGO statements if the impact and importance of the statements is unclear. While many NGOs attend the meetings of UNHCR (particularly EXCOM), the formality of the procedures can be confusing and opportunities for advocacy can unclear to first-time NGO representatives.

The Discussion Paper to Improve the Drafting Process for UNHCR Standing and Executive Committee Meetings (7 March 2007) is a welcome and useful tool in that it clearly explains the process and function of these meetings. However, further steps could be taken to increase NGO understanding of UN procedures, the value of statements and advocacy techniques. At a recent meeting of Australian NGOs in preparation for UNHCR's 2007 Executive Committee meeting, the need for further training of NGOs in the processes of these UN meetings was raised. The idea for a one-day training on the day before Pre-EXCOM started was suggested, with sessions on the role of the Standing and Executive Committee meetings, tips and techniques for asking questions in plenary and side meetings, and advocacy techniques. Given the current discussion regarding NGO statements, this workshop could provide an opportunity for face-to-face discussion groups on each of the NGO statements for NGOs who have been working on the drafts, as well as NGOs who had not yet contributed. A similar workshop or meeting could be arranged before Standing Committee meetings.

While encouraging NGOs to draft and contribute to NGO statements, it is also important that the statements do not become 'position papers' that are completely finalised before the UNHCR meetings. The delivery of such papers could mean that key issues raised during the debates are missed. Perhaps one option could be a process whereby key issues are identified and drafted by a small team of NGO contributors (lead by one NGO) by email (and perhaps phone for field-based NGOs without regular or reliable internet connection) and edited/revised by ICVA before the meetings. Further contributions or adjustments could be made during the meetings for NGOs who haven't contributed or to reflect the debate. Meeting rooms could be set aside for NGOs to work on the statements during breaks in the meetings. Information on which rooms will house each statement working group may also help to address the issue that some NGOs have raised regarding the 'transparency' of the process.

A significant challenge outlined in the ICVA papers is that difficulty in building consensus without politicising or compromising key messages. Developing and delivering a unified message will always be a challenge for an umbrella organisation. The 'dissociation' footnote/ clause is a very practical solution for topics or even sub-issues on which reaching consensus is very difficult. If those colleagues in the 'minority' viewpoint feel that a footnote in the text would not be read, then perhaps their organisation's name could be indicated on a small standardised section on the title page (centred but at the very bottom of the page). Diluting positions to the point where they are meaningless can be counterproductive of course and is not recommended. In addition, perhaps ICVA could count as a 'majority' opinion/ statement, one on which 55% or 60 %, 70 % etc (whatever figure is thought best) of members agree. This might render the drafting process, and level of consensus building more manageable. Those disagreeing would be mentioned as described above (their organisation would be mentioned but not each varying position /reasons for dissention).

Finally, we’d like to thanks ICVA for your efforts to improve and facilitate the drafting process. We appreciate the opportunity to feed into this review.

Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) - Ideas for improving the drafting of NGO statements

26 March 2007

Problem: Not enough people are coming forward to volunteer as lead drafters on statements.

Possible solution: Have a 'shadowing' or 'mentoring' system, where inexperienced drafters either shadow an experienced drafter, learning how it is done without having the responsibility of writing the statement themselves, or where an experienced drafter mentors and supports an inexperienced drafter who has volunteered. This would help to build up a bigger pool of potential drafters. It may also encourage new drafters to take the lead because they would have support or guidance on how to draft a statement correctly.

Possible solution: Draw ICVA members' attention to the existing tools available (e.g. statement drafting guide).

Problem: Statements being drafted at the last minute

Possible solution: While beginning the drafting process further in advance may help in some circumstances, everyone should remember that drafters have many other activities and demands on their time. For this reason, they may not prioritise the drafting until the deadline is imminent. Asking drafters when they realistically expect to work on/complete their draft could reduce concern about whether the draft will be finished in time, as well as allowing ICVA to give drafters guidance on whether the timeframe is realistic.

International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) perspective on drafting of Group NGO Statements to ExCom

3 April 2007

ICMC has long participated in the process of drafting group “NGO statements” for presentation to UNHCR’s Executive and Standing Committee here in Geneva. Making these group statements is a shared right, which NGOs exercise as a body, often within time constraints that make participation in the process, and the perfecting of a common voice, quite difficult at times.

We appreciate ICVA’s leadership over the years in organizing drafters for the statements and input as wide as possible for the content. The result has been a consistent stream of statements that have on the whole been accurate, well-written and constructive, expressing with great responsibility the voice of the NGOs in general.

That is not to say that every one of the statements has been perfect or that the drafting process is ideal, either for all NGOs or for any one of us. There is room for improvement, but any improvement must be fruitful and practical.

4 reflections on consensus/veto questions

1. This is a process to produce a common statement, not consensus. The right to make statements was fought for and recognized in the name of NGOs broadly. There are two extremes to avoid. At one extreme, NGO statements obviously will never be able to express every perspective. At the other extreme, we need to understand—and with occasional trepidation ICMC accepts—that statements can never be limited to just our own perspective, or any one perspective for that matter. Naturally, lead drafters need be representational, and not exceptional, in their work on the common statement.

2. In no case should we or any member or group of members be given a “right” to veto any text or subject in one of these draft NGO statements. We have surely all seen the results of this problematique in too many other international processes… it is not a practice for emulation. Drafting itself is a process of negotiating topics and language, but on every point drafters, including ICVA and with great deference to ICVA’s wide representative capacity and experience, must in the end make a reasonable judgment that the position speaks broadly for NGOs, i.e., for NGOs in general.

3. Stretching the drafting time makes some sense if possible, but not rigidifying it! As conscious as any of the limitations of real time and real capacity, ICMC is concerned to not see the whole drafting exercise so burdened with additional process, or inflexibility, that it altogether collapses from the weight. Moreover, whatever happens with stretching the drafting time, there will still be the issue of what to do when NGOs present opposing perspectives within the drafting process, whether the issue refers to circumstances of or in a state or region or to policy or programming matters.

4. Handling differences. In the past, most such differences have been handled to satisfactory result among NGOs in collegial conversation within the drafting process. That is always the best approach, and ICVA has been a solid facilitator in this regard—without imagining yet another layer that separates and formalizes “drafting” and “editing” teams!

In the event such a difference can’t otherwise be resolved to the satisfaction of those engaged, an NGO with continuing differences—maybe even us someday!—should be able to assert that difference, either within the particular section or at the end of the statement, simply by way of disassociation, reservation or even by being noted as having declined to endorse the statement altogether.

Back to List of Contributors