1. Multi-Stakeholder Processes : Why, and Where Next? Paul Hohnen UNED Forum Workshop New York, 28 April 2001

2. Overview Current Political Context How MSPs can Contribute Problems and Pitfalls Recommendations

3. Political Context 1.‘Democratic Deficit’ - Global forums not accountable to elected representatives -Agendas inconsistent with sustainability (UNCED, WTO) - Access and Transparency issues

4. From the Battle of Seattle … Globalisation = unsustainability = corporate control = reduced gov’t role “no globalisation without representation”.

5. … to the echec at Quebec “The multinationals want to own everything. ….We are here to protest against the lack of democracy”. Protester at Summit of the Americas, quoted p.1, Financial Times, 21 April 2001.

6. Political Context 2. ‘ 2. ‘Governance Gap’ -Implementation Gap : words vs deeds -Institutional Gap : no mandate or money -Policy Gap : policies don’t match problems.

7. Can MSPs Help? Government, business and protest as usual are not achieving sustainability. Adversarial approaches good at problem identification, but not always at advancing solutions.

8. Can MSPs Help? ‘Democratic Deficit’ : MSPs address part of the democratic deficit, by engaging and harnessing the creativity from wide and balanced cross- section of stakeholders.

9. Can MSPs Help? ‘Governance Gap’ : MSPs can provide leadership & action on key issues neglected by governments (e.g. role of dams; sustainability indicators; freedom of information; MSC; FSC).

10. Can MSPs Help? Solutions- driven debates on how to provide the world with sufficient – clean water? food? clean energy? health & education? forest cover (species/fibre/fuelwood)?

11. Making Transparency More Transparent What MSPs are out there? Who’s involved? How are they going? How can they be improved? What can I learn from them?

12. Problems & Pitfalls External Critiques 1. Unfamiliarity : who are they? 2.Legitimacy : who elected them? 3.Power : so what if they want change?

13. Problems & Pitfalls Internal Critiques 1.Politics : Issues ignored are hard. 2.History : How to build trust? 3. Compromise : Progress vs Principles?

14. Problems and Pitfalls 1.Governments : Will governments see MSPs as a challenge to sovereign authority to determine policy, or a tool to enhance democratic dialogue?

15. Problems and Pitfalls 2.Political Parties : Will parties see MSPs as a challenge to their role as ‘mirrors of the public will’ and framers of alternative policies and priorities, or a source of fresh ideas and potential initiatives?

16. Problems and Pitfalls 3.Business : Will mainstream business see MSPs as a threat to ‘business as usual’, or an opportunity to identify trends and partners able to help them transition to sustainability?

17. Problems and Pitfalls 4.NGOs : Will NGOs see MSPs as a threat to traditional independence of thought and action, or an opportunity to take their message to a wider audience?

18. Problems and Pitfalls 5.Public Will MSPs be able to make measurable, accepted and recognised progress within meaningful timeframes, and thus maintain stakeholder and public support?

19. Recommendations 1.Establish a framework to monitor MSP processes. Its objective would be to help all those engaged in MSPs, and others, to understand their goals, participants and processes.

20. Recommendations Any MSP overview framework should be easy to use, transparent, adaptable and self-regulating.

21. Possible MSP Learning Framework ScopeObjectiveParticipantsTimelinesProgress to Date International National Local

22. Recommendations 2. Give it a permanent home. Someone needs to be responsible for creation of a website, encouraging completion of data, responding to enquiries and convening meetings to exchange experience.

23. Recommendations The UN would be the most logical site. This would be consistent will its universality, mandate and support for greater stakeholder engagement (e.g. Millennium Summit, Malmo Declaration).

24. Recommendations 3. Avoid Bureaucracy. MSPs maybe local, national, regional or international. There will be no “one size fits all”. Each must be independent and self-sustaining.

25. Recommendations 4. Secure seed funding. Money will be necessary to ensure provision of basic information and coordination mechanisms in relation to MSPs. Some MSPs may require financial assistance to ensure independence and viability.

26. Recommendations Ideally, any funding mechanism would be independent and multi-stakeholder (e.g. from governments, business and foundations). NGO contributions could be in kind.

27. Recommendations 5. Ensure that it is a learning process. Provide for an assessment and evaluation mechanism aimed at highlighting what works, as well as what doesn’t.

28. Recommendations 6. Establish ground rules based on respect for others’ approaches and processes. Dialogue and consensus seeking are the basis of democratic systems. But democracies also mean that everyone has the right to their own opinion. Some stakeholders will engage in MSPs; others won’t.

29. Recommendations Those not involved should be open to contribute suggestions, but should refrain from judging, and vice versa.

30. Recommendations 7. Be patient, persistent and creative. MSPs are a new species in the political eco-system. They will make mistakes. They will not solve all problems to everyone’s satisfaction.

31. Recommendations MSPs should not and will not provide an alternative to good government. But they might help it – and the rest of us - make the necessary progress towards sustainability.

32. Conclusion MSPs – an alternative definition : “Making the Sum greater than the Parts”