Comments on the full report

Throughout: Introducing more subtitles would be useful to structure the text. This can also be achieved by highlighting key words / phrases in bold providing "anchors" for people scanning through the text.

In some instances, the text is a bit repetitive (but this may seem so to me right now because I’ve read both the full report and the summary). Some shortening might be possible.

• On p2, top (and elsewhere in the document), you refer to the "moral" authority of the WCD report. Is this only moral authority – what about the expertise & data gathered? Does it have factual authority (if that’s the right term)? And why / why not? (You say on p3, last para, that you do not aim to assess the technical quality – but there is assessment of the knowledge base provided & used.)
• On p2, para4 (and elsewhere), you refer to "norm advancement" through the WCD report. This seems in line with your categorisation of the WCD as an "advisory process" and your scepticism regarding actual implementation of MSP outcomes (see comments below). I am not so sure if the impacts are norm advancement only – what about improved relations between stakeholders which from my perspective is a significant societal gain?
• P3, para 2, puts WCD in the context of MSPs in general. You say here that "MSPs also lack any formal authority" – later in the report you say they "typically lack any formal authority". "Typically" or not seems to make quite a difference. – Also, I don’t agree with that assessment entirely. The question of formal authority of MSPs and their outcome depends on their linkage to official decision-making. You are primarily looking at "independent processes" (as is obvious, for example, in the conclusions and elsewhere, when you assess the WCD’s independence). However, MSPs in general can fall into two categories: those linked to official decision-making and independent ones. Maybe this should be clarified for the reader who’s not familiar with various processes – and particularly because you’re discussing various models which were linked to official decision-making, and the impacts of transnational alliances on decision-making in chapter 2.
  In the same para, you say that the WCD report places emphasis on the promotion of norms through non-binding instruments. However, individual governments are taking up the WCD findings and examine them to determine what they wish to translate into national legislation. Therefore, the assessment of the WCD as an MSP with no formal authority and emphasising non-binding instruments should be amended.
• P3, last para, precisely describes the purpose of the report – ie not aiming to assess the WCD’s impact on development practice. However, as I said above, it does develop a set of criteria & tools which could be amended to arrive at a suggested framework for such an assessment.
• P4, para 2etc., addresses the question of legitimacy and sets out criteria. I think its is very good to have this dealt with so explicitly. Not sure if you consulted Michael Edwards’ works on the legitimacy question, part. of NGOs and their involvement in int’l meetings, for example: Edwards, Michael, 2000. NGO Rights and Responsibilities. A New Deal for Global Governance. London: The Foreign Policy Centre in association with NCVO / Voice of the Voluntary Sector. These issues are also discussed in: Edwards, Michael, 1999. Future Positive. International Co-operation in the 21^st Century. London: Earthscan. Would make a good reference here. My only problem with Edwards’ analysis is that he focuses on NGOs alone whereas the legitimacy of business, trade unions and other stakeholders’ and their involvement can be scrutinized using very similar criteria.
• P4, para 6, again refers to the advisory voice of MSPs – ie, I assume, advising govts & intergovernmental bodies. As I said, I believe that applies to certain kinds (and most) MSPs but not necessarily all: A. Stakeholders an come together and develop concrete action plans that they put into practice without much need to involve governments or affect their decision-making. These are also "independent processes". B. For those linked into official decision-making, their role within the decision-making process will depend on the particular process. You describe in ch. 2 how NGOs and other stakeholders impact official decision-making, part. via lobbying. However, dialogues (as part of official meetings) also impact decision-making. Although this is not written down anywhere (and hence nothing stakeholders can insist that it happens), at the UN CSD meetings, the results of the multi-stakeholder dialogues at the beginning of the sessions are summarised by the CSD Chair (as are the results of the High Level Segment). These summaries are then put in front of negotiators the following week and assume the status of an official document, alongside the draft decision generated through the CSD intersessional session a few weeks before. Delegates pick para’s from all three documents and insert them into the CSD decision. – This seems to be an example how stakeholder dialogues can be integrated into decision-making – not perfectly, but it seems a first step how to deal with the linkage question beyond a purely informing role the outcomes of which can subsequently be discarded without consequence.

• Excellent (!!!) introduction into the context & history of commissions. I haven’t seen this information compiled in one place before. In the introduction to the chapter, it would be good to outline the three strands of issues that you’re looking at (environment, development, economic justice) and why – you’re placing the WCD in that context.
• P7, para 4 – small grammatical thing: You say that "Often these issues have led" – issues are not an agent which can lead, it’s rather that attempts at addressing these issues have included the creation of global & regional fora (or something like that).
• P7, para 5 refers to "state, private sector and civil society". I believe you should be careful when using this popular, tri-sectoral approach implied here (see below).
• P12, para4+5 – this is referring to an important gap or contradiction that you could consider making more clear: On the one hand, WCED and subsequent international agreements such as Ag21 or CSD decisions, but also components of legally binding instruments such as the environmental conventions, make it clear that stakeholders need to play their part. They "call upon" and "urge" stakeholders to implement agreements, outlining their responsibilities and needs for partnerships, etc. On the other hand, stakeholders are referred to an advisory role only when it comes to formulating these decisions (with the slightly advanced practice at the CSD mentioned above)… We all understand the governance implications and problems implied when discussing stakeholders’ involvement in decision-making – BUT: it is happening anyway, through lobbying, which places resourceful groups in very advantageous positions. A proper, transparent, predictable process of engagement, incl. support for those in need to enable meaningful participation, would provide a much more equitable mechanism which could also be better explained to the general public and justified. For example, a simple checking back with stakeholders when formulating decisions – eg as regards their capacities to do what they’re told – would be beneficial.
  There is a great need for political debate / dialogue on how govts’ want to relate to stakeholders. Within the UN system and many a national govt machinery, mechanisms are disparate and unpredictable. You say below (eg p18) that civil society actors are indeed actively participating in the process of governing – within mechanisms that are not very democratically governed or explicitly governed.
• P14, para5: Lovely how you point out who has been on which commissions – I knew some of that but not all. And these are ALL men. I like the way you say this – it is speaking for itself. – I also like that you have put such emphasis on the question of eminent persons vs. representation. Would be great to assess long-term practical impacts of one against the other, incl. impacts on societies as a whole (societal gains) and the question if "normal" people even know about these processes.
• P17, para 1 – needs a correction: you got it right in the footnote but not in the text. Formed in the preparations for the Rio Summit was the BCSD (not WBCSD).
• P17, bottom: NGO participation from South & North is one of the criteria discussed by Edwards (1999, 2000) in the context of legitimacy of NGO participation.
• P18, para 3 (thanks for using our work :-), says that "MSPs, in theory, provide for inclusion…" (last sentence). I believe that some of the examples we studied for the MSP report show that the processes indeed made that provision (eg, again: CSD). So maybe "in theory" is a bit too sceptical? Maybe you could say something about the conditions within which MSPs are likely to make such provisions?
• P18, para4, on different types of MSPs: You have used the taxonomy developed for UNED’s report on MSPs (2^nd draft, April 2001). We have changed our approach here because we felt it was too early in the research process to use such a taxonomy, which is assuming a broader overview and more comparative data than the case studies we assembled. I am attaching the relevant chapter 2 of our forthcoming book, within that, 2.2. "A Variety of Processes" is the one I’m referring to. Issues, objectives, participants, scope, time-lines, and linkage into official decision-making are the characteristics we are using to categorise MSPs. I suggest you have a look and reconsider if you want to refer to the older, 2^nd draft of the report (or indicate that that’s the one you’re referring to, as now we’ve put up the final text of the book on the website at www.earthsummit2002.org/msp). Personally, I don’t find the term "advanced MSPs" very good anymore - I don’t think it’s justified in terms of practical examples; it seems rather a goal to develop such processes.
• P19, para 1etc.: You’re discussing the critical issue of implementation & compliance with MSP outcomes. Much in line with what I said above – I wouldn’t be that general but say "it depends". And that is mostly on 2 things:
  1. The arrangements of linkages into official decision-making. They can / could be designed so that MSPs have indeed greater impact on implementation and greater authority. - Another very interesting example is the CEDAW committee: Parties to CEDAW have to report every few years on progress made. The CEDAW Committee expects reports from govts AND invites stakeholders’ to report and/or comment on the govt report, in written form and at the hearings when the committee scrutinizes the govt report and questions representatives. In other words, NGOs are officially consulted within the arrangements aimed at monitoring implementation of the convention. (I believe comparable mechanisms are evolving within the Aarhus process??). As such, the dialogue with civil society, based on their broad consultations within their constituencies, is an integral part of the compliance mechanism.
  We are thinking about what to suggest as regards the future of the CSD – one could, for example, think about MS panels reviewing national reports on implementation of Ag21 and subsequent agreements, as integral parts of the monitoring mechanism.
  2. An MSP (independent or around an official process) can comprise developing joint action plans which need to include monitoring mechanisms and dealing with non-compliance. UNED’s planned implementation conference is an example. But also the CSD 1999 on tourism, which saw discussions between industry and NGOs on NGO involvement in monitoring hitherto industry-led labelling schemes for the tourism sector.
  - You’re also using the term "typically" here (but not in the intro) – see above, should be consistent.
• P 19, p4: The first sentence refers to "the promotion of norms" – well, maybe that is a bit cautious? Promoting norms doesn’t mean actual change of behaviour? You do refer to the history of social change through changing norms so maybe you could be less cautious in your words in the 1^st sentence. – In the bottom sentence of the of the para, you refer to norm creation & promotion as an "alternative, or at least a component…" I don’t think norm creation & promotion is an alternative, it can only be a complement – because human behaviour is influenced by both at the same time: Values & norms, and sanctions / rewards (and a number of other factors such as information, behavioural choice, peer pressure, desired identity etc.). Unfortunately :-), values & norms are only one factor to human behaviour, and a rather weak one at that (overall estimates of correlations between norms & behaviour amount to about +.10, eg in the area of personal relationships). You will find hardly any situation where you can trace ONE factor of human behaviour, it is multi-factorial, so the term "alternative" is not really appropriate.
• P 19,20: I agree with the way you are putting the WCD in historical context, very useful and insightful. Any chance you could expand from that in the conclusions and speculate where the developments are going to go?
• P20, para 3: You state that WCD has no direct comparators. I am not soooo sure. Ideally, we would be able to put WCD into the context of a whole range of processes, using more variables describing MSPs and identifying each individually along the axes defined by these variables. – I just think that this is too absolute a statement.
  

• From all I have read & heard about the WCD history, this is a very comprehensive and in-depth account. The conclusions could maybe be more prominently reflected in the overall conclusions chapter – eg that the issue has to "ready" for an MSP approach and what the conditions of such readiness are.
• P37, para5, correctly states that precise processes & outcomes vary, depending on conditions and circumstances. I would add that we need to develop more learning and knowledge on MSPs – beginning with a compilation of case studies such as this (comprehensive!) one, moving to compilations of options (mechanisms, tools, solutions…), to meta-analyses allowing for recommendations on what works best for which (desired) outcomes under which circumstances.
  An academic dream and nightmare at the same time :-)

This is extremely useful – very "alive" and forming a thorough basis for many of your process-related conclusions. The level of detail and the obvious access to numerous sources of information are impressive. As you’re working through discussing various criteria, stakeholder groups, and developments over time, more subtitles or similar structuring of the text would be useful.

• One point I haven’t seen (but might have missed it) is the link between "taking stakeholder groups into confidence" (by commissioners) and the lack of consultation before publication of the final report.
• P46, para2, refers to competition between individual companies placing barriers to working in coalitions. This is a general point with MSPs, and not an easy one. If one wants to work with individual companies (or individuals in their ind. capacities), and not just industry associations, one will always run into this problem. – It is not unheard of among NGOs, too, where competition for funds (eg to participate!) is great but often more concealed (not to the benefit if the work) or can be overcome based on common goals, networking and inputting via a variety of channels and consultation processes.
• P46, bottom: You refer to govts not having devoted much attention yet to their positioning within MSPs. This is closely linked to the need for political debate and building of consistent mechanisms connecting MSPs and official decision-making. – When and under which circumstances do you expect that govts will pay more attention to MSPs and their positions, representation, etc.?
• P47, para2: You correctly state that country and regional representation still matters – and, I might add, be it only because people BELIEVE it does. National / cultural identities can be much stronger than expected, and people tend to exaggerate differences in order to maintain a distinct identity. This was realised in the process of forming the European Union, for example, when people resisted (and still resist) the notion of "losing" their national identities within an overall "European" identity. Countries & EU ran campaigns promotion a "Europe of the regions", referring to cultural units rather than national ones, in order to overcome that barrier (and weaken the impact of NATIONAL categories). What I am trying to say is – forgive the psychologist – that people are NOT RATIONAL. Therefore, psychological factors of identity constructs can be very powerful and do not always relate to "real" or "relevant" aspects as regards a particular issue. MSPs should strive to accommodate such psychological needs rather than arguing / designing the process on a purely pragmatic basis.
• P48, para2: Yes, this will be a big challenge – and we should respond with creativity, inter-linked processes, groups and levels, rather than exclusion of people or important criteria.
• P51, para2, on WCD vs. trilateral networks: This is a very important point, as the trilateral approach is being used in many places (and it seems to me: increasingly), and there’s not sufficient awareness and discussions of the implications of such an approach. Clearly, it is not the sense of Ag21 with its 9 major groups. – Defining stakeholder groups needs to be based on a careful analysis of the issue area (eg via social mapping), and should be based on thinking "outside the box" of established "lists" of stakeholder groups. The WCD has done very well here.
  Let me just quote the discussion from Felix Dodds’ chapter in our forthcoming book on MSPs (Ch 4): "It is worth remembering that the first international body to recognise the role of relevant stakeholders was the International Labour Organization which in 1919 set a model for tripartite representation from governments, employers and unions. The ILO has a Governing Body which has 28 member governments, 14 members representing workers and 14 representing employers. Also the ILO has 168 member states each national delegation has four members, two government representatives, one workers delegate and one employers delegate.
  Some organizations such as European Partners for the Environment promote the idea of tripartite within the sustainable development area. They suggest that the three should be governments, industry and civil society. Agenda 21s approach is that it doesn't adequately enable an issue to be addressed if every other stakeholder is to be part of civil society. How can you put together NGOs, women, trade unions, scientists and local government, to mention a few, in one grouping? The essence of Agenda 21 although it identifies nine Major Groups is promoting the idea that you bring together the relevant stakeholders that need to address a particular issue. One problem with Agenda 21 is that it only identifies nine! There are others that should be considered eg education community, older people, the media. Unfortunately the addition of other stakeholders has been fought over the past eight years. The reason put forward is that we can't 'renegotiate Agenda 21! A more flexible approach is required as we move towards a clearer focus on implementing Agenda 21 and the other international agreements.
  On issues such as health and safety at work a tripartite approach is probably the right approach. In fact the Agenda 21 Chapter on trade unions (Chapter 29) does recommend:
  'to establish (within the workplace) bipartite and tripartite mechanisms on safety, health and sustainable development'."
• P51, para3,4, on the issue of women’s involvement and gender perspectives: You conclude that gender balanced participation is an important solution – yes, BUT: including women will not necessarily lead to inclusion of gender perspectives. What is important is to include people (mostly this will be women, but they don’t have to be) who have gender related expertise and are able to bring it to the fore.
• P52 etc: on funding. Do you have any suggestions for the future regarding funding MSPs or their initial phases or for groups who aim to initiate MSPs…? A trust fund within the UN system or the UN Foundation (or…?) for global processes, supporting less resourced groups, and/or supporting setting up phases. The WCD problems with fund raising activities and uncertainties overshadowing at least the initial period and work programme is a very common phenomenon – and not healthy. Again, it will depend on political will to establish something like that – which is part of the necessary political debate on how govts & intergovernmental bodies wish to relate to stakeholders in general and MSPs in particular.
• P54, end of para1: Will you make the evidence you’re referring to available (eg in background papers on the website)? I could understand if not. Maybe worth saying that somewhere and giving the reasons.
• P58, box, first point: I think you’re making clear the many advantages if choosing a representational model rather than eminent individuals, or at least a combination of both. Why are you being so neutral here, presenting representation as merely "an alternative"? Or could you briefly state when which model would be better?
• Last point: "open-ended" is a dangerous term (part. to govts & funders). What about a work programme designed to spark off further activities at different levels, being flexible over the course of the (time limited) process to accommodate necessary amendments / changes based on increased experience…?

Chapter 5: I am sorry, I didn’t study all of it – I like the conclusions part. Sufficient time & resources are a huge issue and usually underestimated. Not an easy one towards funders & many participants who find it difficult to commit for longer periods of time.

Very good that you discuss the secretariat’s role and staff in such detail.

Chapter 6: Again, I am sorry, I didn’t study all of it. But to have this as a distinct chapter is a very good decision; needs much more attention in most MSPs. Many forget to budget for this as well, and don’t seek professional advice / input. Relying on the Internet is a big mistake and costs credibility – has been said about many processes which we looked at.

Chapter 7: This is another one that I haven’t sufficiently studied – although I am VERY intrigued to read it over the next few days. One concept / term that you might find useful here – as elsewhere – is what the Environment Council calls "constituency drift": the fact that through the dynamics within the commission / group, mutual learning and changes of perspective take place that are not shared by the wider constituencies. Participants are "drifting" from their constituencies. Another lesson might be that participants need to clarify towards their fellows / the process as a whole HOW they are indeed consulting with their constituencies, how they are informing them etc. If nothing else, it would create transparency – and give people ideas what they can actually do. Many participants will not be very familiar with that challenge and – without interfering into the stakeholder group – might benefit from support, advice, experiences of others.

Conclusions Chapter:

Really like this chapter, picking out the key points and clearly linking recommendations to the analysis. Much of what I said above refers to this chapter as well as points are taken up again. It forms the core part of the executive summary and that is very good. A few further comments:

• Linked to the suggestion above regarding a section on how to design medium- and long-term evaluation of WCD’s practical impacts – on p139, para2, you’re commenting on medium- and long-term – any suggestions on how many years "medium" and "long" would be?
• Representation: It could come out more strongly that equitable representation can lead more balanced and INTEGRATED outcomes – depending on the process, chairing, facilitation, eloquence of participants, etc. Everybody represents different views – and how are these being weighed?
• P 140, para2: the term "constituency drift" might be useful.
• Implementation: Again, the question of role & status (advisory, legal stature) is, from my perspective, not as clear and common to all MSPs.
• P142, bottom: I find this a bit too positive / optimistic – or I am too sceptical. Might be due to the fact that you do not / cannot reveal all of the evidence. If that’s the case, you could choose to comment on that. Finally, in the last sentence: is the question of "confidence of Forum members" – ie their perception - the only measure of undue influence? It might be the only practical one…
• P143, para 2, first sentence: I think you can be stronger here: "so that the WCD LIVED UP TO ITS projected image…" I think the term "image" might be the one bothering me. WCD’s work in that regard was not only about "creating a neutral image" but about BEING as neutral as possible…?
• P145, inclusiveness: I miss reference to the problems with adequate gender representation. You make a strong statement earlier and that I find important enough to take up again here (see comment above).
• P148, legacy: same point as regards different types of MSPs. And: Is the WCD follow-up process advisory only? How will the role vis-à-vis govts develop, and vis-à-vis / within UNEP?

Is very good as it is. Some comments on the full report apply. Are you printing this in a brochure format separately – I assume so. Wide dissemination would be very good.

I wouldn’t mind being acknowledged as a reviewer – I’d indeed be honoured. I am working as an independent consultant, mostly with UNED Forum, but also with others such as WEDO. My comments are made in my individual capacity.