NGO Expectations for Major Groups Review

From ToBI Planning Committee meeting, Amsterdam, July 1, 1998

Objectives

1. To achieve greater understanding and clarity on the nature of voluntary initiatives.
2. To distinguish between initiatives successfully implementing ecologically sustainable and socially responsible practices from ineffective or insincere efforts.
3. To identify the critical elements necessary for voluntary initiatives to be effective.

Current Tasks

1. Delineate the potential scope -- of both the exploration and a future review.

First, an overview needs to be taken of the number and type of initiatives that exist. Next, a selection needs to be made of the initiatives to examine in the coming year. We need to consider the time-frame and available resources, also the relevance to the CSD agenda and the needs/priorities of the participating Major Groups.

As to the scope of the current exploration, NGO's expect to look beyond just the tourism sector. It is important to also explore voluntary initiatives in a number of sectors, for example: energy, food and agriculture, forestry, chemicals, mining. We also propose to examine cross-sectoral codes such as the OECD Guidelines, the UN Guidelines on Consumer Protection, the ICC Business Charter, and CERES Principles. This examination does not need to be comprehensive and exhaustive, but may focus only on specific voluntary initiatives.  

2. Agree upon terminology and definitions.

We need to agree on the terms we will be using in this process and on the definitions for each. Some of these terms include:

• Voluntary Initiatives and types of voluntary initiatives;
• Regulatory Framework;
• Stake-holders;
• Effectiveness/Impact.

3. Agree upon goals/objectives.

This may indeed be a preliminary examination, identifying key issues and questions, and hopefully developing a useful framework for evaluating different kinds of initiatives. The NGOs have listed their three objectives above; the other groups need to do this as well. If there are conflicts, these need to be addressed and resolved.

In addition to goals and objectives of the process for this year, the three groups need to at least begin the discussion of goals and objectives for the Review itself, to take place in the next few years (presumably in conjunction with the CSD Programme of Work) and culminating in the final 2002 review of progress by the General Assembly.

4. Agree on process -- outreach and consultations (within and between groups), facilitation, meetings, communication of progress and results, timelines and benchmarks.

The three Major Groups (industry, represented by the ICC and WBCSD; trade unions, represented by the ICFTU; and NGOs, represented by ToBI) are expected to consult with their constituents as well as each of the other Major Groups. DSD/CSD has agreed to facilitate the process and UNEP will also participate, sharing the results of its ongoing work on voluntary initiatives. Appropriate communication and the sharing of information, ideas and concerns needs to take place among all these groups, through meetings, internet, mail, telephone calls and conferences. Two major international consultation meetings have been proposed; these will require planning, funding, and organising to be successful. Thus, the groups need to develop a basic preliminary checklist and schedule of activities and benchmarks -- at least for the coming year.

Towards the end of the year a more extensive plan should be developed and proposed, for how the Review can be implemented and contribute to the upcoming CSD sessions in the Programme of Work.

 5. Clarify the content and nature of each major group perspective.

Each Major group represents a somewhat different perspective and set of priorities regarding the Review as well as the overall process of sustainable development. This diversity constitutes a unique and important value of this process. In order to better organize materials and communications, it will help to spell out more clearly the common agreements that exist among the groups as well as the differences. The existence of these differences should not be seen as negative but as (1) a reality, and (2) a dynamism that will stimulate creative thinking and ideas. Thus, we need to:

• Identify agreements – common assumptions and points, goals or aims;
• Identify differences -- in assumptions, definitions, facts, etc. 

6. Identify and summarise the evaluations already done or in process.

In the search and listing of various voluntary initiatives which exist or are being developed, we need to also seek out and summarise the studies and evaluations which have previously been done or which are currently in process (e.g., the OECD evaluation of voluntary agreements).

This is especially where the Major Groups can benefit from assistance from UNEP, CSD, UNIDO, ILO and other bodies who have been conducting similar research. It is important that this information is shared in a timely fashion so that the groups can apply this in their examinations.

Each Major Group may wish to provide their own summary of the evaluations according to their criteria. The summaries could possibly be synthesised, but only through agreement by the Groups, perhaps with qualifications noted by the Group in question. 

7. Explore common and differentiated criteria for evaluation (evaluation methodology or framework).

In many ways, this discussion and production of a set of appropriate criteria for evaluating voluntary initiatives is the heart of the current exploration. Several different categories have already been mentioned. These need to be discussed, with objections or qualifications noted. It should be understood that no one framework is necessarily going to be applicable to any and all initiatives, as certain criteria may be more important in certain instances than others.

However, in general, a framework of questions, with applicable indicators for effectively measuring progress, performance, conformance, or other responses.

While the upcoming year may not be sufficient in time and resources to conduct sufficient evaluations of any of the initiatives, the agreed-upon criteria could still be used to frame discussion and thinking about the selected initiative. Further discussion could focus on the means for gathering the necessary data and indicators to properly answer each of the evaluation questions. This discussion could then lay the groundwork for the evaluation of selected initiatives in future CSD sessions, e.g., on energy and transportation, forestry, food and agriculture.

The value of different perspectives

The special value of this major groups review process, is in the differing perspectives. Industry, Trade Unions, NGO's have different constituencies and purposes in society. This needs to be recognised and incorporated in government decision-making. While we need to articulate the areas of common understanding we will also need to articulate the differences. As mentioned earlier, the differences will contribute to the success of this process.

To top of page