I. Executive Summary

The Social Watch initiative was conceptualized during the preparatory activities for the World Summit on Social Development as a “meeting place for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) concerned about social development and gender discrimination, and engaged in monitoring the policies which have an impact on inequality and on people who live in poverty.” [1] It is premised on the belief that the actions and analysis of NGOs at the local level are central to informing international organizing efforts and that participation in international processes can help legitimize and strengthen national level work. Through the promotion of alternative methodological approaches, educational and monitoring tools and linkages within and across regions, Social Watch envisions linking and reinforcing national and international advocacy.

A unique quality of Social Watch is the sheer diversity of organizing initiatives at the national level used to strengthen civil society and NGO capacity to monitor and hold governments accountable. No single model of organizing exists, rather groups have developed multiple approaches to using Social Watch to create spaces for dialogue and exchange, promote advocacy efforts, influence social development policies and ultimately, engender positive change. These include: organizing broad NGO coalitions (Brazil, Italy, and the Philippines); strengthening grassroots movements (Chile and Peru); developing consultative NGO processes (El Salvador and Nepal); complementing existing NGO coalitions (Colombia, Mexico and South Africa); and engaging in research-based processes (Bangladesh, Bolivia, Nigeria and the United Kingdom). Lessons can also be learned from the difficulties that countries – such as Canada, Ghana, India and Senegal – have experienced in organizing and sustaining Social Watch initiatives. The strategies adopted by Social Watchers are not mutually exclusive and many organizations use a combination of approaches.

In several countries - such as Brazil, El Salvador, South Africa, and the United Kingdom - consistent NGO advocacy efforts have contributed to an increased recognition by government officials of the role of NGOs and the importance of their inclusion in the development of plans and policies, in particular. While it is difficult to determine a causal link between the advocacy efforts of Social Watchers or NGOs at large, and changes in government processes and policies, such pressure has influenced legislative or policy changes in Canada, Colombia, Kenya, Italy and Mexico.

Through Social Watch, fora have been created to discuss social development concerns, develop advocacy strategies, work with grassroots organizations, and lobby government officials. Events have been organized including capacity-building workshops, national seminars and regional conferences, and alternative methodologies and indicators are being refined to better inform individual and collective understanding of social development commitments and policies. Such opportunities have served to break the isolation of national groups and provided fora for groups to share experiences, debate areas of divergence and develop common positions and mutually reinforcing strategies. In addition, a variety of advocacy tools have been developed - including annual reports, wall charts, manuals of indicators, radio programs, social science and layperson texts, websites and databases. Due to the accumulation of activities, civil society actors have increased their knowledge base on issues related to social development and have put into place mechanisms necessary to affect change. In certain countries, NGOs have participated in the development of social plans and policies; in addition they have lobbied successfully for changes in existing policies and legislation.

Through their advocacy work and publications, Social Watchers have also made consistent contributions at the international level, particularly in relation to the Social Summit’s inter-governmental process. The Development Caucus continues to be the main political vehicle through which Watchers cooperate to share information, develop common agendas, discuss advocacy strategies and dialogue with government officials. Early in the Social Summit process the ‘Quality Benchmark’ was developed and eventually endorsed by over 1000 NGOs defining twelve common demands by which to measure the final agreements. At the end of the Social Summit, the Development Caucus released ‘Did We Achieve the Quality Benchmark?’ which assessed to what extent the demands were achieved. More recently, a ‘Geneva Benchmark’ was prepared for the five-year review of the Social Summit identifying ten major issues to redress the backlog on meeting commitments to social development and gender equality

Advocacy work however is inherently political and numerous challenges exist to effective monitoring and lobbying on national, regional and international levels. The activities of Social Watchers at the national level are conditioned by the existing political climate, the relationships between government and civil society, the capacity of organizations and the existence of fora for effective advocacy work. Regional exchanges require coordination, shared vision and may necessitate technical and financial support. At the international level, advocacy work on the follow-up to international conferences is affected by troubling factors both within and external to the United Nations (UN). These include: the increased influence of multilateral organizations such as the Bretton Woods Institutions and the World Trade Organization, for whom the profit oriented market economy takes precedence over people centered development considerations; the marginalization of the UN’s development agenda; and the ‘partnerships’ that are being developed between the latter and multinational corporations.

The Social Watch Annual Report has been used as a principal advocacy tool for NGOs to voice independent assessments of the relation between economic policies and social development as well as demand measures to address the underlying causes of poverty. A trial issue – The Starting Point – was published in 1996 and addressed issues related to basic rights. The four subsequent issues were organized around the following themes: i) Poverty (1997), ii) Equity (1998), iii) The Ten Social Summit Commitments (1999) and iv) Key Issues Necessary for Implementation of Social Summit Commitments (2000). In addition, each report presents alternative methodological frameworks including indicators and indices, global perspectives on social development issues, national-level analyses, and comparisons between countries and regions. From 1996 to 2000, the number of country contributions more than tripled from thirteen to 45 and the number of pages roughly doubled from 119 to 253. In addition to the English and Spanish editions of the report, different issues have been translated into French, Italian and Portuguese. Social Watchers convene national seminars to discuss the report’s contents with government officials, NGOs, social scientists, academics and media figures; in addition the information within has been “translated” into popular educational manuals for a broader readership. The Social Watch annual report has received widespread accolades from UN officials, government representatives, social scientists, media figures and NGOs

Innovative indicators and indices that combine qualitative and quantitative data are a critical component of Social Watch’s annual reports and serve as tools to measure progress toward Social Summit commitments. Through this process, Social Watch has created a methodology that analyzes government policies, performance and political will in implementing international commitments and progress toward attaining international development goals. This process has enabled Social Watchers to translate the language of commitments into measurable components thus analyzing both “the state of the situation” and “political will” in their respective countries. Tables and charts printed in various formats furthermore allow for comparison across countries and regions. In addition, Social Watch challenges the inadequacies of existing data and measurements. The construction of new methodological tools is key to the monitoring and advocacy process, but this work encounters numerous obstacles as many of the Social Summit commitments are neither well-defined nor measurable. Other problems include: accessing reliable and up-to-date data, incorporating gender sensitive indicators, balancing qualitative and quantitative indicators, aggregating different measurements, explaining the underlying methodology to a wider readership and promoting comprehensible and user-friendly charts and tables.

The organizational structure to support the afore-mentioned organizing efforts, coordinate a common advocacy agenda and develop relevant statistical and educational tools, has evolved over the years. The original structure consisted of a reference group, a coordinating committee and the editorial team and secretariat. Of the various roles in the Social Watch network, that of the secretariat has changed the most. While their initial primary responsibility was to produce the annual report, activities grew extensively over the years including: developing alternative methodologies and indicators; preparing and disseminating the annual report; promoting the report and advocacy at the Commission on Social Development and in the Social Summit + 5 process; serving as a clearinghouse of information related to the Social Summit and issues at stake; preparing position papers through a consultative process; providing knowledge and guidance around monitoring and advocacy strategies and playing a leadership role at international events. In addition, the secretariat has developed various advocacy tools including: brochures, wall charts, monitoring guides, manuals of indicators and radio programs. To broaden their outreach they have created a tri-lingual website (English, Portuguese and Spanish) including comprehensive country reports, analytical articles, information on UN processes, in addition to a database of social development indicators on each of the UN member states.

While the secretariat has faced many challenges due to the sheer scope and amount of work involved in the Social Watch initiative, it has continued to maintain a flexible, decentralized structure with a lean Secretariat. This network however is continually evolving - new groups have joined, national contexts have changed, regional endeavors have been launched, and the demands placed on the secretariat are, as a result, in constant flux. The fluid organizational structure of Social Watch, while a strength in many instances, has also led to ambiguities concerning division of roles and responsibilities. While Social Watchers maintain that their relationship with the secretariat has been extremely beneficial, issues of accountability, representation, regional and linguistic diversity, and funding should be examined given the growing participation of NGOs in Social Watch. In addition, questions about Social Watch’s nature and purpose, how to ensure participatory and transparent processes, and whether to develop a more formal structure, need to be raised.

Another role that has unquestionably been important to the success of Social Watch is that of Novib - both as funder and participant - since its inception. Novib organized and funded a key meeting in The Netherlands in 1995 that jump-started the Social Watch initiative. Novib hosted the Social Watch secretariat from 1995-1996 and supported the production of the trial annual report including contributions of several watchers. When the secretariat was transferred to the Instituto del Tercer Mundo in 1996, Novib continued to provide core financial support. In addition to funding the activities of 33 organizations involved in Social Watch, Novib staff have contributed in numerous ways to this initiative including: hosting capacity-building workshops for watchers, writing conceptual think pieces, contributing to Social Watch’s development of indicators and indices, and participating on the coordinating committee. One of the challenges Novib has faced in its Social Watch-related work is how to balance its various, and at times over-lapping, roles as donor, participant, executive and advocate.

Through our assessment of NGO organizing efforts, the Social Watch Annual Report, the Secretariat and Novib, it is clear Social Watch has served as a catalyst for a plurality of local level initiatives - growing out of different historical and political contexts, cultural experiences, and socio-economic realities. For this reason, we have decided to begin our report by highlighting the national level activities and priorities of Social Watchers, their impact on government processes and policies as well as the challenges they face. This is followed by an investigation of the Annual Report, Social Watch’s key advocacy tool that consolidates the analysis emerging from these experiences. An analysis of the structural framework of the Social Watch initiative, most importantly the role of the Secretariat and the main donor, Novib, is also assessed.

We end our report with recommendations that parallel the structure of this evaluation, organized around the following areas: NGO organizing, Annual Report, Secretariat and Novib. Through these suggestions we hope to provide Social Watch with a useful perspective on past activities that will assist in providing guidance for its future direction. This will include strengthening national organizing by popularizing the Social Watch monitoring and advocacy methodology, creating regional partnerships and opportunities and making strategic political interventions at the international level. Enhancing the political and policy-oriented content of advocacy tools - such as the Annual Report - to advance debates on key economic and social development issues is critical. In addition, improving its public profile by publicizing the key findings and messages with a targeted media and dissemination strategy is essential. In order to continue building on the foundation of experiences and activities, respond to the increased demands of Watchers, and delegate responsibilities across the network, Social Watch’s operational structure deserves to be revisited and its organizational capacity enhanced. While Social Watch has begun to diversify its funding base, securing support from donors who are sensitive to the overall political objective of strengthening civil society participation, mobilization and advocacy is crucial. Finally, history demonstrates that long-term transformations are the most sustainable when those who have the most at stake are involved in the process of change; engendering broad organic participation is an ongoing challenge that Social Watch needs to address.

[1] Exercising Social Watch.  Monitoring the Copenhagen Summit and the Beijing Conference.  Montevideo: Instituto del Tercer Mundo.  1999.  p 20.