V. Annual Report

 The Social Watch annual report has been used as a principal advocacy tool for organizations interested in raising awareness around and monitoring the Social Summit commitments.  This report presents alternative statistics, global perspectives on social development issues, national-level analyses, and comparisons between countries and regions.  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 concretize Social Summit commitments.  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.

 In the United Kingdom for example Social Watch reports have been instructive in enabling a conceptual shift towards viewing social development and poverty issues from a global rather than merely a national perspective.  In lieu of approaching anti-poverty policies as affecting one sector of the population, situating them in a broader context of social development goals establishes their relevance for the population as a whole.  Linking the national and the international is also important in Senegal where the reports are used make comparisons with conditions in other countries.  In Italy the report is described as “a good pedagogic instrument because it gives a clear and accessible picture of the main issues and the main priorities of the international civil society.”[1]

 In Columbia, the annual reports have enhanced the work of the Colombian Platform for Human Rights, Democracy and Development by increasing its visibility on issues related to social development and gender equity.  For El-Salvadoran NGOs, the Social Watch reports are considered of major importance as they enable the exchange of information and facilitate lobbying with the government.

 In Brazil, Social Watchers produce their own Portuguese country-specific edition of the annual report and Indian Social Watchers have translated the report into local languages to ensure wider dissemination.  In other countries, Social Watchers use sections of the annual report in their local work.  Nepali NGOs for example develop each commitment in an issue of a bi-monthly publication.

 Subsequent sections further discuss substantive content, indicators and indices developed, national and regional representation and production issues for each of the five annual reports.

A.     Substantive Content

1.       The Starting Point.  1996

 The Starting Point was “a kind of rehearsal aimed at launching an idea.” [2]  Its central theme was basic rights and contributors were asked to assess their country’s policies according to one of the following variables: civil society involvement, gender, national budgets, multilateral and bilateral aid and regional distribution of basic rights.  This report consisted of two main sections: the first introduced the Social Watch idea of monitoring implementation of the Social Summit and Women’s Conference agreements and the second included contributions from NGOs engaged in follow-up and advocacy efforts in their respective countries.  Its potential was described in the following way: 

The “number 0” is expected to have a catalytic effect, stimulating groups with an interest in the follow-up of the conferences and the monitoring of the implementation of the WSSD and the WCW resolutions into engaging in such efforts, by helping them to make sure that their input will have dissemination channels and greater chances of being acknowledged and having an impact on policies.”[3]

 2.      Poverty.  1997

 The overarching theme of the second Annual Report was “poverty: from the summits to the grassroots,” challenging the ways poverty is defined and its multiple dimensions.  It included a methodological appendix containing four sets of tables measuring country progress toward: achieving specific social development goals; improving general areas of social development; and fulfilling overseas development aid and 20/20 commitments.  A novelty of this issue is the Chart of Progress that measures both developing and developed countries’ progress in achieving the Social Summit commitments and their political will; in the latter’s case the goal of devoting 0.7% of their GNP to development assistance is included.  In addition, a detailed article proposed the development of the Fulfilled Commitments Index (FCI), an index aggregating indicators used to monitor the Social Summit and the Women’s Conference agreements.

 3.      Equity.  1998

 The year 1998 was significant in that it marked the halfway point between the Social Summit and the five-year review in 2000.  In order to emphasize gender issues and the commitments of the Women’s Conference agenda, the over-arching theme of this report was on gender equity, including related inequalities in the cultural, economic and social fields.  In addition to the Chart of Progress, a qualitative survey was conducted to measure political will using indicators to determine the implementation of plans, programs and initiatives (IPPI) in fifteen countries.[4]  Quantitative indicators were also developed corresponding to thirteen different commitments and a comparative ranking of countries was produced.  Finally, an equity diamond was introduced presenting the situation of each country using four indicators: infant mortality, literacy, the Gini Index and UNDP’s Gender Development Index (GDI).[5]

 Several challenges were faced this year in producing the country reports.  In some cases, country teams were unable to meet the stated deadline or had little additional information to contribute from the previous year.  Others had only recently heard of Social Watch and were not prepared to submit a report.  As a result the Inter Press Service (IPS) was requested to contact Social Watchers and official national focal points in certain countries to write brief articles about their activities.  While the initial aim was to provide a more comprehensive picture of country-level activities, it was perceived of as an “exceptional measure”[6] which, while ensuring greater national coverage did not contribute to Social Watch’s goal of strengthening NGO capacity through the process of report writing.[7]

 4.      Ten Social Summit Commitments.  1999

 Both the 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports were targeted to influence the discussions leading up to and including the Social Summit + 5 review.  In lieu of focusing on a particular theme, the 1999 report was structured around countries’ fulfillment of the 10 Social Summit commitments and presented NGO assessments of government performance.[8]

 The 1999 Annual Report included a substantive article on poverty as well as analysis from other international advocacy networks.  A description of the development of various indicators used to monitor the Social Summit and the Women’s Conference is included in addition to several user-friendly charts including the multi-colored chart of progress toward fulfillment of commitments and the bilingual wall chart of progress “Ready, Steady, Go…!”  Other creative contributions include the information poverty chart designed to show the difficulties in accessing up-to-date, reliable data for social development indicators, and the Gender Fulfilled Commitments Index for Latin America.

 5.      Key Issues Necessary for Implementation of Social Summit Commitments.  2000

 The guidelines for the 2000 report were adapted from “The Geneva Benchmark Issues” highlighting ten issues identified as the “key aspects to be addressed to make up for the backlog on commitments in the first years of the twenty-first century.” [9]  Country contributions focused on the challenges faced by governments in implementing the Social Summit commitments; the majority agreed that local efforts are often hampered by macroeconomic decisions imposed by multilateral organizations.  In addition, two regional networks contributed regional analyses.  The Arab NGO Network for Development – submitted an article investigating the impact of structural adjustment policies, highlighting the most pernicious development problems and discussing civil society’s role in tackling these issues in the Arab world.  The Central American, Panama and Mexican network – contributed a synthesis of the overriding challenges to regional integration and sustainable development.  Several countries contributed reports for the first time including: Bahrain, Jordan, Iraq, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Vietnam.

 This report also includes a second “information poverty” table, and three charts that measure government follow-up to commitments made at the Social Summit and Women’s Conference.  A separate indicator’s manual containing statistical information on indicators “Easier said than done” was also distributed together with this report. 

 B.     Indicators and Indices

 By developing alternative indicators and indices Social Watch has created a methodology that measures and analyzes government policies, performance and political will in implementing international commitments and progress toward attaining international development goals.  Through this process Social Watch has translated the language of commitments into measurable entities thus enabling researchers and NGOs to incorporate quantitative and qualitative data in analyzing “the state of the situation” and “political will” in their respective countries.  Tables and charts printed in the Annual Report furthermore allow for comparison across countries and regions.  In addition to challenging existing measurements, Social Watch incorporates multiple data sources and presents its findings using various formats.  The construction of new methodological tools is key to the monitoring and advocacy process.  

In late August 1997 a workshop was held in Montevideo[10] to further discuss Social Watch indicators including the Fulfilled Commitments Index (FCI),[11] the main monitoring instrument that enables civil society actors to evaluate and measure the degree to which their governments are implementing the Social Summit and Women’s Conference agreements.  It is unique in that it allows: 

• monitoring commitments across two landmark international agreements,
• combining quantitative and qualitative indicators, bringing together statistical indicators of progress and indicators of political will, and 
• aggregating existing indicators in a global index

 The FCI incorporates three different modules of indicators: i) Distance from Goals, ii) Aggregation of these indicators according to major areas, and iii) Political Will.  The indicators that are used to measure the “Distance from Goals” highlight how close or far countries are from reaching established goals.  “Political Will” refers to the degree of political resolve in tackling social development problems and is a consolidation of the following indicators: Plans, Programs, Initiatives (IPPI), Development Aid and Government Social Expenditure, Ratification of Key International Agreements and Civil Society Involvement.

 The development of an overall index that combines distance from goals and political will is a critical component of Social Watch’s methodology and serves as a tool to concretize and monitor Social Summit commitments.  Political will - based on both quantitative and qualitative statistics - is particularly innovative as a monitoring strategy as it entails using different methodologies and indicators.  As the data needed for this indicator cannot be found solely in traditional statistical sources, civil society organizations themselves must be actively involved in consolidating and evaluating the data for this indicator.  This process contributes to efforts in analyzing and monitoring governments’ commitments.  Developing new methodological approaches however is far from a straight-forward task and due to a variety of complex methodological factors the FCI is still under construction.

 Through the process of developing new indicators, Social Watch has challenged existing measurements and proposed alternative sources for data collection.  Social Watch has opposed using contraceptive prevalence and fertility rates as indicators of reproductive health [12] and queried the principal focus of poverty indicators on “income poverty.”  Questioning what it actually means to live on 1 USD per day, Social Watch underscores the importance of examining indicators from a relative, as opposed to absolute, perspective.  While Social Watch incorporates statistics from UN and international organizations in its work, it also highlights nonexistent data as demonstrated in its “information poverty table.”  One of the solutions to counter the paucity of reliable and consistent data is to access national statistics bureaus and strengthen local data collection methods. 

C.     National and Regional Representation

 While achieving national and regional balance is one of the goals of the Social Watch secretariat, certain countries and regions are more represented than others.  In addition the vast majority of reports come from organizations based in the South (see Table 4 for an overview of national and regional contributions).

 The Latin American and Caribbean regions have consistently contributed the most country reports to the annual report, jumping from four reports in 1996 to sixteen in the year 2000.  Brazil, Peru, Mexico and Uruguay have contributed reports every year since 1996 while Bolivia, Columbia, El Salvador and Guatemala have done so since 1997. 

The African continent is seriously underrepresented in Social Watch.  Submissions have only increased from five countries in 1996 to nine in 2000; central, southern and French-speaking Africa’s contributions are particularly scarce.  Ghana is the only country to have contributed consistently across the five reports, while Kenya has done so since 1997.  Egypt has submitted reports since 1996 missing just one contribution in 1999. 

 Asian countries are also not adequately represented; contributions tend to be inconsistent over time and non-existent from the Pacific Islands.  Reports have increased from three in 1996 to six in the 2000 and the Philippines is the only country to have participated annually.  Four West Asian countries contributed reports in the year 2000 up from zero in 1996; Lebanon has contributed every year since 1998.

 European contributions have risen from one contribution by the European Union in 1996 to eight in the year 2000; Germany, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have submitted annual reports since 1997.  In North America, the U.S. has contributed continuously since 1997 and Canada since 1998.

 Given the deeper engagement of Southern NGOs in organizing and advocacy efforts around the Social Summit, their participation in the Annual Report is far greater than that of Northern groups.  Out of the 45 country contributions included in the year 2000 Annual Report, only ten came from organizations based in the North. 

Table 2: Social Watch Annual Reports: Contributions by Country and Region

1.       Schedule

In order to produce the annual report the Social Watch secretariat has observed the following schedule.  The theme or focus of each issue is discussed with the coordinating committee during its annual spring meeting or agreed to via e-mail.  Report guidelines - used as a common framework for watchers to monitor governments and assess efforts made in achieving progress in social development goals - are subsequently developed by the Social Watch scientific committee.[13]  These guidelines are perceived as a useful way to approach indicators from a qualitative perspective and to enhance comparisons across regions.  [14]  The initial purpose was to orient researchers rather than directly lead them.  In some cases however researchers have adhered so closely to the guidelines that the end result took more of a question/answer form rather than an indepth broader analysis that the guidelines intended to encourage.  

Guidelines are distributed to Social Watch focal points and other contacts in August of the year preceding the launch of the report.  In addition, thematic articles and global analyses are requested from research groups and networks working in areas that correspond to the report’s focus.  Reports and articles are to be submitted to the Secretariat by October [15] though they are often late which in turn delays the editing process.  The report is subsequently consolidated, edited, translated and printed in January.  During the annual Commission on Social Development (CSD) meeting convened in New York, the Social Watch annual report is launched and distributed.

 2.      Structure and Size

 The structure and size of the annual report have evolved over time (see Table 2 for an overview).  Every report includes an introductory “think piece” by Roberto Bissio in addition to three sections including: i) thematic articles and global analyses, ii) country reports, and iii) methodological chapters with accompanying charts and graphs.  In addition the last two reports included pullout materials such as wall charts and this year a manual on indicators was published as well.

 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.  While country reports ranged from four to eight pages in the 1996 version, they were considerably shorter by the year 2000 with no contribution exceeding five pages and the majority limited to three concise pages.  The full versions of the country reports were placed on the Social Watch website.  As the volume of the report increased so did its weight and shipping-related expenses.

3.      Translation

English and Spanish versions of the report have been published annually since 1996 and the 1997 report was translated into French and Portuguese.  In 1998 members of the Italian coordinating committee, Mani Tese supervised the translation of the report into Italian as Ossevatorio Internazionale Sullo Sviluppo Sociale.  Thirty-thousand (30,000) issues were published by the Italian publishing house Rosenberg & Sellier who also issues the Human Development Report.  That same year IBASE and the Brazilian coalition launched their own country-specific edition of the report in Portuguese, including select translations of global analyses in addition to sixty pages of national-level critique.  These translations have continued in 1999 and 2000.  The number of copies printed in each language varies.  While 3,000 and 1,500 copies are printed in English and Spanish respectively, 30,000 copies are printed in Italian and 1,500 in Portuguese.  In some countries, however, the Social Watch initiative lacked funds and the French version was not produced a second time.

4.      Distribution and Media Strategy

The vast majority of copies are distributed free of charge to delegates, NGOs and media during the annual Commission on Social Development (CSD) meetings and the preparatory meetings for the Social Summit + 5 process in New York as well as the Special Session in Geneva.  Copies are also mailed to Southern NGO free of charge despite high shipping costs that run between 10 to 30 USD per report, depending on the recipient country, in addition to the 12 USD unit cost of designing and printing the Annual Report.  Northern groups are charged 20 USD per copy and the same amount for shipping from Uruguay.

 While press conferences - organized around the launching of the Annual Report at the CSD – are covered by the Inter Press Service (IPS), no consistent media strategy has been developed by the Social Watch secretariat.  Social Watchers often organize in-country seminars to launch the report inviting government officials, NGOs, social scientists, academics and media figures to discuss its contents.

Table 3: Social Watch Annual Reports: Content, Form and Language

E.     Impact of the Annual Report

 The annual report has undoubtedly contributed to generating new analyses and developing innovative approaches to following up on the Social Summit commitments.  Used as Social Watch’s main advocacy tool, it is an integral part of monitoring work and serves to link analysis and activism between the national and international levels.  By contributing on an annual basis to this report, watchers strengthen their report-writing, data collection and research skills.  In several countries, participatory processes have been established to write national reports; these are subsequently launched during seminars and press conferences attended by government officials, NGOs, academics, social scientists and media figures.  Through the development of innovative indicators and indices, Social Watch analyzes both goals reached and political will exerted. 

 On an international level, the annual report contributed to the Social Summit + 5 review process as the 1999 and the 2000 issues discussed the Ten Commitments and Key Issues Necessary for Implementation of Social Summit Commitments, respectively.  It was used by a number of government delegations particularly in their discussions around assessing implementation of the Social Summit and served as an advocacy tool for NGOs during the negotiations.  In addition, the pull out chart and indicators manual Easier Said Than Done was widely disseminated and used as a tool to rank and compare countries’ performance in achieving key social development goals.  Another advocacy tool, Exercising Social Watch: Monitoring the Copenhagen Summit and the Beijing Conference was also distributed and used in discussions on alternative approaches to indicators and monitoring.

 In the words of senior UN officials:

“I have been a great admirer of Social Watch.  Our experience with them has been a very positive one.  The strength of their reports is the way information is pulled together from NGOs that have embraced a broad based social development agenda, with the strong involvement of Third World NGOs.” – Nitin Desai, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs

 “The Annual Reports are enormously important to our work.  They are comprehensive and present interesting data and opinion pieces.  When I travel or receive someone from another country, I read the country reports.  It is impossible to calculate Roberto’s influence, people look for his thoughtful, well-written overviews [in the Annual Report].” – John Langmore, Director UN Division for Social Policy and Development

 Social Watch’s innovative methodological approach to monitoring have furthermore been used as a model by other NGO networks including those following up on the 1997 education conference in Hamburg.  In addition, the idea of measuring progress has been incorporated into data analysis by the United Nations and the World Bank.

F.     Challenges to the Annual Report

1.       Content

 The content of the Annual Report will need to be revised to correspond to the future needs of Social Watchers.  At the country level, Social Watchers experience difficulties in finding reliable, up-to-date statistics and alternative data, and several Social Watchers stressed the need for technical expertise in data gathering, report writing, monitoring and advocacy work.  While capacity building workshops were held in the early years of the Social Watch initiative these ceased to take place after 1998 given various pressures on the Secretariat, including an overburdened social science team and staff participation in pressing international debates, such as the one related to the “Better World for All” report.  Due to the time involved in writing national reports, their preparation can take precedence over advocacy.

 2.      Indicators and Indices [17]

 Social Watchers stressed a number of challenges to the development and use of statistically sound and relevant indicators and indices, 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.  Furthermore, the assumptions made in creating an indicator or index are not always clearly explained.

 The creation of innovative methodologies is an ongoing process that depends on the availability of reliable and comparable data.  Obstacles arise due to: i) inconsistencies related to the period of time which the data represents, the reliability of the data source and differing methodologies used in its collection; ii) changes in the data from year to year, including new measurements and additional indicators, and iii) non-existent or inadequate data for many countries.  Aggregating different indicators and establishing benchmarks for comparative work across time has also been arduous.  For variables such as maternal mortality, cases of malaria and housing, there is no comparable information between 1990 and the present.[18]   This is the case as well for key indicators such as unemployment, the poverty line and the Gini index. 

 Social Watch would benefit from the revision and refinement of certain methodological tools, including indicators and charts.  While combining quantitative and qualitative measurements is critical to a more grounded understanding of social development indicators and related policies, the challenge remains of how to develop statistically sound and coherent relationships between the two.  Several Social Watchers stressed the prominence of quantitative, to the detriment of qualitative, measurements.  While additional qualitative measurements need to be developed, the difficulties inherent in developing tools to measure quality also needs to be addressed.  Social Watchers argued for example that their countries were misrepresented in the Charts on Progress to Commitments as their positions did not correspond to the reality on the ground.  Several countries in Central and South American for example rank relatively high in the IPPI however this does not reflect the quality or efficiency of social policies in those countries.

 Other charts could also use more comprehensible explanations.  While the ‘Changes in Social and Military Expenditures Chart,’ measures public expenditure on education and health as a proportion of GNP, ideally it should reflect the real per capita expenditure on health and education to better measure government performance.  The Equity Diamond is another innovative graphic that presents four indicators for each country in comparison with the regional average.  However it is difficult to read and decipher.  For example the meaning and measurment values of the Gender Development Index (GDI) and Gini are not explained.  In addition it is not clear why countries are compared on a regional basis given the vast disparities that skew a regional average.  While the charts that use sets of icons to show change in lieu of numeric values, are original, it is not always clear what  quantifiable indicators and indices are used to determine whether a country is: significantly going backwards, regressing or progressing.  How Social Watch handles contradictory data – such as countries that are regressing in one area while progressing in the other – in their aggregated calculations is also not self-evident.

 Expanding on gender sensitive indicators and indices has also been a challenge.  In most countries, gender disaggegated data is either nonexistent or inaccessible.  The three indicators Social Watch uses to measure ‘changes in women’s situation’ - life expectancy, illiteracy reduction and primary net enrollment - are inadequate measures of gender equality and the empowerment of women as they do not measure the broader socio-economic context necessary to effectively monitor the Women’s Conference and Social Summit agreements.  Furthermore, these indicators are limited because they are sex specific (measuring the conditions of one sex, i.e.  women) and not gender sensitive (comparing the position of women and men, therefore highlighting gender gaps).[19]  Three indicators, selected by the UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), that better measure progress in reducing obstacles to gender equality are the ratio of girls’ to boys’ enrollment in secondary school; female share of paid employment in non-agricultural activities (i.e.  industry and services); and women’s share of seats in national parliament.[20]  While Social Watch has challenged the focus on “income” as an indicator of poverty, a persistent problem is the lack of gender disagregated indicators to measure the increasing feminization of poverty.[21]

 Finally, some Social Watchers expressed frustration with the focus solely on the measurement and evaluation of social development commitments in lieu of questioning the larger framework of macro social and economic policies, including market efficiency and transparency, or lack there of.

3.      National and Regional Representation

National and regional representation has not been balanced in Social Watch and certain countries are much more represented than others.  This is due in part to Social Watch’s principal to only accept country reports from organizations native to, and active in, the countries for which they report as it seeks to strengthen civil society through the report-writing process; contributions written by professional consultants therefore are not accepted.  A second factor influencing national and regional representation is of a structural nature and is linked to the ineffective role of the coordinating committee in involving groups in their respective regions.  Thirdly, representation is greater for those organizations that attended and have continued to mobilize around the Social Summit conference in 1995.

 4.      Production and Dissemination

 The challenges to producing and disseminating the Social Watch annual report are numerous. 

 For the secretariat, consolidating, editing and translating the annual report has become increasingly arduous due to: rapid increase in size and number of country reports; difficulties country teams have in meeting report deadlines; differences in the quality of contributions and obstacles to ensuring national and regional balance.  Its readability, user-friendliness and possibilities of dissemination have also been affected by the size of the report.  In certain issues, small font size, complexity of indicators, and lack of accompanying explanation hinder the use of this document.  The editorial quality of the English version also needs to be improved as parts of the text are poorly translated from Spanish.

 The costs of producing and disseminating the Annual Report are high and developing effective and economical strategies to disseminating the report and promoting its commercial use have also been challenging.  The process by which the annual report is dispersed to Social Watchers is not clear; many stated that it was poorly distributed in their country as they received insufficient copies.

[1] Marina Ponti from Italy, response to Social Watch evaluation questionnaire.  May 18, 2000.
[2] Social Watch.  Trial Edition.  Monetvideo: Instituto del Tercer Mundo.  1996.  p 3.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Countries surveyed include: Albania, Angola, Brazil, Bulgaria, Columbia, El-Salvador, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela.
[5] The Equity Diamond is not elaborated on in the 1998 report but is explained in the 1999 report.  p 14.
[6] Social Watch NORAD Framework Agreement Report.  1997.  p 9.
[7] Out of a total of thirty-six reports, nine were contributed by IPS for the 1998 report.
[8] It is important to note that none of the contributions for the 1999 or 2000 reports were written by IPS.
[9] Social Watch.  Annual Report.  Montevideo: Third World Institute.  2000.  p 6.
[10] Participants at this meeting include: Paulo Benvenuto, Roberto Bissio, Chris Eijkemans, Patricia Garcé, Néstor Lopez, Mariana Gonzalez, Danial Macadar, Constanza Moreira and Yao N’Goran.  Prior to this workshop a questionnaire was distributed to civil society organizations to obtain relevant information based on country-level experiences.
[11] The information for the sections on indicators and indices is derived from the following reports of the Social Watch secretariat, Workshop on Indicators, Report, Introduction to Indicators Questionnaire, Plans, Programmes and Initiatives Indicator, as well as through discussions with Constanza Moreira and Roberto Bissio.
[12] Pregnancies and childbirths are used instead.
[13] This committee is coordinated by Constanza Moreira and includes Paublo Benvenuto and Mariana González.
[14] At the beginning of the Social Watch initiative, groups receiving the guidelines were unsure how best to use them and several workshops were convened to strengthen their research, writing and advocacy capacities.
[15] Due to time pressures the deadline for the demo version was August 1995.
[16] From 1998 onward, the Brazilian team translated select sections of the international report for their national edition.
[17] The following analysis of the challenges in developing  Social Watch indicators is not technical in nature, as that would require specific statistical expertise outside the scope of this evaluation.  We have focused instead on providing examples of some of the limitations of these indicators.
[18] Social Watch IDRC Proposal: Citizen’s Monitoring of the WSSD and the WCW.  w/o date.
[19] Progress of the World’s Women.  New York: UNIFEM.  2000.  p 62.
[20] Ibid.  p 10.
[21] Interview with Diane Elson, UNIFEM, May 26, 2000.