VI. Secretariat and Coordinating Committee Roles

 In order to contextualize the work of the secretariat and the coordinating committee since the inception of the Social Watch initiative, the following section provides a chronological overview of Social Watch’s development,[22] its staff and budget, advocacy materials, website and database as well as relations with Social Watchers (see Table 4 for a timeline of the Social Watch coordinating committee meetings).  This is followed by an overview of challenges faced by both the secretariat and the coordinating committee.

A.     Chronological Overview

1.       Planting the Seeds: 1995-1996

The seeds for the Social Watch initiative were planted during the Social Summit by participants in the Development Caucus.  A subsequent meeting was hosted by NOVIB in November 1995 to develop next steps to monitoring Social Summit agreements; it was attended by Novib’s “reference group,”[23] a diverse group of organizations engaged in monitoring and advocacy around the Women’s Conference and Social Summit agreements. 

One of the first decisions taken was to prepare a demo Social Watch report to be launched early the following year.  To ensure implementation of the decisions taken at this meeting a task force[24] was created and responsibilities were distributed.  It was decided that Novib would host the secretariat from 1995 – 1996 and that the Instituto del Tercer Mundo (IteM) located in Montevideo, Uruguay, would bear responsibility of producing the first trial edition (number zero) of the Social Watch report The Starting Point in English and Spanish.

After the launch of this report at the Commission on Social Development (CSD), a meeting was convened in May 1996 to: i) review and evaluate the first stage of Social Watch; ii) discuss the content of the next issue of the Social Watch report as well as procedural issues; and iii) decide on Social Watch’s organizational structure.[25]  The potential of Social Watch - defined as a “moving process”[26] - was underscored as well as the importance of maintaining a fluid and flexible structure.  In lieu of becoming “members” of Social Watch, it was to be “owned” by participant groups, who would shape it to meet their national and local needs.[27] Organizations could be involved in a variety of ways including contributing to the annual reports, using Social Watch materials on national and local levels, collaborating with regional partners and linking up with the Social Watch secretariat.  It was generally believed that at this stage the potential of Social Watch far exceeded its current impact, due to: inadequate distribution of the annual report, weak NGO lobbying capacity on a national level and the lack of focus on Women’s Conference follow-up. 

 Through discussions during the 1996 coordinating committee meeting, it was agreed that Social Watch consisted of three different levels of responsibility: a reference group, a coordinating committee and the editorial team and secretariat.  The main tasks of the reference group were to ensure transparency and participate in policy formulation.  The responsibilities of the coordinating committee were to: promote Social Watch in different geographic regions around the world, develop guidelines and provide input into the Social Watch reports, identify opportunities for international lobbying and help resolve practical issues.  [28]  This committee was to meet every year during the Commission on Social Development, and after one year members would rotate.

 The editorial team and the secretariat were to serve as a clearinghouse for information related to both the Social Summit and the Women’s Conference, and coordinate, publish, edit and oversee the translation[30] of the Social Watch Annual Report.  In addition the secretariat was to assist the coordinating committee to fulfill its general obligations and produce a brochure on the Social Watch initiative including its focus and political principles.

Table 4: Social Watch Coordinating Committee Meetings

 2.      Consolidating the Structure: 1996-1997

The Social Watch secretariat was transferred to the Instituto del Tercer Mundo (IteM) in Montevideo in May 1996.  The objectives for the remainder of that year and for 1997 were: [31]

>Publishing and disseminating the first 1997 Social Watch report in English and Spanish in addition to developing an on-line version;

>Presenting this report during the Commission on Sustainable Development and Commission on the Status of Women meetings in New York;

>Initiating a methodological framework to finalize the Fulfilled Commitments Index (FCI) and developing tables and graphs measuring this index;

>Developing guidelines, networking and out-reach activities in preparation for the 1998 report and subsequently consolidating, editing and translating this number;

>Launching a campaign to diversity Social Watch funding; and

>Expanding on the Social Watch mailing list.

 A select group of coordinating committee members[32] met in New York on March 7, 1997 to discuss several key issues.  These included: i) organizational concerns, ii) the role of Novib and involvement of NGOs in Social Watch, iii) funding challenges, iv) development of guidelines and v) content of the 1998 annual report.

 The first concern was of an organizational nature and involved the distribution of tasks and responsibilities as well as structural questions.  More systematic collaboration between the secretariat and the coordination committee were needed as the former found itself taking on tasks of the latter; strengthening the role of the coordinating committee through fundraising was proposed.  A related discussion revolved around the pros and cons of maintaining the reference group.  While recognizing their important role in initiating Social Watch, it was decided that increased responsibility should be given to national coordinators concerning Social Watch’s future direction.  Promoting regional meetings was discussed and the idea of enlarging the coordinating committee was entertained; however no concrete decisions were taken in the case of the latter. 

 A second main area of debate revolved around the membership and composition of Social Watch.  Civil society organizations were becoming informed and subsequently involved in Social Watch in one of three ways: contacting the secretariat, the coordinating committee or Novib program officers.  This lead to ambiguity on behalf of civil society organizations and their understanding of the different roles of these three entities. 

 Thirdly, the importance of diversifying funds and the challenges experienced by the secretariat in doing so were discussed.  The specific operating needs of the secretariat and the coordinating committee as well as the finances involved in developing the Fulfilled Commitments Index (FCI) were highlighted; the related pros and cons of establishing a donor consortium were debated. 

 The fourth area of discussion was around the challenges inherent in developing and using national report guidelines.  Finally, the content and form of the 1998 Annual Report were discussed.  During this time the secretariat continued to spark interest in the Social Watch initiative through a variety of ways.  The mailing list was established and expanded, a tri-lingual brochure - in English, French and Spanish - on the Social Summit commitments was published[33] and disseminated and a web-site was initiated.

3.      Broadening the Circle: 1998

 The secretariat spent much of 1998 building on the activities it had initiated the previous year.  It continued to:

>Develop the annual report and ensure its access on the Social Watch website;

>Lobby government delegations during the CSD meetings;

>Participate in national and regional Social Watch meetings;

>Foster advocacy activities and capacity-building on a national level; and

>Diversify funding sources. 

 The process of producing and disseminating the annual report was becoming increasing complex and time-consuming as more groups became interested in Social Watch activities.  While the secretariat had received small grants from other donors such as NORAD, UNICEF and OIKOS, Novib was still by far its primary donor and securing additional funds was essential.  Grant proposals were sent to a variety of donors, a few of which were approved (see Appendix 6 for an overview of Social Watch donors). 

 On February 13 and 14 of that year the coordinating committee held their annual meeting in  New York, [34] and regional coordinators provided feedback on their experiences.  In addition, several key issues were discussed including: i) strengthening the lobbying capacity of national coalitions, ii) refining indicators, and iii) reinforcing research teams.  

4.      Beginning the Count-Down: 1999

 The year of 1999 witnessed an increase in the number of focal points and national platforms established for Social Watch activities as Social Watchers were now present in fifty countries.  There was also an increase in the number of meetings held by Social Watchers on a national and regional basis; uses of Social Watch documents; and indicators adopted in the annual report.  After the production and launching of the 1999 version, the secretariat shifted gears focusing primarily on the following areas:

>Finalizing the Social Watch web site;[35]

>Disseminating information on the Geneva 2000 review process through two mailing lists – one in English and the other in Spanish – which could be accessed free of charge through the Social Watch homepage;

>Publishing the Social Watch manual “Exercising Social Watch: Monitoring the Copenhagen Summit and the Beijing Conference,” in October 1999 and ensuring its access on the Social Watch website;

>Elaborating and translating into English and French the year 2000 edition guidelines which were distributed in September 1999; and

>Diversifying funding sources

 5.      Organizing at the Millennium Review: 2000

 The main activities of the secretariat during the first half of this year included:

>Consolidating, editing, publishing and translating the annual report;

> Launching the annual report and a manual of indicators “Easier said than done” during the second PrepCom meeting in April 2000;

> Organizing activities at the PrepCom as well as during the Social Summit + 5 meetings;

>Fundraising to cover travel to these international meetings; and

> Coordinating funding efforts with national groups.

 The 2000 report and the manual of indicators were launched during the second preparatory meeting in New York from April 3-14.  The Social Watch secretariat had received funds to support the participation of 25 social watchers.  In addition many others attended through their own funds bringing the total to 40.

 On April 8^th a joint meeting of the coordinating committee and other Social Watchers was held in the Church Center to review the first week of the preparatory meeting and plan for the second week, discuss the Social Watch evaluation and establish priorities and strategies for the subsequent UNGASS meeting in Geneva.

B.     NGOs’ Relationship to the Secretariat

Social Watchers generally believe that their relationship with the secretariat has been extremely beneficial.  The secretariat has served as a clearinghouse of information related to the Social Summit and the Women’s Conference, provided knowledge and guidance around monitoring and advocacy strategies and has played a leadership role at international events.  In the words of Social Watchers:

 “The secretariat has been an excellent provider of timely and continuous information, motivating NGO involvement in writing the national annual reports and enhancing NGO advocacy efforts at the international level.”– Alberto Yepes, Corporación Región, Colombia

 “The work of the secretariat has been remarkable.  Open, good-spirited and prompt.  Productive too.  Probably quite overworked.” – John Foster, Canadian Consortium for International Social Development, Canada

 “The role of the Social Watch secretariat has been excellent in providing all the information to be able to join the network and to contribute to the Report.  The structure is very loose and this is positive because it enabled national groups to define their role and their priorities.  The secretariat created the basis for groups to join and to grow without interference with national strategies and priorities.” –Marina Ponti, Mani Tese, Italy 

At the same time, however, maintaining national and regional balance however has been a challenge.

 “The Secretariat have been very useful as a coordinating point…While very active, the Secretariat has not provided enough support for Southern African activity.” – Dave Husy, National Land Committee

 “The Social Watch secretariat have always been very helpful, but (apart from downloading and/or communicating information about Copenhagen plus 5) the only contact with UKCAP has been in connection with writing the reports and/or attendance at the PrepCom in New York and at UNGASS in Geneva.” – Fran Bennett, UK Coalition Against Poverty

 Social Watchers have also benefited from the advocacy materials developed by Social Watch as well as the website and database.  These will be discussed in the following section.

C.     Advocacy Tools

 In addition to the annual report (elaborated in Section V of this report), the secretariat has produced a number of inter-related advocacy tools designed to support the various initiatives launched by Social Watchers nationally (see Table 5 for a list of advocacy tools).

The Social Watch website - containing country, regional and thematic reports, charts and a database of indicators - was finalized in 1999 in English and Spanish; Portuguese was subsequently added in 1998, by providing a link to IBASE’s website.  The Social Watch website has served to give visibility to the Social Watch initiative while providing a wealth of information across countries and regions.  This site is unique as it includes:

>A database of social development indicators of UN member states;

>A procedure that allows the Social Watch social science team to upload and update the database on a regular basis; and

>A system whereby individuals can query the database, request various combinations of information – across indicators, years and countries - and obtain customized tables and graphs of data.

 To better respond to the needs of those accessing the website and database, the Social Watch secretariat has put into place a monitoring system which provides a statistical update by month, hits, files, page reviews and sessions (see Appendices 6 and 7 for overview of use and hits by country).

Table 5: Social Watch Advocacy Tools

 D.    Staff and Budget

 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.  As Social Watch has gained increased visibility, members of the secretariat have been invited to attend and participate in various national, regional and international meetings, adding to an already hectic workload.

 Maintaining a balance between producing the annual report, responding to the needs of Social Watchers, networking, organizing advocacy efforts and fund raising has been difficult.  It is notable that until recently the secretariat had only two full time staff members – a coordinator (Roberto Bissio) and an assistant (initially Patricia Garcé, later Soledad Bervejillo).  Given recent changes in staff responsibilities, there are now three full time staff – a coordinator (Roberto Bissio), networker (Patricia Garcé) and Annual Report editor (Soledad Bervejillo).  Patricia Garcé is responsible for networking and the overall daily management of the secretariat.  Soledad Bervejillo, who joined the Secretariat as project assistant, is now the full time Annual Report editor, this position was previously held by Lucy Garrido on a two-thirds time basis.

 Several part time staff include Graciela Dede (information officer), Pacris Kelbauskas (working on the Website), Fernanda Cortinas  (editorial support and information dissemination) and Daniel Macadar (statistical assistant in charge of the Social  Development Indicators database).  Individuals are also contracted on a part time basis for research, editorial and statistical support, including sociologists Dr.  Constanza Moreira and Mariana Gonzalez Guyer as well as economist Pablo Bemvenuto (all researchers at the Uruguayan University).  Since its inception, the time spent by the research team has doubled from four people for two months (total of eight months) in 1996-97 to two people for nine months (total of 18 months) in 1999-2000.  Editorial support has expanded from four people for two months  (total of eight months) in 1996-97 to three persons working over a four month period (total of 12 months).

 Since June 1996, when the Social Watch secretariat was officially housed in the Instituto del Tercer Mundo, budgets for staff salaries have roughly doubled from $120,000 to $230,000 projected for the current fiscal year (see Appendix 8 for an overview of the Secretariat’s budget).  Given the increase in the size of the Annual Report, related production and dissemination costs have risen from approximately $118,000 for the 1997 report to $172,000 for the 2000 report.  Recent additions to the budget include approximately $100,000 for regional coordination and $65,000 projected for an international meeting of Social Watchers this Fall.  Both of these items are expected to enhance the overall capacity of Social Watch and deepen the engagement at the national and regional levels.  However, only half of the overall proposed budget of Social Watch has been raised to date and donor support is urgently needed to ensure that these necessary activities take place.  The lack of adequate funding will also affect overall priorities such as further developing and testing the indicators methodology, updating the indicators database, translating the Annual Report and developing an effective media strategy to disseminate information to a broader public.  

 It is notable, however, that a number of activities have taken place with little to no funding such as the workshop on indicators, held in August 1997, to further discuss Social Watch indicators including the Fulfilled Commitments Index.

 E.     Challenges to the Secretariat

1.       Structure

 The secretariat has faced many challenges due to the sheer scope and amount of work involved in the Social Watch initiative.  At the same time, Social Watch has maintained 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, does not always correspond to the needs of Social Watchers and has led to ambiguities concerning division of roles and responsibilities.  With the growing participation of NGOs in Social Watch, issues of accountability, representation, regional and linguistic diversity, and funding needs should be examined.  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.  Certain NGOs have voiced the need for a strong Social Watch mission statement, the elaboration of principles of partnership and the creation of transparent processes (particularly around producing and using the report).  A key concern is how to create a division of labor within a complex network rather than creating a larger, elaborate Secretariat.

 2.      Funding

 Social Watch has faced a number of financial challenges over the years including: difficulties diversifying funds and raising support for certain activities, devaluation of the Euro, lengthy donor reporting requirements, lack of funds for the coordinating committee and to properly promote and launch the Annual Report. 

 Given the strong political and financial identification of the Social Watch initiative with one donor, Novib, attracting other financial support was difficult.  Although Novib informed other donors and international development agencies of the initiative early in the process, most of them were reluctant to fund what was perceived of as a ‘Novib project.’

 The secretariat has made an effort to diversify its donor base but has experienced difficulty raising funds and meeting the tedious reporting requirements of each donor.  It has been relatively easier for Social Watchers to secure funds for the production and dissemination of the Annual Report, participation in UN meetings or for local and occasional regional activities (these funds are not disbursed by the secretariat), while further research, particularly to refine the methodological tools including indicators and indices, and “core” funds for the Secretariat have been more difficult to obtain.  In addition, the secretariat did not receive funds to support two key activities - regional coordination and an international Social Watch meeting - until several years after the first grant.  Given this constraint, watchers met as a group only during or immediately after UN meetings, usually for one or two weekend days.

 To summarize, challenges include:

>Maintaining an independent yet mutually-supportive relationship with NOVIB;

>Diversifying its funding base;

> Sustaining  a balance between visibility at the international level and links with local groups and constituencies;

>Responding to the diverse needs of Social Watchers;

>Clarifying the structural make-up of Social Watch including the roles and responsibilities of the secretariat, the coordinating committee and Social Watchers; and

>Ensuring a transparent process in general and more particularly in the production, dissemination and use of the Annual Report.

 F.     Challenges to the Coordinating Committee

 The coordinating committee has not been able to fulfill its initial mandate of promoter, supporter and organizer of regional activities for a variety of reasons.  While the coordinating committee was to rotate on a yearly basis, the initial five members continued to serve for the duration of the period under investigation.  However, members of the coordinating committee were not always those most involved in Social Watch activities and funds were not available to support their work.

 The challenges faced by the coordinating committee include:

>Ensuring the inclusion of active, representative members across different regions;

>Rotating membership on a regular basis;

> Securing funds for the promotion, support and organization of regional activities; and

>Including time for strategic thinking and planning activities.

[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.
[22] The terms of reference for this evaluation did not include a comprehensive historic overview of the post-1995 period.  Instead we have consolidated and placed in chronological order the elements of this period that could serve to guide Social Watch in their future direction.  For a detailed historical and political analysis of the period leading up to the launching of Social Watch see: The Lion’s Teeth.  A Prehistory of ‘Social Watch’ Mirjam van Reisen.  March 2000. 
[23] Members of the reference group included:  Toufik Ben Abdallah (Senegal), Roberto Bissio (Uruguay), Leonor Briones (Philippines), Anabel Cruz (Uruguay), Yao Graham (Ghana), Jagadananda (India), Davic Kigozi (Kenya), Jassy Kwesiga (Uganda), Jalal Latif (Ethiopia), Bisi Olatura (Nigeria), Atila Roque (Brasil), Sita Ari Punami (Indonesia), Gani Serrano (Philippines), Vic Sutton (IPS, Italy), Leila Zakharia (Lebanon).
[24] The members of this task force include: Roberto Bission, IteM (Uruguay), Leonor Briones, FDC (Philippines), Yao Graham, TWN (Ghana),  Gina Vargas, Latin America and Carribean Women’s Network  (Peru) and Caroline 
[25] Participants in this meeting include members of the reference group:  Toufik Ben Abdallah (Senegal), Anabel Cruz (Uruguay), Jagadananda (India), Davic Kigozi (Kenya), Jassy Kwesiga (Uganda), Jalal Latif (Ethiopia), Bisi Olatura (Nigeria), Sita Ari Punami (Indonesia), Gani Serrano (Philippines), Atila Roque (Brasil), Vic Sutton (IPS, Italy), Leila Zakharia (Lebanon); those from the coordinating committee: Roberto Bissio (Uruguay), Leonor Briones (Philippines), Yao Graham (Ghana) and Caroline Wildeman (the Netherlands), in addition to Allert van den Ham and Peter van Tuijl. 
[26] Minutes.  Church Center Meeting.  May 25, 1996.
[27] Social Watch Report.  Trial Edition.  1996.  p 12.
[28] Ibid.  1996.
[29] In addition to the current members of the coordinating committee, a North-American representative, John Foster from Oxfam Canada was invited to participate.
[30] From Spanish into English and visa versa.
[31] See Social Watch.  NORAD Framework Agreement Report.  1997.  p 5.
[32] Present at this meeting were: Roberto Bissio, Patricia Garcé, Lizzie Howarth (on behalf of Gina Vargas), Peter van Tuijl and Caroline Wildeman.
[33] “So that the commitments come true.”  Instituto del Tercer Mundo.  w/o date.
[34] Present at this meeting were: Toufik Ben Abdallah, Roberto Bissio, Leonor Briones, Patricia Garcé, Yao Graham, David Husy, Marina Ponti, Atila Roque, Peggy Teagle, Caroline Wildeman and guests Justin Forsite, OXFAM International and Anita Nayar, WEDO.
[35] For more information on Social Watch’s web site see the following section.
[36] These tapes were translated into Arabic and Swahili by Social Watchers in Lebanon and Tanzania.