IX. Conclusion

This evaluation has examined the various layers of a multi-faceted initiative of NGOs interested in linking national activities and international advocacy around issues of social development and gender discrimination.  Our study has included documentation and analyses of in-country and international NGO organizing and advocacy activities, the content and use of the Social Watch annual report, and the diverse roles of the secretariat, the coordinating committee and Novib.

 Through a diversity of approaches, NGOs have created fora 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.  In addition to national level activities, several regional initiatives have been launched to share experiences, develop common strategies and establish coalitions of NGOs working in the field of social development. 

 Social Watchers have also made consistent contributions at the international level, through their advocacy work and publications particularly in relation to the Social Summit’s inter-governmental process. 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. 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.   At the same time however advocacy work is inherently political and numerous challenges – highlighted in this report - exist to effective monitoring and lobbying on national, regional and international levels.  While the Annual Report has served an undoubtedly useful function to date, its form and content will need to evolve as Social Watch moves forward.

 The organizational structure consisting of a secretariat and a coordinating committee has changed drastically since Social Watch’s inception.  While the initial primary responsibility of the secretariat was to produce the annual report, activities grew extensively over the years.  These included: 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.  The coordinating committee has not been able to fulfill its mandate due to reasons outlined in this report and structural issues need to be addressed in the near future.

 Another role that has unquestionably been important to the success of Social Watch is that of Novib who supported the production of the first trial annual report, has continued to provide core funds to the secretariat and finances the activities of 33 organizations involved in Social Watch.  One of the challenges Novib has faced in its Social Watch-related work is how to balance its various, and at times over-lapping – advocate, donor, executive and participant - roles. 

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.  While we hope that our list of recommendations will serve to provide guidance for Social Watch’s future activities, it may also be helpful to reexamine a few of the key assumptions on which its work has been based.  These include: i) positive change can occur and NGOs are promoters of such change, ii) advocacy at the international level is key to influencing development debates, and iii) linking local and global activism through international networking helps to strengthen work being done on both levels.

 Positive gains have been made – although to varying degrees - in the areas of policy and legislation in many countries where Social Watchers are present; this is coupled by an increased recognition by government officials and society at large of the role of civil society actors in some cases.  Through the development of innovative concepts, methodologies and processes – such as active citizenship, measuring political will, and promoting alternative measurements – Social Watchers are developing new approaches to social development issues.  While monitoring and advocacy work are not always perceptible, Social Watch has contributed, through the creation of spaces for exchange, co-learning, and coalition-building, to rendering what is often invisible work, visible.  Change however is not linear in nature and in some countries – due to the impact of Structural Adjustment Programs, clamping down of state authorities and rise in conservative economic and cultural trends – spaces available for mobilization of civil society actors is in fact shrinking.  Strengthening NGO organizational, technical and scientific capacity to confront the many challenges is therefore 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 broader participation is a ongoing challenge that Social Watch needs to address.

 International advocacy efforts are confronted with an ever-changing global landscape including the increased influence of multilateral organizations and corporations for whom free-trade takes precedence over social and environmental considerations, the decreased prestige of the UN and the partnerships that are being created between the latter and multinational private companies, in addition to the curtailing of state power in some countries.  To date Social Watch has chosen the Commission on Social Development’s annual meeting as the venue for launching its annual report and this decision will need to be revisited in the future.  In addition, as no plans were made for a Social Summit ten-year review, Social Watch’s international advocacy efforts will need to be oriented elsewhere.  This situation will require that Social Watch reexamine the pros and cons of UN advocacy and determine if and to what extent it can influence key anti-poverty events and debates of the World Bank/International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.

 Networking on various levels – local, regional and international – is critical today to address and challenge changes in the global international system and their links with national level policies and processes.  Networking by definition requires a certain level of coordination – be it a fluid structure like in the case of Social Watch – or a more formal arrangement.  As Social Watchers determine what future structure best suits their needs, revisiting Social Watch’s overall purpose and mission, is essential.  A deep sense of collective ownership, coupled with a recognition that national activities are part of the international context, are important for the sustainability of global networks.  This sense of ownership began for some after the Social Summit five years ago, however the majority of Social Watchers have joined this initiative more recently.  Reviewing the assumptions that lead to the creation of Social Watch and addressing issues of broader and versatile participation and ownership will be determining factors as Social Watch moves forward in new and distinct directions.