2007
Social Watch: Monitoring from the grassroots
Daniel Ciganda and Cecilia Alemany
Social Watch Secretariat
To promote the political will needed for United Nations promises to become a reality, Social Watch was created in 1995 by a group of civil society organizations, with the aim of reminding governments of their commitments and independently tracking their implementation, country by country and at the international level. Since then, Social Watch has published a yearly report on progress and setbacks in the struggle against poverty and for gender equality, and today the network has members in over 70 countries on every continent.
Origins
During the last decade of the 20th century, after the end of the Cold War, a
series of high-level United Nations conferences, starting with the
‘Children’s Summit’ in 1990 and ending with the Millennium Summit in 2000,
redefined the global social agenda, in parallel with the reformulation of the
global economy through the process of reforms usually known as globalization. In
1995, the Social Summit (Copenhagen) and Women’s Conference (Beijing) defined
the eradication of poverty and gender equality as common universal objectives
for the first time, setting concrete targets and timelines to achieve the goal
vaguely formulated in 1946 in the UN Charter as “dignity for all”, the third
common aspiration of humanity – peace and human rights being the other two. To
promote the political will needed for those promises to become a reality, Social
Watch was created in 1995 by a group of civil society organizations, with the
aim of reminding governments of their commitments and independently tracking
their implementation, country by country and at the international level.
Since then, Social Watch has published a yearly report on progress and setbacks
in the struggle against poverty and for gender equality, two largely overlapping
objectives, since the absolute majority of the persons living in poverty are
women. The Social Watch network now has members (‘watchers’) in over 70
countries on every continent. These national Social Watch coalitions regularly
remind governments of their commitments and contribute alternative proposals
based on an informed analysis of the situation and in close consultation with
the grassroots.
The creation of Social Watch was an attempt to rectify the lack of
accountability mechanisms to ensure compliance with international commitments
around social policies or development goals and reflected a period in which
civil society organizations were beginning to systematically use the new
information technologies to broaden the reach of their advocacy work (Van
Reisen, 2001, p. 44).
At that time, international monitoring by independent organizations already
existed in several areas, and successful experiences, like that of Amnesty
International in the field of human rights, were a source of inspiration for the
watchers. The Social Watch yearly reports became the first sustained monitoring
initiative on social development and gender equity at a national level, and the
first to combine both in one international overview (Batliwala, 2007).
From its beginnings, Social Watch was conceived not as a new institution but as
a “meeting place for non-governmental organizations concerned about social
development and gender discrimination” (Social Watch No. 0, 1996). Based on
the idea that progress towards agreed goals can be measured, a tool was designed
for the presentation of internationally available statistical information, while
at the same time reporting on qualitative aspects of the issues addressed
through analyses undertaken by social organizations working at a national level.
The Social Watch annual report should become a working system aimed at
empowering civil societies and local communities… This will be done by adding
an international dimension to the efforts and campaigns they are already
engaging in domestically, and by providing opportunities to share their
experiences and methodologies with similar groups at an international level.
(Social Watch No. 0, 1996)
From its creation in 1996 up to the present day that “meeting place” has
grown and several aspects of it have evolved, but its founding ideas and
objectives have remained.
A flexible network
In preparing for their participation in the Copenhagen Social Summit, civil
society organizations adopted flexible and ad hoc organizational forms. Contrary
to the experience in other international processes, no formal governing
structure or steering committee was created and no stable coordinating group was
established. Instead, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) preferred to inform
each other and coordinate activities in horizontal open spaces, an approach that
some analysts regard as a forerunner of the organizational format later adopted
by the World Social Forum.
Many of the NGOs that took part in the Social Summit later formed the backbone
of Social Watch. As a result, the structure and functioning of the network they
created maintains much of the flexibility and openness of the process that it
originated from.
In addition to national coalitions, the network is structured around three
bodies: the General Assembly, the Coordinating Committee and the International
Secretariat. In recent years, some regional and sub-regional coordination
structures have been established, but those are seen as a space for articulation
and not a necessary intermediate body to link the national with the global.
|
|
|
Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, presented with a copy of the Social Watch India
report on 4 July 2007, commented that “institutions such as Social Watch are
important to monitor governance and provide constructive feedback to the
government.”
|
|
Memorandum of Understanding between national groups and the Social Watch
network
1. Coalitions must be based in the country and be active in social
development issues in that country (not exclusively as academics or
consultants).
2. Their basic commitment to the international network is to provide a
national report, with their own conclusions and determination of
priorities, to be included in the annual publication.
3. They are expected to use their national report and the global report in
lobbying activities at a national level.
4. They must be open to the incorporation of other organizations, work
actively to broaden awareness of Social Watch and encourage the
participation of other organizations.
5. They are responsible for raising funds for their activities. National
coalitions are not dependent for funds on, or financially accountable to,
the Secretariat or any other international Social Watch entity.
6. Each coalition determines its own organizational structure.
7. Social Watch membership and the exercise of governmental functions are
absolutely incompatible.
8. Cooperation with other national platforms should be encouraged at
sub-regional, regional and global levels.
The Memorandum of Understanding was adopted
during the 1st General Assembly, Rome, 2000. Available from: <www.socialwatch.org/en/acercaDe/asambleaRoma.htm>.
|
The Social Watch network is not an incorporated entity and it did not start by
drafting its governing bylaws. Instead, a short Memorandum of Understanding
between national groups and the Social Watch network became the basic framework
establishing mutual expectations, with respect for the autonomy of the national
coalitions and democratic horizontal decision-making. A key principle that
distinguishes Social Watch from other international civil society networks is
that no central body provides funds for its members. These operational
principles help avoid the tensions associated with donor/recipient relationships
within the network – since there aren’t any – and also the loss of energy
that could result from lengthy discussions about money, budgeting and reporting,
as well as procedural matters. It has also resulted in a strong sense of
ownership over the network by the members, which has been emphasized by the two
external evaluations carried out up to now.
National coalitions organize the way they want – or can – according to the
conditions in each country. The membership of Social Watch coalitions is very
diverse, including research institutes or centres, NGOs, grassroots
organizations, trade unions, women’s groups, rural organizations and others.
In Brazil, for example, Social Watch functions through a reference group of
several social organizations united around various national issues. In Tanzania,
the national platform operates through focal points centred on community group
leaders and aims to foster grassroots involvement. The case of Thailand is very
different, with a central group of five or six organizations working in close
collaboration, while in India the network has grown so much that they produce
their own detailed national report, brought to the Prime Minister in a publicly
broadcast ceremony, plus state-level reports in several units of the federation.
Since the international Social Watch report can only devote a couple of pages to
each country, and is only available in English and Spanish, more extensive
national reports are published by the local coalitions in national languages in
Benin, Brazil, Germany, India, Italy and the Philippines. A report for the Arab
region is published in Lebanon by the Arab NGO Network for Development.
General Assembly
The General Assembly is the Social Watch network’s highest directive body.
Policy discussion and medium- to long-term strategic planning happens in this
space that serves as a decision-making forum. However, it is also a space for
recreating the sense of belonging and strengthening the network’s identity and
unity. It takes place every three years and up to now has been held three times:
in Rome in 2000, Beirut in 2003 and Sofia in 2006.
Long-term members of the network who have taken part in all of the assemblies
identify these three events as respectively forming, consolidating and maturing
the network. In addition to setting medium- and long-term priorities and
identifying potential alliances in advocacy strategy, the Assembly elects
members of the Coordinating Committee to whom coordination and political
leadership between assemblies are delegated.
Coordinating Committee
The Coordinating Committee is the key political body for the ‘daily’ work of
the network, the Secretariat being its main executive body. This organizational
structure requires fluid communications, facilitated principally through an
email list, plus biannual meetings in person and regular telephone conferences
generally arranged to discuss specific issues.
As the Coordinating Committee’s task is to “ensure the political visibility
and participation of the network in relevant spaces and processes,”
its composition endeavours to represent a geographical and gender balance as
well as considering the contribution that members can make to the whole network
in terms of experience and capabilities. The Coordinating Committee’s
decisions have always been adopted by consensus so far. All decisions (and
discussions) are reported to watchers via the distribution of the minutes for
each actual or virtual meeting of the Committee. The permanent participation of
two Secretariat members as ad hoc members of the Coordinating Committee ensures
coordination between the two bodies, the function of the Secretariat being to
support and implement the strategic determinations and decisions made.
|
|
|
Prof.
Leonor Briones, member of the Social Watch Coordinating Committee, addressed the
heads of state and government on behalf of civil society at the UN World Summit
on 14 September 2005.
|
International Secretariat
The first external evaluation of Social Watch (1995-2000) noted that, “Of
the various roles in the Social Watch network, that of the secretariat has
changed the most” (Hessini and Nayar, 2000). Originally the Secretariat’s
function was limited to responsibility for the production of the Report, but due
to the network’s growth it has subsequently incorporated a series of new
functions, including research, capacity building, promotion of the network and
its representation in international forums.
From the local to the global
The Social Watch annual report has grown from including contributions from
13 organizations in 1996 to an average of 50 national reports in recent years.
There are currently watchers in more than 70 countries and membership continues
to grow every year.
The first stage in the production of the Report is the choice of its central
theme. While constantly monitoring anti-poverty and gender policies, every year
the Report analyzes a different subject in depth, usually one that is related to
issues under discussion on the international agenda. Experts from different
origins and disciplines contribute complementary and alternative views on the
issues through thematic articles. This international perspective is complemented
with the preparation of national and regional reports through which network
member organizations contribute a local perspective, reporting on the state of
affairs in their countries in relation to each year’s specific theme.
Consequently, the choice of theme depends on the possibility of addressing it
from a local perspective.
The idea of linking global and national levels also figures strongly in the
production of indexes and tables where comparable international information is
provided that presents a macro-perspective of the situation in certain
dimensions of development while also providing national level readings. Social
Watch has developed alternative indicators to measure progress or setbacks in
gender equity and the meeting of basic human capacities.
Although members use the report for advocacy work in diverse situations, report
launches are key opportunities for dissemination and they take place not only in
relevant spaces of international debate but also in each country, where much of
the attention is focused on that country’s results. Launches are an
opportunity for the local coalitions to address the media on national issues and
to discuss their findings and alternative proposals with policy-makers.
In addition Occasional Papers are published, mainly to help build the capacity
of member coalitions,
regional training workshops have been organized, and position papers have been
produced. On several occasions, Social Watch spokespersons have addressed the UN
General Assembly and other intergovernmental bodies on behalf of the network or
wider civil society constituencies.
References
Alemany, C. (2006). About Social
Watch. Available from:
<www.socialwatch.org/en/noticias/documentos/cambiarAbout_Social_Watch.doc>.
Batliwala, S. (2007). The Social Watch
Case. To be published.
Friedlander, E. and Adams, B. (2006). Social
Watch external evaluation 2001-2005. Available from:
<www.socialwatch.org/en/noticias/documentos/SW_Evaluation_report.doc>.
Hessini, L. and Nayar, A. (2000). A
Movement Toward Social Justice. An Evaluation Report. Strategic Analysis for Gender
Equity (SAGE). New York. Available from:
<www.socialwatch.org/en/acercaDe/evaluacion.htm>.
Social Watch No. 0 (1996). The starting
point. Instituto
del Tercer Mundo. Montevideo. Available from:
<www.socialwatch.org/en/informeImpreso/informe1996.htm>.
Social Watch (2006). Strategy and Framework of Activities 2007-2009.
Available from:
<www.socialwatch.org/en/noticias/documentos/cambiarSW_Strategy_Framework_2007-2009.doc>.
Van
Reisen, M. (2001). The
lion’s teeth. The prehistory of Social Watch. Instituto del Tercer Mundo.
Montevideo. Available from:
<www.socialwatch.org/en/informeImpreso/images/otrasPublicaciones/ZOOM-01-eng.pdf>.
Notes:
World Summit for Children (WSC), New York, 1990; United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, 1992; World
Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 1993; International Conference on Population
and Development (ICPD), Cairo, 1994; World Summit for Social Development,
Copenhagen, 1995; Fourth World Conference on Women (FWCW), Beijing, 1995;
Millennium Summit, New York, 2000.
Roberto Bissio (commentary on the case study The Social Watch
Case, by S. Blatiwala, 2007, soon to be published).
Final reports, working papers and other materials from these three
Assemblies are available from: <www.socialwatch.org>
The document describing the nature and mandate of the Coordinating
Committee was agreed at the 2nd General Assembly, Beirut 2003. Available from: <www.socialwatch.org/en/acercaDe/beirut/documentos/SW_PrinciplesCC.doc>
The first Occasional Paper by Mirjam Van Reisen, The Lion’s
Teeth, examines the political context in which Social Watch was created. The
second, by Ana María Arteaga, Control Ciudadano desde la base, analyzes the
democratization of international human rights instruments experience in Chile in
1997. The third of these publications, a compilation by Patricia Garcé and
Roberto Bissio, introduces the experience of monitoring Copenhagen goals through
the concrete example of Social Watch. Papers 4 and 5, coordinated by the Social
Watch Social Sciences Research Team, address poverty and inequality in Latin
America and the links between poverty and human rights. Two new Occasional
Papers will be published in 2007. One will present experiences and
systematizations in advocacy issues and the other will address monitoring and
the use of social indicators. Both publications are based on the results of
capacity-building and practice exchange workshops organized during 2007 with the
support of Oxfam Novib/KIC in countries of Francophone Africa and Asia.
Occasional Papers are available from:
<www.socialwatch.org/en/informeImpreso/cuadernosOcasionales.htm>
|
