Civil Society in MultilevelGovernance and Global Policy          Structures   Carlos Bruen&RuairíBrughaRoyal College of Su...
NGOs & Global Health Initiatives• GHIs as global coordinating and multi-level governance mechanisms   – Policies formulate...
The Global FundMultiple points of entry toinfluence policies, prioritiesand governanceDecisions taken byrepresentatives of...
NGOs & the Global Fund: Some Gains• Increased influence across different sections of the  Global Fund structure• Increased...
NGOs & Global Fund: Some Challenges• Undemocratic and anti-participatory processes between global and  country levels• Div...
Multilevel Governance Structures: Accountability              Factors for consideration• Internal accountability mechanism...
Global Policy Networks: Accountability Factors for                   consideration• Networks prone to:   •   Cognitive hom...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

People's Health Assembly 2012: Global Health Initiatives, Civil Society and the Evolution of Accountability, Part 2

385 views
318 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
385
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
109
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

People's Health Assembly 2012: Global Health Initiatives, Civil Society and the Evolution of Accountability, Part 2

  1. 1. Civil Society in MultilevelGovernance and Global Policy Structures Carlos Bruen&RuairíBrughaRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland carlosbruen@rcsi.ie
  2. 2. NGOs & Global Health Initiatives• GHIs as global coordinating and multi-level governance mechanisms – Policies formulated and implemented by networks and partnerships involving • Public actors from different decisional levels • Non-public actors of a diverse nature• NGO engagement in GHI Formation – Global Fund • Advocacy, consultancy with networks and involvement of NGO ‘leaders’ in the Global Fund Transitional Working Group – GAVI Alliance • Limited to small network of NGOs, led by PATH (Program for Appropriate Technology in Health) – PEPFAR • Lobbying and limited consultations with NGO ‘leaders’
  3. 3. The Global FundMultiple points of entry toinfluence policies, prioritiesand governanceDecisions taken byrepresentatives of differentconstituencies in processesinvolving many of them• Characterised by deliberation, bargaining, and compromise-seeking• Responsibility disbursed among a large number of actors
  4. 4. NGOs & the Global Fund: Some Gains• Increased influence across different sections of the Global Fund structure• Increased influence over policy• Legitimacy enhanced with other constituencies• Increasing cooperation at global level creating conditions for: – Coordination of resources across GHIs – Cooperation and reduction of ‘warring factions’, e.g. International Civil Society Support (ICSS)
  5. 5. NGOs & Global Fund: Some Challenges• Undemocratic and anti-participatory processes between global and country levels• Divisions and rivalries between NGOs and among broader civil society groups• NGOs and broader civil society concerned about donor co-option• NGOs are increasingly part of the power structures, yet poor accountability mechanisms in place – To whom, for what, and how? • “What is important is to be aware that they are not observers standing on the sidelines with a watchdog function, figuring out what’s right to do. They also are similarly interested in finance from the Global Fund. That is often overlooked I think, and the Civil Society role as advocates and watchdog and drivers of fairness needs…to be looked at very carefully – C28, Senior Donor/GHI Representative
  6. 6. Multilevel Governance Structures: Accountability Factors for consideration• Internal accountability mechanisms perform specific control functions – Grant oversight, reporting and audits, incl. investigations by the Office of the Inspector General or similar ‘policing’ mechanisms over finance and results – NGOs areformally accountable to limited constituencies: to members/rank- and-file, to donors, to authorities in countries of registration. – Informal Mutual or Peer accountability mechanisms (e.g. delegation systems) • Informal monitoring of performance within a network of groups, e.g. reporting on activities – Rely on ‘naming and shaming’, withholding resources, restricting access to sanction – Lack of transparency in peer accountability mechanisms – Responsibility diluted among a large number of actors allows for blame-shift games and sanctioning problems• External accountability mechanisms, e.g. Voluntary Codes of Practice, are “light” or “soft” – Not institutionalised and weakly codified, dependent on moral commitments and social pressure
  7. 7. Global Policy Networks: Accountability Factors for consideration• Networks prone to: • Cognitive homogeneity or ‘group think’ – Exclusion of actors whose preferences and priorities do not coincide with the mainstream ideas of the network at particular times • Elitism and takeover by more powerful members – network ‘leveraging’ • Difficult to enforce public institution oversight (positive and negative) • But also offer opportunities for mobilisation and support• Lengthy chain of delegation makes policy processes visible only to those who are familiar with them and with resources to engage • Tends to limit participation of those further away from the final point of decision-making unless concerted steps are taken to promote active participation, e.g. GF Community Systems Strengthening framework• An accountability dilemma – diverse membership must satisfy multiple stakeholders with different preferences internally and externally to the network

×