Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) involve joint decision-making between state and non-state actors on issues such as rule-setting and implementation. While non-state actors have deeper legitimacy in negotiations, true joint decision-making power may be uncertain. MSIs can be categorized based on their purpose, such as dialogue, institution-building, rule-setting, rule implementation, or rule monitoring. They face challenges including uneven representation and power dynamics between stakeholders, as well as differences in language, culture, and preconceptions. Validation of MSIs' effectiveness requires consideration of both monitoring and the quality of the multi-stakeholder process itself.

1. Multi-stakeholder Working: Lessons from the Frontline Richard Calland

2. Conceptual Understanding of MSIs Mode of Governance: ie a decision-making forum about the rules of the game for a particular issue MSIs comprise a process-orientated, joint approach to benchmarking, rule-making and implementation

3. Rules/Lores of the (MSI) Game True joint decision-making power of the participating actors may not be certain…but: Deeper legitimacy for the role of non-state actors at the negotiation table Therefore, MSIs are a step beyond “mere” consultation: NGO stakeholders are active role-players - they are at the table and in the game

4. MSI Typology* Purpose Drivers & Motive Status & Composition Arena of Intervention *This Typology is drawn from the work of Lucy Koechlin of the Basel Institute of Governance – with whom I am collaborating on a book chapter on MSIs.

5. Purpose Dialogue/forum Institution-building Rule-Setting Rule Implementation Rule Monitoring

6. Purpose/ Area of Intervention Dialogue/ Forum Institution-Building Rule-setting Rule-implementation Rule-monitoring Peace-agreements COIEPA (Angola) National Peace Committees (S.A.) Tax-Reform Guatemala Sustainable development International Alert (Azerbaijan) EITI, Global Reporting Initiative EITI Conflict financing EITI, Kimberley Process Kimberley Process Human Rights Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights

7. Consensus-Finding Potential of MSIs Compare: Eye on EITI October 2006 Report : Civil Society (PWYP/Revenue Watch) International Advisory Group of the EITI: Final Report, September 2006

8. … large degree of consensus: Real Implementation by Governments Validation by Companies (including disaggregation) Need to deepen the multi-stakeholder approach Deepen the sub-national system

9. Main Differences/Concerns: Incentives Cheating – ‘bogus’ representation by corporations and especially host governments Particular stakeholders being marginalised Self-selection of CSO participants Some evidence of harassment Co-option…and: Funding/resources Uneven information base

10. It’s all about TRUST…

11. And POWER!

12. … OR GOOD, CONSISTENT PROCESS & CLARITY ABOUT OBJECTIVES AND THE RULES OF THE GAME ?

13. Other Issues/Challenges Differences in language and culture (individual and institutional) Each set of stakeholders has to learn a new lexicon in relation to the other And, to ignore the “parrot on the shoulder” So as to get past previous, often deeply ingrained, prejudices…

14. THE CHALLENGE OF VALIDATION Is this just a question of M & E? Or is there a process element? Or, if transparency is the means to the end, is it also about how to measure the ends as much as the means?