Summary: Information / Discussion

Accountability

The chair, Ms. Bruna Faidutti of the World Federation of United Nations Associations, introduced the session with the observation that the accountability of civil society organizations (CSOs) is increasingly being demanded by governments, funding organizations and the UN. As well, with the establishment of a new international court, questions of individual responsibility and collective accountability are being discussed generally. The basic elements for a healthy CSO, as for any organization, include the planning of concrete objectives, budgeting and implementation, followed by transparency in conducting and reporting on affairs. She introduced three panelists to talk about the question of accountability in CSOs and the recourse for lack of accountability. 

Ms. Krishna Ahooja Patel of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, stated that accountability as a political concept applied to CSOs is relatively new. Until recently, CSOs generally existed to hold others accountable, such as governments, the UN and the corporate sector.

Ms. Patel linked the demand for accountability to globalization and its resulting increase in private sector profits in industrialized nations. She noted a disturbing trend towards closer involvement of the private sector in the affairs of the UN since the creation of the World Trade Organization and wondered about the accountability of private interests and governments for the environmental degradation and economic disasters in developing nations that result from economic reforms designed to favour corporations in industrialized nations. She also reminded the audience of the accounting scandals being revealed in a growing number of companies worldwide. Ms. Patel concluded that there is indeed a serious accountability problem when it is the corporations and governments whose activities are increasingly immune from scrutiny that are demanding accountability from civil society.

The second speaker, Ms. Seble Demeke from the Solidarity Fund for Ethiopian Women, stated that the problem with the term accountability is its huge scope and the potential for confusion. She explained that accountability should be understood simply to refer to the requirement that public and private resources are used in the most efficient and transparent manner possible and that organizations and individuals take responsibility for their actions. This encourages results-oriented development, which is the ultimate goal of the UN and of CSOs and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) generally.

With UN-sponsored initiatives, she said, projects fail after the departure of the UN when there is no follow-up by a responsible CSO and therefore no ownership or accountability for the project. Where there is an organized CSO with the means, the expertise, and the information and communications technology (ICT) to support field-level partners, projects succeed. CSOs therefore need assistance from the international community to acquire ownership of projects, and they need to build book-keeping, ICT, budgeting and planning skills to ensure accountability to their own members and constituents. This also means that CSOs need to be recognized as legitimate by their own and sometimes other governments.

Ms. Raymonde Martineau from the Union of United Nations Association stated that CSOs and NGOs are not accountable to governments or corporations. Rather, accountability means honesty and good decisions, and CSO accountability starts at the bottom, where each CSO is first responsible to the people it serves or the issues it addresses and then to its members who have devoted time and money. CSOs do not need to justify themselves to governments. It is the job of CSOs to monitor governments and remind them of their own responsibilities and commitments to UN agencies and to the international community in general. Ultimately, responsibility begins with the individual, concluded Ms. Martineau.

Surprising issues
Ms. Martineau observed with some good humour that it appears that the smaller and weaker the NGO, the greater the expected accountability and responsibility. Yet, some of the same governments and organizations demanding this accountability have been suffering from some significant accounting double-standards.

Interesting questions
In the discussion that followed, one participant from the World Federalist Movement observed that there is no question of accountability without power, and that the demands for CSO accountability by governments and corporations give some measure of the increasing power CSOs now have nationally and internationally. He noted that this would not have happened twenty years ago. He also said that if CSOs want to participate in the UN arena, they will need to be prepared to answer potentially uncomfortable questions about funding, objectives and internal structure.

One participant wondered if there is a level of accountability for expertise that should be required of CSOs. Ms. Patel responded that expertise is a difficult question for accountability but acknowledged that in selecting “experts” for specific projects, for example, CSOs have a responsibility to consider not just questions of skill level but also the political requirements of the project and the location.

A participant from the Ford Foundation argued that while some NGOs need to be recognized by governments in order to accomplish their work, particularly NGOs that are not social service delivery organizations, NGOs should not need to look to donor agencies or governments for legitimization. Ms. Demeke responded that while she does not believe NGOs or CSOs should look to government for approval, they need to have a recognized organizational structure when moving from working at the village level to working at the international level. She suggested that the UN had a role to play in moderating between CSOs and governments in some situations.

Another participant said that sometimes it is necessary for CSOs or NGOs to work underground in situations where being accountable to or even recognized by the government is dangerous. He cited Guatemala as an example of a country where for many years CSOs could only accomplish their work as illegal and clandestine organizations. Now these same organizations are changing in order to maintain their sustainability and credibility.

Conclusions
The panelists agreed that accountability within a collective is made up of the responsibility of individuals. While acknowledging the value of official recognition, they also agreed that the right of association and freedom of speech must be preserved at all costs and not sacrificed for such recognition.

Presenters' Documents Available

17.30_demeke_seble.doc (44 K)
17.30_mezzalama_francesco.doc (30 K)

Click here for all available presenters' documents
Click here for all available summaries

Please read about the summaries