| |
Contributions from
the Column
Monitor
Multistakeholder initiatives: No substitute for multilateral policy-marking
Good evaluation grades for KfW
Climate change: Germany supports poor countries
Fighting corruption in the pharma trade
In dealing with Iran old and new lines of conflict loom
"Human Development Report 2006: Water crisis worse than war
Corruption: The World Bank suspends Lahmeyer
Asia on track for Millennium Goals
12/2006
|
|
[ Multistakeholder initiatives ]
No substitute for multilateral policy-making
The influence of private actors on international development programmes is growing. Foundations such as those formed by Bill Clinton, the former US president, or Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder, make considerable contributions to development funds. Another form of private-sector involvement is called “multistakeholder partnerships”. They are about development cooperation between governments, international organisations, the private sector and civil society. A well-known example is the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI). Similar partnerships are gaining significance, above all in the fields of health and environmental protection.
However, opinions differ widely as to how they are to be judged. Supporters point out that cooperation of governments is often very cumbersome and that additional actors from civil society and the private sector could therefore add some momentum. Furthermore, private-sector companies may contribute funds urgently needed.
At a workshop held by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and the Global Policy Forum Europe in Bonn in late October, Adetokunbo Lucas of Harvard University said that partnership initiatives are necessary wherever there is a lack of official involvement. For example, GAVI stepped in and helped out when UNICEF cut back its immunisation programmes for children. According to Lucas, there are many examples of cooperation between companies and international organisations fighting diseases quickly and effectively where state action had failed.
Thelma Narayan of People’s Health Movement in India, on the other hand, is critical of global health partnerships. In her view, they often only support flagship projects, attracting media attention but doing little for general health care. Thus, the central issue of structurally improving health-care systems in developing countries is sidelined. Furthermore, Narayan bemoans that partnership initiatives often do not promote civil-society participation as publicly claimed, but rather tend to hinder such participation. Grassroots organisations, without which the sustainability of any development project is doubtful, are often overlooked. Narayan maintains that partnerships mostly serve the reputation of large pharmaceutical companies and the marketing of their drugs.
At the Bonn workshop, Jens Martens, managing director of Global Policy Forum Europe, criticised that there are neither standard guidelines nor procedures to evaluate multistakeholder partnerships at UN level. In contrast to the relationships to non-governmental organisations, there are no clear guidelines for partnerships between the United Nations and companies – a deficiency which, according to Martens, the world body must quickly remedy.
Ingrid Hoven of the German Development Ministry, supported the demands for rules for global partnerships and better evaluation. She regards these partnerships as sensible whenever binding agreements at the multilateral level are blocked by individual governments. As an example for such a deplorable state of affairs, she mentioned international promotion of renewable energies. According to Hoven, however, multistakeholder initiatives cannnot substitute for international regulations and should not, on their own, be expected to save multilateralism.
Wolfgang Obenland
Note:
In January 2007, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation will publish the study “Multistakeholder Partnerships – Future Model of Multilateralism?” by Jens Martens.
|
