ESCR Network Planning Meeting
October 5-6, 2000
The Ford Foundation
On October 5 & 6, 2000, representatives from various economicand social rights advocacy organizations, along with staff from theFord Foundation???s Human Rights programs, came together to discuss theestablishment of an ESCR network to assist NGOsengaging in economic and social rights advocacy. The list ofparticipants and the agenda are attached as Appendices A and B. Inpreparation for the meeting, participants were asked to complete aquestionnaire regarding the needs for and benefits of a network. Thequestionnaire and summary of responses are included as Appendices C andD.
I. Welcome and Introductory Remarks
Anthony Romero & Larry Cox of the Ford Foundation presented anintroduction to the Foundation and its history of human rights funding,and more specifically, its support of economic and social rightsprograms:
- Ford has 14 overseas offices.
- Human Rights is Ford???s largest program.
- Five program officers and 10 overseas program staff are dedicated to human rights.
- Ford began funding ESCR work within the last five years.
II. Challenges to Member Groups and Benefits of a Network
In the first session, participants presented case studies of their own ESCR work (see Appendix E). They described both challenges to this work and possible benefits of an ESCR network to their organizations. Participants mentioned numerous obstacles to effective ESCR advocacy, including:
- Access to information and building an information infrastructure.
- Lack of coordination: between international and domestic spheres, between grassroots and policy advocates.
- Increasing national and international attention to poor people???s issues.
- Getting human rights community to endorse social justice movement.
- Getting domestic courts to consider ESCR. Promoting effective adjudication of ESCR.
- Are ???we??? facilitators or defenders of ESCR rights? Who are the spokespeople? What is role of those denied ESCR rights in movement?
- Showing the utility of non-traditional mechanisms (e.g. appealing WB inspection panel).
- Difficulties of starting from bottom-up when engaging in ESCR advocacy. Traditional divisions between lawyers and grassroots.
- Danger of international work disempowering domestic movements.
- Using past experience to inform future efforts.
- How to incorporate ESCR into development and anti-poverty programs.
- Lack of funding and resources. Sustaining campaigns.
- Obtaining critical mass/mainstream support.
- Determining how inclusive human rights will be.
- Convincing others that women???s issues are relevant and central to ESCR practice. Line between ???public??? and ???private??? when confronting women???s issues.
- Challenging discrimination vs. promoting affirmative actions in terms of women???s issues.
- Danger of defining movement too narrowly (i.e. legal/textual).
- Problem of where to start when confronting interrelated issues.
- Weakness of international ESCR enforcement mechanisms.
- Lack of grassroots trust in using legal framework to effect change.
- Maintaining a balance between horizontal and vertical networking.
- Defining relationship, finding common ground with social movements, finding and building allies.
- Getting individuals to take personal responsibility and make moral commitments to promoting economic and social rights.
- Identifying specific targets and violators.
- Inspiring communities.
Participants also describe potential benefits that a network could provide to the work of member organizations.
- Providing information on case law and jurisprudence, and domestic application of international law.
- Assist with international standards setting (e.g. assist the drafting of general comments by the Committee on ESCR).
- Providing international solidarity with local struggles.
- Providing north-south links critical to challenging multinationals.
- Providing external pressure to domestic campaigns and the credibility of international support.
- Providing access to resources and information.
- Providing outside or ???neutral??? experts on domestic cases.
- Raising the profile of domestic issues and obtaining local and
- Facilitate strategizing on ways to effectively adjudicate ESCR.
- Publicize non-traditional mechanisms like petitioning the World Bank.
- Informing members so that their work supports other people???s work.
- Bridging gap between lawyers and other advocates.
- Working on critical international campaigns that demand collective action (e.g. AIDS, treaty-monitoring, strengthening of ESCR enforcement mechanisms).
- Advancing cutting edge areas of ESCR practice (e.g. water rights, women???s ESCR).
- Providing leadership in integrating feminist analysis in ESCR advocacy.
III. Functions and Priorities of the Network
After discussing the needs of the member groups, participantsagreed upon three major functions of the network: 1) informationsharing, 2) international/collaborative advocacy, and 3) expertise andtechnical assistance. The meeting then broke out into separategroups to further discuss each of these areas. Each discussion groupwas directed to look at the benefits and challenges of the network infulfilling the function. (After further discussion, it was agreed thatit was premature to discuss technical assistance, as the network wouldnot initially have the capacity to provide direct technical assistanceor emply consultants. Thus the Expertise and Technical AssistanceGroup, while engaging in independent discussion, decided to fold itsrecommendations into the Information Sharing section.
1. Information Sharing
Benefits
In discussing information sharing, participants cited the following possible benefits:
- Exchange of ideas & strategies: development of best practices through case studies and discussion of ???lessons learned.???
- Advice/knowledge in institution building.
- Addressing thematic issues: advancing ESCR analysis in new fields (e.g. water rights, cultural rights).
- Education between North and South.
- Legal and grassroots education on ESCR rights.
- Creative Activism: alternative legal practice.
- Dissemination of member group information.
Needs
The information sharing subgroup also discussed the web-basedinformation sharing system. They agreed that the network website shouldprovide information on the following:
- Case law and ESR jurisprudence.
- Additional contextual information about cases.
- Model ESCR legislation.
- Media strategy information.
- Mechanism to allow posting of relevant legal, advocacy, developments, news info to database by member groups.
- Special urgent actions for emergency situations.
- Database of organizations involved in ESCR advocacy (even non-member groups).
- Updating bibliography of relevant ESCR literature, plus e-mail notification of new additions.
- Hyperlinks to other networks and groups including sites related to general technical matters, like programs on NGO management.
The participants agreed information-sharing activities should alsoinclude facilitation of e-mail networking as well as face-to-facemeetings. Participants agreed that face-to-face meetings, because oftheir high time and financial costs, should be content-driven, befocused on substantive issues, take place at member organizationheadquarters to promote on-the-ground mutual education, and only occurwhen other methods of information sharing were inadequate. Participantsalso concurred that travel expenses be funded and members??? consultativetime be reimbursed.
Priorities
Participants agreed that the web-based database and e-mailcommunication functions were the first priority under informationsharing. The group initially decided to discuss the information sharing activities in terms of three possible nodes: 1) geographic,
2) thematic, and 3) strategic.
1) Geographic/Regional Nodes
In terms of geographic/regional nodes, participants discussed whetherregional or language-based divisions within the website were moreimportant. Participants agreed that the network must provide all basicinformation in multiple languages, perhaps beginning with a few majorlanguages (i.e. English, Spanish, French, Arabic) with a commitment tocontinue expanding the range of languages in which materials would bemade available. Participants agreed that the website should be trulymultilingual from the opening page. They also agreed that at minimum,abstracts of all cases be provided in several major languages.
2) Thematic and Strategic Nodes
A discussion arose here around the priority of themes over strategies.Some participants felt that it was not useful to divide content bytheme (e.g. women???s rights, housing rights, food rights, etc.). Otherfelt that the theme distinction was important for both current ESCR practitioners and those not yet familiar with ESCR practice.Participants agreed that the theme-strategy distinction wasn???t asimportant as bringing together people facing common challenges, whetherstrategic or thematic.
3) Other Concerns
Participants noted that information-sharing activities need to beproactive, not just a passive process of collecting material. Theproblem of obtaining information from busy member groups, as well asother under resourced NGOswas raised. Participants felt that both outreach/information gathering,as well as content development for the website, needed to be strategic,and involve those with appropriate expertise, so as to be able toassess comprehensiveness.
Overall, in terms of information-sharing it was agreed that acommitment to providing information in multiple languages wasnecessary, that a primary component would be a web-based database of ESCR advocacycases that would allow searches by region, language, theme, andstrategy, and that other forms of information sharing???e-mail discussiongroups, printed materials, face-to-face meetings, etc. would also beutilized.
Challenges
Participants also identified several challenges to effectiveinformation sharing. Not all member groups have access to computers andthe Internet. Some participants suggested that a mechanism for fundingtranslations be established. The problem of effective documentation ofnon-legal advocacy was raised. Participants were also concerned aboute-mail flooding and agreed that the subject e-mail discussions must bepredetermined and perhaps they needed to be moderated. Participantsconcluded that information sharing mechanisms must have both regionaland thematic focal point to be effective.
During the discussion about information sharing, the need for thenetwork to engage in information building activities was also raised.Several participants mentioned the lack of literature on ESCR practice, and suggested that the network encourage academic research and writing on ESCR subjects.
2. International/Collaborative Advocacy
Benefits
Participants in the advocacy sub-group identified the following potential benefits of collaborative advocacy:
- move from a reactive stance to a proactive stance.
- build an international response to globalization.
- support national/local/regional campaigns.
- respond to issues that demand collective action.
Several possible campaigns were discussed:
- Treaty-monitoring
- Trade and investment
- General comments by UN bodies
- AIDS
Needs
The following concerns were raised:
- Need a clear process for deciding which local groups to support.
- Need to have short-, mid-, and long-term goals.
- Need to demonstrate the practical utility of the network.
- Need to be clear about what ESCR analysis add to a particular campaign.
Priorities
The following were agreed upon as the important priorities under collaborative advocacy.
1)Engaging in ???global projects???, including AIDS, trade and investment, and treaty-monitoring.
2)Supporting local projects.
3) Facilitating meetings and collaborative actions, includinglitigation and lobbying and the work of integrating gender analysisinto ESCR practice.
Challenges
Participants discussed possible advocacy roles of the network andagreed that providing service to member groups was the first priorityand the best way to ensure sustained participation in the network.Participants also discussed whether the network should play a role inorganizing or participating in collective campaigns. Some participantsfelt that taking a leadership role and engaging in collective actionunder the name of the network would raise difficult issues ofgovernance, power, and representation. Others felt that there was aneed for the network to engage in critical ESCR campaignsthat groups supported but could not take on individually. Participantsagreed that the initial focus should be on facilitating advocacycooperation between members while also exploring the possibilities ofdeveloping a collective voice on critical ESCR issues of common concern to members.
IV. Determining Next Steps and Planning Process
Participants agreed that it was too soon to declare theestablishment of the network and, recognizing the following principles,agreed to an on-going planning process:
1)The network should focus on ESCR practice.
2)Inclusivity: the network should actively reach out to engage new NGOs, communities engaging explicitly and implicitly in ESCR work.
3) Members should become involved in the network through their dailywork. The network should be relevant to the on-the-ground practice oflocal organizations.
4)The network should be global, not U.S.-centric.
5)The network should provide practical benefit to members (information sharing, networking, etc.).
6) The network should serve as a forum for members to take collectiveaction, and consider whether to develop a collective voice on keyissues.
The following five aspects of an activity plan were presented and agreed upon:
1)researching and determining a process of establishing governance
2)researching website database and email communication issues
3)outreach and research
4)forming sub-groups on particular issues
5)on going meetings
Participants agreed that in terms of establishing the network, therewere many issues remaining to be discussed. They agreed to a four-monthplanning process in which working groups composed of attendees at themeeting, eventually expanding to include others, would draft concreterecommendations to be discussed at a second planning meeting to be heldin late February. CESR, which has been giveninitial funds from the Ford Foundation to help establish the network,will facilitate this process. The attending participants agreed onestablishing four working groups to explore the following issues:
1) Outreach: This working group will look into the range of organizations engaging in ESCR advocacy.This group will not actually engage in outreach, but will makerecommendations regarding groups whose involvement and membership thenetwork should try to encourage. This working group will also plan apreliminary needs assessment of potential member groups by revising thequestionnaire regarding the needs and purpose of an ESCR networkthat was distributed to participants at the initial planning meeting.Volunteers: Fateh Azzam, Alice Brown, Joy Butts, Daria Caliguire, ChrisJochnick, Aubrey McCutcheon, Felix Morka, D.J. Ravindran, and Loretta Ross.
2) Structure and Governance: This group willresearch other networks and make recommendations on decision-makingprocesses for the network and other organizational issues. Volunteers:Larry Cox, Chris Jochnick, and D.J. Ravindran.
3) Sub-committees: Sub-committees of the network would be groupings of those interested in particular issues related to ESCR advocacy (e.g. Women???s ESCR, litigation,housing rights, etc.) This group will discuss and make recommendationson both the structure of these sub-committees of the network and theirthemes. Volunteers: Victor Abramovich, Geoff Budlender, Leilani Farha,Anuradha Mittal, Bruce Porter, and Jessica Schultz.
4) Web and E-mail Communication: This group willresearch make recommendations on both the content and structure of thenetwork website and email communication mechanisms. Volunteers: DariaCaliguire, Chris Caruso (recommended by Joy), Bruce Porter, and AnthonyRomero.
The proposed structure of each working group consists of a chair,volunteers (drawn from attending participants at the initial meeting),and a member of CESR to provide logisticalsupport. Each working group would be responsible for reaching out tomembers of other working groups to obtain their input in the draftingof recommendations. Working groups will schedule and participate inregular conference calls over the next four months to discuss therelevant issues and will produce a document consisting of concreterecommendations for the network.
A tentative time of late February was agreed upon for the second planning meeting of the ESCR network. Recommendations from each of the four working groups will be distributed and discussed at this meeting.
Appendix C: Participant Questionnaire