 |
 |
|
|
|
Science, politics and accountability: risk & opportunity
Global policy in response to climate change is, by definition, critically linked to the convergence of scientific understandings of what is happening to the world’s environment. The work of the IPCC constitutes a major step forward, as it puts evidence at the heart of policy, rather than leaving everything to a mere negotiation of interests. Yet, in the febrile mood ahead of the Climate summit in Copenhagen, the relationship between science and politics has been exposed as less than robust, and issues of accountability have taken centre stage.
The influential climate scientist Prof. Jones of the University of East Anglia decided to temporarily step down from his post as leader of the Climate Research Unit, whilst allegations about data manipulation are investigated, following the theft of data from the unit. The topic has been seized upon by the media, and many so called “climate sceptics” who have cast doubt on the integrity of the findings by challenging the accountability and transparency of the data itself, and its processing by the scientific community.
The stakes of the dispute are high. Not only does the question arise of how the public, the media and others utilise what may be criminally obtained, and with high probability very partial data. However, another perhaps more important issue is how the policy, research and advocacy communities deal with the epistemological complexities and inevitable uncertainties, which are always involved in scientific data and its analysis; and what the expectations and understandings of policy makers are concerning the messages that scientists convey for use in policy formulation.
The recent case of the controversial dismissal of Prof. David Nutt as Chair of the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs by the Home Secretary is also a case in point. Prof. Nutt’s academic critique of the scientific coherence and sustainability of a driving criterion for a policy decision on drugs classification was deemed to stray too far into policy territory. Prof. Nutt holds the view, like many others, that it is not for politicians to prevent scientists from critiquing methods and outcomes that are related to their work and fall within their area of expertise. In the end, policy makers and legislators rightly encourage scientists to produce policy relevant research and engage in the policy process through providing evidence and advice. This connection is worth reinforcing, not damaging. However, in order to make appropriate use of data and conclusions provided by
scientists, policy makers need to understand that while the principles of accountability that underpin legitimacy, such as a need for transparency, are largely congruous across different spheres of work and communications. But the actual mechanisms to realise accountability are specific to each community. The use of political mechanisms, including partisan and highly mediatised debate of scientific results and processes, may not be appropriate to address the accountability issues of scientific processes. Failing to recognise this may play into the hands of those who want to undermine the critical role scientific evidence has to play in building policy that is accountable to people it affects and concerns.
Michael Hammer,mhammer@oneworldtrust.org
|
|
 |
Recent PublicationsCoping with uncertainty: Accountability challenges in global climate governance
Ahead of the Copenhagen Summit, the One World Trust has published a Briefing paper entitled “Coping with Uncertainty: Accountability Challenges in Global Climate Governance
”. Reporting on preliminary findings of an ongoing research project into accountability issues arising within the complexities of the current global climate governance architecture the draws on a growing range of documents and interviews with policy makers, legilsators, scientists and representatives from several case study organisations: Greenpeace International as a civil society advocacy organisation, the International Emissions Trading Association as an industry lobbying group, the UNFCCC as a global convenor and regulator, and the UK Parliament as a national legislator and policy oversight body. Key issues that have so far emerge include the challenge of making policy in an environment of scientific and economic uncertainty, the inherent tendency of negotiation based policy outcomers to fall behind what evidence suggests is required to do to stabilise the
climate, and the lack of an effective accountability channel to hold the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC to account which is accessible to citizens at global level.
Responding to NGO development effectiveness initiatives
The One World Trust, in partnership with World Vision, has published a briefing paper entitled “Responding to NGO Development Effectiveness Initiatives
”. The paper aims to give some insight into the use and usefulness of various NGO self-regulation initiatives, in the development and humanitarian sectors, for developing effectiveness and accountability. It provides a picture of existing self-regulation efforts at international and national level in the global North; their principles, content, and compliance mechanisms. It reflects on the way in which NGOs may wish to engage with initiatives or to improve effectiveness by using the best and most relevant parts for their organisation’s purpose. The objective is to generate discussion on current debates aimed at strengthening the legitimacy and performance of civil society organisations.
The growth of CSO self-regulation
In a new article “The Growth of CSO Self-Regulation” published in the December issue of Alliance, a leading magazine for philanthropy and social investment worldwide, Shana Warren, Jeannet Lingan and Robert Lloyd from the One World Trust describe the drivers, patterns and trends on civil society self-regulation around the world, and reflects on the challenges ahead. The article is based on research conducted by the One World Trust in order to develop a comprehensive database of CSO self-regulation .
Strengthening the independence and accountability of the ICC in a political world
In "Any good reasons to cry wolf? Understanding and strengthening independence and accountability of the International Criminal Court in a political world
", a new research paper published in November One World Trust authors Elodie Aba and Michael Hammer explore whether the ICC can strengthen its ability to demonstrate accountability and independence. It also identifies the limits to what it can do on its own to ensure its independence in a political world. The paper concludes that the ICC is subject to power and is part of a web of political accountabilities which affect the exercise of international criminal justice and makes four propositions for how the ICC can strengthen its accountability and independence.
OWT's CSO database in BOND “Your Network”
The One World Trust's global database of CSO self-regulation initiatives is the subject of a new article by One World Trust Researcher Jeannet Lingan in "Your Network", the monthly electronic publication of BOND (British Overseas NGOs for Development). The article presents the benefits of the database as a useful resource for organisations and the general public and briefly outlines some of the research findings on building the database. Read the article here.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Project newsAccountability Principles for Research Organisations (APRO)
In the second phase of the APRO project formulating accountability principles for research organisations, we are partnering with six organisations - think-tanks and organisations conducting research across the global South. With our partner organisations, we are exploring the validity of the principles and tools formulated in Phase 1, through a research process involving a series of workshops. During October and November, we started the first phase of this process, visiting our partners in Nairobi, Kathmandu and Costa Rica. The team is currently visiting the remaining organisations working in a wide range of disciplines and contexts in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. The aim is to adapt the principles of accountability to the real-life contexts confronted by these organsiations and to collect and share experiences of accountability between the partners, thus supporting them to
reflect on and develop what accountability means for them.
Global Accountability Report (GAR)
Following the completion of the workshops with assessed organisations and experts, the consultation for the review of the indicator framework for the Global Accountability Report has recently moved into the stage of online survey for other worldwide stakeholders of the Report to help with comments and suggestions. The survey can be accessed at the external ‘surveymonkey’ site by clicking here or by cutting and pasting the following link into your browser address-line: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=WkRgtcldnGb9h7l_2fBILZWg_3d_3de
. We welcome any comments you may have. Results from the survey will be compiled and analysed together with the results from the workshops in January 2010. The revised framework will be published early 2010.
Self-Regulatory Initiatives (SRI)
The One World Trust Self-Regulatory Initiatives team is working on a new briefing paper: “Self - regulation of advocacy amongst NGOs: principles, practice and prospects”. The paper examines how civil society organisations have begun to address the accountability challenges they face when engaging in advocacy, and identifies key principles that emerge from practice. It also explains some of the strengths and weaknesses of existing self-regulation initiatives in the sector. This paper will be published next week on our resources page here
. To be notified immediately when the paper is published simply go to our homepage at www.oneworldtrust.org and sign up to the One World Trust news alerts.
Accountability in Global Climate Change Governance
Ahead of Copenhagen, the One World Trust has not only published its first briefing paper on the subject of accountability in global climate governance, we have also created a new webpage with more information about our Project on the Accountability in Global Climate Change Governance
. The project involves several qualitative case studies of organisations that feed into the global policy process: Greenpeace International (GPI) as a civil society advocacy organisation, the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) as an industry lobbying group, the UNFCCC as a global convenor and regulator, and the UK Parliament as a national legislator and policy oversight body.
The One World Trust welcomes a new intern
Reham Hassan holds an MSc in social research methods from the London School of Economics and Political Science. She has worked as a researcher in Egypt and also volunteered in a number of local and international organisations, such as UNDP and Médecins Sans Frontières UK. Reham will be contributing to our work on accountability principles for research organisations.
Season's greetings from the One World Trust team
The whole of the One World Trust team: Brendan, Elodie, James, Jeannet, Michael, Miriam, Reham, Rob and Syed, Tom, and Virgina wish you an enjoyable festive season and a happy New Year!
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Civil society self-regulation in Cameroon
Since 2004, and the passing of laws by the Cameroon government to encourage decentralisation, civil society organisations (CSOs) have increasingly worked alongside local councils to provide services and represent marginalised groups. As such, CSOs have come under mounting pressure to prove their effectiveness, accountability and legitimacy.
An initiative designed to respond to this pressure is being developed by the North West Association of Development Organisations (NWADO), a network of development organisations in Cameroon’s North West Region. After broad consultation with their members, NWADO has drafted a Code of Ethics
and is in the process of conducting a nationwide reflection exercise in order to engage actors from across a broad range of CSOs. The Code is intended, amongst other things, to improve the relationship between Cameroon’s civil society and its government by defining acceptable behaviour, promoting high standards of practice and providing a benchmark for CSOs to use for self-evaluation. This is perceived to be particularly important given the historically negative perception of civil society by the state and the difficulty faced by CSOs in gaining legally-recognised NGO status.
For many Sub-Saharan African countries, especially those emerging from the ruins of an authoritarian single party regime, a vibrant civil society is believed to be one of the keys to ensuring democratic and accountable governance. Cameroon is no different and twenty years on from the reintroduction of multiparty politics, civil society organisations continue to strive to be relevant actors in governance and development.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Accountability newsNGO watchdog launched in Sierra Leone
A new initiative, designed to monitor the accountability of NGOs and other institutions, has been given the official go-ahead to commence operations by the government. Accountability Alert – Sierra Leone (AA-SL)
has been created as a non-partisan, independent, research program aimed at providing leadership and direction in addressing issues of accountability and transparency within the NGO community and those government institutions which handle donor funds. Currently, a large proportion of multilateral and bilateral aid to Sierra Leone is channelled through NGOs. The founders hope to increase recipient awareness and participation in how this money is used. Initially this will involve surveying the proportion of aid spent on administrative costs compared to program activities. The AA-SL team of researchers are also planning a programme of capacity building and training for NGOs, government institutions and donors in all aspects of accountability.
New report on ways to strengthen transparency and public engagement of work in the House of Commons
In a recent Report the House of Commons Reform Committee (Rebuilding the House, HC 1117)
analyses strengths and weakness of the current system and proposes reforms in particular with regards to the election of members and chairs of the select committees, the control of the business agenda of the House, and the involvement of the public in agenda setting for Parliament and the development of legislation. The Report is in particular critical of the currently strong level of control exercised by parties over composition of the committees, and government influence over the work programme of Parliament. It also concludes that efforts need to be renewed to involve citizens into the legislative and policy oversight process. The Report is part of a wider effort of Parliament to address key issues that contributed to the breakdown of public trust in Parliament in the wake of the parliamentary expenses scandal.
Hearings on the legality of the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo before the ICJ
On 1st December, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) started to examine the question of the legality of the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo. This case was brought before the ICJ following the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of a Resolution (A/RES/63/3) introduced by Serbia in October 2008. It is the first time the ICJ will hear a case of territorial secession. Mark Lowen from the BBC reporting
from Belgrade highlights that the ICJ’s advisory opinion will be eagerly-awaited, in particular by countries that fear secession challenges and that have until now refused to recognise Kosovo as an independent state. A ruling in Kosovo’s favour would encourage more countries to recognise its independence. However, the contrary would entail finding a new compromise and sustainable solution with Serbia.
Key governments announce their Copenhagen negotiation targets for emissions' reduction
In the run up to the Copenhagen negotiations, most of the negotiating blocs and individual countries have published their emissions targets. The EU has unconditionally committed to cut its emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, with a further 10 percent reduction as part of an international agreement. The UK is the first country to introduce a legally-binding carbon budget, and has committed to reducing its emissions by 34% on 1990 levels by 2020. Japan
has committed to reducing its emissions by 25% on 1990 levels by 2020. Russia has pledged to cut its emissions by between 20 and 25% on 1990 levels by 2020. The US has pledged to cut its emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by the year 2020, equating to a reduction of about 3% on 1990 levels. Canada has committed to reducing emissions by 20% on 2006 levels. The Chinese State Council has announced that China
will reduce its carbon emission per unit of GDP, in the range of 40 to 45% by 2020. Brazil has offered a voluntary reduction of between 38 and 42 percent below business as usual levels by 2020. Meanwhile, India has not officially announced targets. However,India's target of an emissions reduction of 24% per unit of GDP has been leaked to and published in the Guardian. Most of the G77, excluding the small island states, have not given any figures on their positions as they do not intend to reduce their emissions.
The announcement of targets by many governments ahead of international negotiations constitutes good practice as it allows civil society and parliaments to hold governments to account over results achieved at the summit and helps with the development of ‘soft mandating’ as a parliamentary oversight technique. At the same time accountability in global climate change governance does involve as much a responsibility for global actors to be transparent about intentions, as a responsibility to ensure that they in fact jointly deliver on the substance: a deal that secures the global public good of a sustainable climate for citizens around the world. The vast divergence of targets, and lack of transparency by states including India, may well make finding a solution at Copenhagen more challenging.
|
| Back to top |
|
|