The Copenhagen Summit: Policies


CSO priorities

     During the preparation process, the policy positions of the three principal CSO groupings became increasingly convergent. This did not require any significant abandonment or modification of policies as there had never been major conflicts between them. Moreover, it was more a matter of gradually adding items from each other’s submissions than of a concerted effort to achieve uniformity. Although some governments and CSOs demanded a single CSO position, the principal groupings believed that the convergence and complementarity of their views made pursuit of complete uniformity unnecessary and indeed likely to cause undesirable delay, tension and dilution of their views through negotiating a comprehensive consensus document.

     There were some differences, however, in the priorities which the principal groupings emphasised. The Women’s Caucus concentrated mainly on questions of gender equity and empowerment, especially in relation to education, reproductive health, employment, personal security and access to political and corporate power. During the course of Summit preparations, it gave increasing attention to aspects of macro-economic policy which were being raised by some other CSOs. It also developed more detailed proposals in relation to the informal sector of the labour market, anti-discrimination laws, and the operation of the United Nations system on social issues.

     The Development Caucus focused especially on increasing the level of official development assistance (ODA) and achieving broader, deeper and faster debt relief. It also supported adoption of the so-called “20/20 principle” to achieve greater allocation of donor and recipient funds for basic social needs. It strongly criticised the basic policies and practices of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, especially through structural adjustment programmes and conditionalities, as being harmful to many people in developing countries. Over time, it also gave increasing emphasis to aspects of taxation, human rights and the conduct of transnational corporations.

     The priorities of the International Council on Social Welfare related to achieving political, economic and legal environments, especially at the international level, which promote social development. For example, ICSW called for tighter regulation of the international financial system and for international cooperation in development of progressive tax systems which raise sufficient revenue for social investment. It also called for strengthening the UN’s role on economic and social policy, especially through the Economic and Social Council, and improving implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Target dates for achieving specific anti-poverty outcomes became of increasing importance in its advocacy during the latter stage of negotiations.

     Many CSOs in the social welfare and social development sectors focused on a particular area such as health, education or housing or on a particular group of people such as older people, refugees or people with disabilities. The breadth of the Summit agenda, however, meant that there was little prospect of any such issues being the subject of detailed, well-informed and sustained negotiation. Some CSOs from other sectors contributed to the preparatory process without most of them becoming involved intensively or at length. This applies, for example, to CSOs in the environmental, consumer and human rights fields.

     A substantial proportion of the CSOs expressed their concerns and views at a very general level. For example, they emphasised the gravity of problems such as poverty and unemployment and they
proposed general directions for addressing them such as people-centred development, more participation for civil society and more resources for poor people and developing countries. Unlike the principal groupings, especially ICSW and the Women’s Caucus, most CSOs did not propose detailed textual amendments to the draft agreements.

The Summit agreements

     The Copenhagen agreements run to more than 100 pages and cover a vast array of topics. While most governments and CSOs seemed unworried by this prolixity, a few fought hard but unsuccessfully for a much briefer and more specific document. Throughout the negotiation process, most governments and CSOs concentrated on questions of rhetoric and general philosophy rather than specific questions of practical implementation. This applies especially to the almost complete lack of attention to the final two draft commitments which related to resources, structures and processes for achieving the lofty goals described in the earlier commitments. One cause of this neglect was that each round of negotiations began at the first commitment and ran very short of time before reaching the later commitments.

     Pressure from CSOs contributed to a number of significant improvements in the draft agreements. They include addition of the commitment dealing principally with health and education, greater emphasis on gender equity, recognition of the importance of civil society, and a focus on the rights of indigenous people. The passages relating to the international financial system, taxation and regulation of business conduct arose solely from initiatives by a handful of CSOs. A few CSOs were also crucial to achieving the emphasis on economic, social and cultural rights despite strong opposition from some governments.

     Lobbying by one or two CSOs also contributed substantially to the passages on strengthening the Economic and Social Council and on regular regional reviews of implementation of the Summit agreements. While the passages in the agreements on official development assistance, the 20/20 principle, debt relief and structural adjustment were ultimately very limited, they would have been even weaker without strong CSO pressure. The same is true of the limited success in obtaining agreement on specific anti-poverty target dates and references to the importance of full employment, small and medium enterprises, and microcredit.

     A striking feature of the Summit itself in Copenhagen was that many speeches by heads of government displayed a livelier awareness of the gravity of social problems, and of the need for substantial adjustment of economic and other policies, than had been evident in their representatives’ contributions during the earlier negotiations. This partly reflected the dominance of finance ministry policies in the views which were expressed by many of those representatives. Very few of the senior representatives were experts in social policy rather than in economics or foreign affairs and most were bureaucrats rather than elected politicians.

     During the negotiations, most CSOs were deeply disappointed with progress. At the end, however, there was a much more positive response from many of those who had been closely involved. Both the earlier negativity and the subsequent enthusiasm were somewhat excessive. The final document was stronger on rhetoric than action and, while many passages were welcome to most CSOs, other passages endorsed economic policies which were much less acceptable. Indeed, almost any point of view could find support somewhere in the voluminous agreement.