interviews
Working at the Supranational Level
by Daniel Naujoks
July 31, 2019
This interview with Daniel Naujoks was conducted and condensed by frank news. It is part two of our conversation on The Mobility Mandala.
frank: Today, we often hear about a crisis of cooperation at the international level. It seems that many countries are reluctant to work together and many wonder about the place of the United Nations in today’s world. This is broad – but what influence does the UN have on nations today?
Daniel Naujoks: When we think about the influence of the UN it’s important to recognize that the UN isn't one entity. What we call “the UN” includes many different ways in which states interact with each other, often mitigated or moderated by certain entities of the UN. You have the General Assembly, which, for many people is the quintessential UN. And the Security Council – a highly political body and the only UN organ that has the power to take decisions infringing on states’ sovereignty. On the other hand, there is the UN of the many programs and agencies that have specific mandates and that work with governments and non-state actors to achieve something, like the UN Development Programme, the International Labour Organization, or the UN Environment Programme, to name a few.
When it comes to migration and displacement, we actually had several discussions on these topics at the General Assembly. In 2006, the UN organized the first high level dialogue on international migration and development, for which I was part of the organization team at the UN Population Division. In 2013, we had another high-level dialogue at the UN General Assembly. And after preparing and negotiating for two years, in December 2018, the global community adopted two new compacts. The UN adopted the UN Global Compact for Migration, for safe, orderly and regular migration, and the UN Global Compact on Refugees. These are non-binding agreements but the entire process of drafting these compacts was influential for spurring discussions among countries, between countries and civil society at the international level, and, even more importantly, at the national level.
Often we think of UN issues as matters at the supranational level, happening at the UN General Assembly hall here in New York or in Geneva. And that's true, that is an important venue. But, when we have a UN event or UN treaty, or in this case, a compact, there are also national stakeholders, human rights commissions, NGO networks, ministries at the national level, who have an interest in promoting certain issues. And they have consultations, the press picks up issues. Each country is a little different and it depends on the strength of certain stakeholders and their interests. For example, the U.S. government was largely absent from the process of the UN Global Compact for Migration.
Already in the beginning of the negotiations, the US declared, "We're out." Which, in my opinion, was not a very smart move, because even at that point, it was clear that it would be non-binding.
The risk of somewhat being held accountable would actually be low. And remaining in the discussions would have given the US a way to influence the content. But I think it was more about sending a political message to certain local constituents than an actual policy move in the international sphere.
What is remarkable is that even though the national government withdrew from the process, many U.S. cities said, "Can we be part of that?" New York, Chicago,and other cities really stepped in. Thus, in the end, there was a lot of participation in the U.S., even though the national government declared they don't want to have anything to do with it. So, sometimes, how the UN works is a little more complex than just what the official state department position is on an issue. And there are many venues. There are bilateral consultations, there are regional consultations on human trafficking, on labor migration and so on. There is a Global Forum on Migration and Development, the GFMD, which, since 2007, takes place every year. Governments come, they exchange notes on good policies, and on what can be done, mostly at the working level. At the working level, government officials cooperate and learn from each other. Again, it's non-binding. And the UN provides inputs, they chair sessions, they write background papers, they present case studies.
This is to exemplify that there are systems where policy learning happens in a much more informal setting, than through rigid rules-setting and treaty-making. This is something students in the UN Studies specialization here at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, that I direct, focus on when studying global governance. There are many different ways in which local and national governments, countries’ specific ministries, institutions, and agencies, international organizations, NGOs, and other groups negotiate and collaborate.
And then in the developing world, of course, the UN has a different role, because they are not just advising, they're working with local partners and in actual programs, like funding. And they're advising governments directly on how to do things.
But even there, what people from the outside often don't understand, the UN cannot work without the explicit consent of the host government.
So, when Kenya says that they want to close the refugee camps for Somalia refugees, UNHCR can plead, "Oh, please, refugees have rights and camps are bad." But, unless the Kenyan government gives UNHCR authority to work on certain programs, and provides UNDP consent to implement initiatives on livelihood strategies targeting refugees, these agencies can't do much. This being said, because of certain power asymmetries and donor interests, the so-called technical assistance from UN agencies in the Global South has the potential to influence policy decisions and exemplifies how the work of the UN can have an impact. But the political leverage of many agencies is not as large as is often seen. Which is why there's a lot of bargaining in the background. The things that you don't see that are not official.
Can you give an example?
DN: An example for the fact that the UN has to always ask for permission to work on certain issues is the persistence of the use of refugee camps. For the last 15 to 20 years, we know that refugee camps are not good for refugees. In the very short term, in the immediate aftermath of an atrocity, of a civil war, of a calamity, in the case of a sudden influx, camps may make sense to provide shelter and food and medical services to a large number of people. But, even in the medium term, they're very bad for the human development outcomes of people.
They lend themselves to a range of human rights violations, because people live in close vicinity to each other, people who are very heterogeneous among themselves. Just because they're all refugees, just because they're all from one country, doesn't mean they all get along well.
Camps generally don't provide sufficient economic opportunities for people, et cetera. That's why for some time now, we know that limited humanitarian responses to large refugee and IDP movements are not good for development. Definitely not for those people who are displaced, but mostly equally for surrounding communities. I actually developed a role-play simulation on the reasons for and against refugee camps and participants understand quite clearly the mix of international development and human rights logic with local politics and interests.
Addressing the shortcomings of classic humanitarian approaches, different UN agencies have been very strong in advocating for a more development-based strategy. For example, in the Syrian context, there has been the 3RP, the regional refugee and resilience plan, which is headed by UNDP and UNHCR, with I think, about 270 partners. It’s implemented in Syria’s neighboring countries, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, and Egypt. In addition to each country’s national plan there's a regional plan, which focuses not only on the humanitarian side but also development side. UNDP has been leading these efforts to provide livelihood support, skills, training, et cetera. But even there, we see that the implementation is hampered by a lot of challenges. Take Jordan. In the 2013 donor conference in London, Jordan pledged to give work permits to 200,000 Syrian refugees. They were very committed at the highest level of government.
But, a year later, there were almost no permits for refugees, and everyone asked why. We did a project with Better Work Jordan, which is a collaboration between the International Labour Organization and the World Bank. BetterWork Jordan published a report that my students drafted on why Syrian refugees did not get more official work permits. There are many reasons why employers couldn't employ refugees or couldn't expand their production. The refugees could only work in the export-oriented zones, mostly in the garment sector. They couldn't work in other areas. There was a distance they had to travel. Refugees often didn't want these jobs for a variety of reasons. There were many bottlenecks in the bureaucratic procedure to get work permits. In brief, there were many challenges at the supply side, the demand side, as well as on the bureaucratic transaction side.
These issues combined led to a situation in which this great policy that was mediated by the UN and other donors to actually empower refugees to be economic actors, didn't have the impact people had hoped for. While much of what the UN does can have important impacts, this shows that what can be done at the national level depends a lot on national priorities and politics. How politicians are afraid of negative impacts for the local voting populations. And then, of course, it has also to do with the commitment of the international donors to actually put in money to say, "Yes, we will not only give you minor funds to warehouse refugees but we will partner with you to empower them and your populations." Part of the agreement with Jordan that I mentioned was a pact with the EU. The EU said, "If refugees are employed you can export garments and other goods from export-oriented zones to us duty free." The idea was to use trade and the increase in production in the Jordanian garment sector as a way to increase employment opportunities for refugees. A great idea.
But, you probably need to do more to help Jordanian products to be competitive on the EU market. There's also a time lag. Even if you open up the market right away, these products may not satisfy the EU standards for garments. So, there are many things that the partners need to do to support these endeavors and to really make sure that local leaders are not afraid that if they open the labor market, if they open chances for local integration, that in two years, donors will pull out. And then, they will get stuck with the additional population without the support financial community. So, that's where the UN can help a lot. But, without real commitments from large donor countries or any countries to resettle and share the responsibility for refugees, there's only that much the UN can do.
Thank you so much for your time.
Image via Hannah Wallace Bowman (above).
interviews
The Center for Urban Pedagogy
by CUP
May 22, 2018
This interview with the Center for Urban Pedagogy (CUP), was conducted and condensed by frank news.
What is CUP?
The Center for Urban Pedagogy, or CUP, is a non-profit organization that uses the power of design and art to increase meaningful civic engagement, particularly among underrepresented communities. There are many barriers to civic engagement, but the one we focus on is the barrier to how hard it is to understand the policy and planning issues that impact peoples' lives. In order to address that, we partner with community-based organizations. We're trying to reach people where they live, work, or go to school, and help create tools that break down those complex policy and planning issues so that they can have a voice in the decision making on the issues that impact their communities.
Can you talk about the Toolkits you make?
For most of our projects, community organizations apply to work with us, and they tell us what issues they’re having a hard time explaining to their constituents. What policy or planning process they're having a hard time explaining, and why that's creating injustice in their community.
For the Envisioning Development Toolkits, we were finding from our community partners that there were certain land-use processes that organizations were having to spend a long time explaining to their constituents. Every time they'd have a meeting to organize around a particular issue, they would have to go back and re-explain these complex issues, such as how affordable housing actually works, how zoning works, and so on.
They were looking for a tool that would help people understand those complex concepts so they didn't have to go back into it from the very beginning every time. That's what the toolkits grew out of. We spent a long time working with a steering committee of community-based organizations to work on land-use issues to understand what tools they needed, what concepts they needed to explain, and testing with them.
These are hands-on workshop-based tools. They're very interactive, and we spent a long time, at least a year of research, and developing the mechanics of how the workshop will work and extensive testing with those community organizations, with their constituents to make sure that the workshop is actually explaining information they need, and in an accessible way.
We also interview a lot of stakeholders and many decision makers to create an accompanying guidebook as part of the toolkits. The ULURP guidebook includes detailed information about the ULURP process, who is involved, case studies, and how to run workshops on your own.
Which particular communities are engaging with the toolkits?
All over New York City! Just a few of the organizations that we've worked with for quite a long time include Fifth Avenue Committee, which is based here in Gowanus. They do a lot of affordable housing development, and they've been a partner of ours for many years. They're actually going through a rezoning right now. The neighborhood is going through a rezoning, so we're also working with them on doing affordable housing, zoning, and ULURP because each piece of that is really critical to understanding rezoning overall and how they can be involved in the rezoning process.
Other organizations include Community Voices Heard in East Harlem and GOLES, which is an organization on Lower East Side, those are some of the organizations that are really on the ground on land-use issues.
What is ULURP?
ULURP is the main public review process that New York City has for major developments, rezoning, large scale land use changes. They have to go through this very specific process, and there are a variety of players throughout the city, and there is a very specific timeline. A lot of people find the process very hard to understand and intentionally or unintentionally opaque. This process really impacts people across the city, and most people don't know how to engage in it.
The interactive workshop lets people learn about the ULURP process, the different players involved, and the role they can play in decision-making. We actually use a sandwich metaphor for the workshop (instead of reviewing a decision about a building, players are reviewing a proposal for a new sandwich) and each participant plays the role of a different stakeholder or decision maker in the ULURP process, so they really learn the process by being a part of it.
Has it been tested with community members directly already? Are people able to engage with it in an effective way?
Yes. We've been testing it for over two years. Doing workshops with community organizations who are going through a ULURP process, communities that haven't gone through ULURP yet, but know that it is going to happen in their community at some point. But really just getting extensive feedback about what works and what doesn’t.
When we do the workshops, we do pre and post evaluations in terms of, do people know what ULURP is at the beginning of the workshop, how comfortable are they at talking about it, how comfortable are they about the concepts? And then, having them do a survey at the end of the workshop to really make sure they're feeling confident in understanding this very complex process and these concepts.
What are CUPs long-term goals? What else do we need to know about CUP as an organization?
People are dealing with this on a daily basis. No neighborhood is not going through something. We have had so much interest in these tools and making sure people have this information.
We’ve created other tools, including an online affordable housing map, so if you live in New York City, you can go online and look at the income levels for your neighborhood to see who really lives there and what is truly affordable for that neighborhood. As a companion for the Zoning Toolkit we did an online component called, "What is FAR" which stands for Floor Area Ratio. The online tool lets users build out a neighborhood and understand how buildings get built, the sizes of the lots, and their setbacks. It lets you understand how zoning shapes buildings and neighborhoods.
CUP works on all kinds of other issues too, from projects that explain the rights of immigrants to how to navigate complex processes in the legal system. People can learn more at welcometocup.org!
More information on What Is ULURP? can be found here!
The Center for Urban Pedagogy (CUP) officially launched their What Is ULURP? Toolkit on May 2nd, with a weeklong series of free workshops for community organizers, community board members, and neighborhood advocates.