COMMENTS FROM THE FLOORComment 1
One has been interacting with NGOs and GOs and we have and want to stop
wondering there is a government and there is a non-government, asmentioned.
Now, I get a little confused about the definition of NGO. My question is toclarify the position, as to where and what is an NGO? Is a multinational
corporation, which is doing some good social work, an NGO? Is a private
sector doing schooling or health care an NGO? Where does NGO begin?
Because it is a very simple thing to say, government and non-government.
What’s not, then the government is an NGO. Because you know, initially you
have a lot of uncruelsome willing to NGOs, and the contribution to social
funding in the issue of voluntarism since it has become a sort of big set up
globally and nationally. I get a little confused about what we are reallyreferring to when we are talking about this.
Comment 2I think that the gentleman here has raised a rather important question
because the whole issue of NGOs has come up to the surface, not that theNGOs are new, but the appellation itself, the dominant seems to highlightthe phenomenon that has acquired increased salience in the past 20 or soyears. And in fact other people refer to state or non-state also. And that may
be a better prediction because local government, central government, andfederal government. What non-governments are the so to speaks of grassroot organizations or civil society organizations, which may reflect a better
terminology. But I don’t think that terminology is clearly of the essence. Yes,I mean, I think that hospitals are not NGOs for instance even though they
may be working for non-profit. Universities, non-profit universities in the US,
it is a private university in the public service, it is not an NGO, it is auniversity. Foundations are not NGOs. Could we call the Ford Foundation an
NGO? No. Some people would. But Save the Children, OXFAM, Amnesty
International is. But again, there are risks. Some NGOs depend so heavily
on government for their subsistence, that in fact they may be non-state, butthey are not really non-government. We were all surprised one day at NY
University to learn that the international plamvarent federation, which isknown as an NGO, receives 90% of its budgets from USAIV. Is it an NGO? Ithink that the appellation of NGOs, I think there are a whole world of NGOs

needs a lot more exploration and lot more definition but I think the fact
remains that it is a very important movement with a certain contribution tomake, to process, or governance.
Comment 3
Could I divert to the issue concerning the internal corporate government andof NGOs, and ask us distinguished panel by so many different countries,
whether there is a consistency of view to what constitutes good internal
corporate governance within NGOs. As I said, there are 3 different systems:
one is the views of NGOs themselves; the second would be the views of thecountries within which the NGOs operate; and final of my interest, thoseNGOs in developing countries which receive pay from the UK tax pave. If
those three views are consistent, excellent. If they are not, where do we go?
Comment 4I just would like to ask a question with reference to the text by Anthony
Giddens, a well-known UK sociologist. He was saying that the gap between
the poor and the rich is actually not becoming bigger. I was very surprised
when I read this. I know that he is a very talented person but I was reallysurprised as it mentioned one of the reason why is because of the role andthe growing number of NGOs in the last 30 years which is extraordinary. I
am sure that the NGOs are extremely important in the world, I am not aspecialist, but I would just like to know if you feel that the gap between therich and the poor is growing, I don’t think so, at least the role of the NGO
would be to improve that differences.
Response by Mr. IriyamaThank you for excellent questions. When it comes to taxonomy and notions,
it usually takes 2 or 3 days to ensure all different views and opinions, andyou know there are such things, such as personal institutional definitions. So,obviously, there are maybe lots of so-called definitions, over the annals weare talking about, NGOs, NPO, CSO, whatever, you name it. And probably,to me, NGOs and NPOs are the same things. In being private non profit
sharing. So from this particular viewpoint, the Ford Foundation is a goodNGO. And Harvard University also is a good NGO. You have hundred
freedoms to employ different definitions. But before we argue about some

truths, or some fundamental reality, before we go into that kind of discussion,
we had better make it clear what we are talking about. I do not think myview of NGO and NPO is the only possible definition. But to the extent I
know of, it is a relatively, widely accepted definition. Probably owing much toLeis Desi who did the comparative study of formal 20 countries. And, when it
comes to views and opinions over any issues there is going to be a wide
discrepancy.
Regarding the last question, whether or not the gap between the poor andthe rich is widening or we are very wrong, you may recall the recent fierce
argument over the book titled, ‘Skeptical environmentalist’ by Bjorn
Lombourg. He is arguing there is no such thing as increasing divide between
rich and poor. And global warming is not too significant an issue comparedwith other issues like water, poverty alleviation and so on. So, these are, tomy mind, more to the where the definition, and methodology you are going toemploy. So, if we try to answer it, to a question using the big word like civilsociety, sustainable development, or human rights, or global warming, or
whatever you name, you are creating a difficult situation and not reallytrying to analyze and solve the situation. To remind you, that is myprejudiced opinion, and you don’t have to agree with me.
Comment 5
I saw a couple of good comments, one is on corporate governance, an issue
the gentleman raised. I would say if it is a membership-based organization,and the way you will recruit members is important in corporate governanceand transparency. The way the issue and the NGO are called into order,
sometimes its too hard and model many kinds of organizations in a society.
Then funding. What is the most important element, most difficult in manycases? Mr. Bertucci has made a point. The accountability in terms of that anddecision-making, could it afford government assistance, what time difference
it has, increasingly voluntarism is missing. To my mind, there is too muchlegitimacy of these organizations, which comes from the genuine voluntaryparticipation. Not that there has to be additional workers, there has to be
more work to help student professional to be hired. But the sense of it must
be voluntary. I am particularly disturbed that across the world, and in India
too, this element is not only regarded as important. In fact, many NGOs arehorrified when they hear common sense that one accusing is not as brilliant.

As I said, mine is to introduce to you the current context of what I think isnecessary. And finally, the gap between the rich and the poor, well I suppose
the economist conflict right of data it is for certain. The bottom line is goingup, the rich mouths are now better. And the poorest people today definitely
are better than what they were earlier. Perhaps the richest people are great
further, but I will say, as long as you establish a certain humane, reasonable,and realistic bench mark, and if your ambition is to see that most people
cross the plain, that does not answer this fractural arrangement, not a
perfect one. But who says we live in a perfect world?
Comment 6
My experience in my country is that not every NGO have good governance.
There are some concepts where there is just one annual report or little report.
But the concept of accountability is still to be heard renewing in my country.
And we do not have like people watch some act to what people do to make themechanism work. That is worldwide troubles in mechanism to deal withNGO.
Comment 7
I share with the others the mature problem, and I think that is also thereason why this new CSO came into the picture. It probably captures some ofthe differences, although the definition would be, so in my state, I go for
non-state organizations, or secret society organizations, because it can bowl
better. Now I would like to look up on the accountability issue. NGOs havebeen criticized a lot about not being elected and so they don’t have the rightto remain the way government will demand for its citizens. I think it’s in away, representation is an impossible issue and NGOs would be mistakenwith particular issues. I think that what’s important is to emphasize thatNGOs and other similar organizations represent diversity and society. And
they don’t need to worry about representation and such, the key thing is
initiative and participation, and we cannot claim to be represented like theway politicians are. I think more and more demolysis not so much about only
representation, but it’s really about deliberating different platforms. And
getting as many status as possible where citizens can deliberate the issues
and concerns that tend to do with human welfare. That representation to be
in on with tax paying in order to participate, and either tend to be an electedoppression or it may have a constituency as such. Because I believe inconstituency when somebody likes to agree with this guy, or yes somebody
who stands at without an organization can say his piece, and there are amillion people who identifies with that idea, but this is the consistency ofthat idea, but he was not elected, but it was the idea around which people
identified with.
Comment 8
What was mentioned in the initial presentation, I would say the issue of therule of law is an important issue as much as if we look at some of thepartners or actors regarding governance. Government is very clear of rules
for alteration. Private sector does, although we have problems in corporate
governance. We are living with more book reading/rigging or elephant, butthey are very clear of corporations, there are public corporations, there arelimited corporations, and there are specific legal and regulatory regimes.
When it comes to NGOs, there isn’t any such thing. So, obviously when it
comes to advocacy, that’s another step. Advocacy, anybody can stand up, butwhen you create certain mechanisms for participation, obviously you havevery clear rules of the game and have very specific legal or regulatory
framework within which the NGO can fit so that they can participate either
in decision-making, because if you invite, for example to a city council
meeting, local city government meeting, NGOs, you invite an NGO which isrepresenting one person only. Obviously it doesn’t necessary contribute tosaying way. When you are given a contract to an NGO you want to assurethat NGO is non-profit etc, so I think it is still, they are still wild animals
which need to be domesticated or the opposite. The final issue of thisinequality in the meeting last year with Mr. Gidden, and somehow I think heis under expressed himself as Mr. Suraka mentioned. There is the base lineof improvement, so let’s say the standard of living of the average individual,
even in the early days, is improving, but compared, the gap has widened.
This means the statistics from the World Bank have confirmed, I cannot
quote now exactly, that 95% of the population earns 5% of the resources, butthe top 5% earns the 95%, so I think in relative terms, the gap has widened.
Comment 9I think Mr. Bertucci is the number of very good teachers. First of all asregarding the widening gap, it was 1 for 30 taking the top 5 to 20% and thebottom 20%. The rate in 1960 was 1 to 30, it became 1 to 60 in 1990, andbecame 1 to 75 in 1998. That is the latest statistics that I have, but whether
the situation has improved since 1998 to 2002, I do not know. And the false,
we still have about 20% of the world’s population living under $1 a day. Now
whether the population of the world living under $2 a day is 50% somepeople say, 40% as other people say, it’s a matter of methodology and so on soforth, but it’s still a very very large and alarming proportion. I still thinkinequality’s far still more important in terms of governance than poverty
itself because inequality is translated into even more a symmetrical relationsof power. And therefore there is the ability of the top 10 % to control thepolitical process. We see examples of this around the world. I think that interms of NGOs that we were discussing, I think perhaps this is disguised inshawls, that rather than CVOs vs. NGOs vs. State vs. non state, etc, thetaxonomy should put more focus on what NGOs do, and advocacy isdefinitely one of the best things they could do. But the danger of NGOs being
co-opted by government and therefore coming, as easily representing civilsociety where in fact all they represent is, in fact another few governments
itself. That is the danger, and in some of the developing countries there isalso the danger of NGOs being co-opted by other international NGOs andtransnational corporations. And that is also known to have happened. So, thesituation is very muddy, but I ensure Mr. Narai and the tremendous
assessment, hope that we still depend of the NGOs to do things governments
cannot do. One final word, and that is, since we had Michael Deurise with us
last year in Athens, but he is not here today, we need to be reminded ofsomething that he wrote in his report. He said that we have this movementfrom government to governance, now we may be seeing a movement backfrom governance to government. But actually the concern expressed by Mr.
Bertucci in the last analysis that the bottom line is, somebody has to beaccountable. And the government, (which is elected hopefully but at least,can, within that with the responsibility can be pinned down) should be in fact
the last one to have to answer to the people.