An Assessment of Principal Regional Consultative Processes on ...

and encourage progress. They can then use reports at subsequent meetings to highlightwhich steps have been taken and which have not. In the absence <strong>of</strong> plans <strong>of</strong> action orsome other agreement to move forward regionally, bilaterally or nationally, it is difficultto ensure follow-up. Such and similar actions can play a very useful role in keeping thesubstance <strong>of</strong> RCPs on government agendas. They do not need to be heavy-handed orintrusive but rather gently to push the process forward. It is important that this occurs:respondents <strong>of</strong>ten expressed frustration with RCP meetings at which much enthusiasmand rhetorical commitment was on display but from which nothing followed. This isa point worth emphasizing: RCPs do not need to make commitments, but when theydo it is important that these commitments be respected or it risks calling the process’slegitimacy into question. Of course, in the absence <strong>of</strong> a reasonable degree <strong>of</strong> politicalbuy-in, such plans, statements, and reports will have little effect.Flowers on graves: letting RCPs dieRCPs are there to serve the interests <strong>of</strong> states and to fulfil functions that cannot befulfilled by international institutions or through multilateral treaties. When they nolonger serve state interests, or when those interests are picked up by other regionalbodies (to which the experience <strong>of</strong> RCPs is directly or indirectly passed), there isnothing wrong with bringing a process to a close. Such an ending by no means impliesfailure; on the contrary, it might imply that the RCP has done its job. <strong>An</strong> end to RCPsdealing with trafficking because trafficking ended would only be good news.In other cases, an RCP may simply be going nowhere. If there is inadequate funding,little interest and less direction from states, and if over a reasonable amount <strong>of</strong> time theRCP generates none <strong>of</strong> the impacts or outputs traditionally associated with RCPs, it isprobably in everyone’s interest to draw it to a close. In practice, this matter is best leftto the states; if none <strong>of</strong> them is prepared to provide the funding and no internationalentity steps in, then the RCP will effectively be finished. If, however, even an RCPthat does not appear to have a great deal <strong>of</strong> direction enjoys state support and funding,then it is clearly serving a useful purpose. Again, it is a matter for the states themselvesand their motivations will be varied. Like the trees <strong>of</strong> a Chinese proverb, some RCPsare worth keeping because they produce fruit; others simply look good in the garden.41