The chaos and window for manipulation that
conflicting observer reports created in Zimbabwe in 2000 demonstrated the most
basic reason for coordination between groups. Today, annual Implementation
Meetings of the endorsers of the Declaration of Principles, as well as frequent
contact on an informal basis, help ensure that at least among the major
organizations there is little chance for serious discord. But with more than 40
groups now formally engaged in international observation, the most fraught
elections sometimes attract interest from a wide variety of groups.
Saturation is a concern when resources are
finite, and groups want to invest where they will not duplicate others’
efforts. Some, like OAS, ODIHR and EISA, generally maintain regional focuses
for historical and/or strategic reasons. Others select specific themes on which
to concentrate, especially for limited missions. But when groups do decide to
observe the same election, they generally communicate frequently and share
findings.
Two groups also may decide to conduct a joint mission where
complementary expertise and pooled resources would be an advantage. These offer
an opportunity for groups to strengthen ties and build further consensus on
methodology. Partners may issue joint or separate statements. A disadvantage of
a joint mission can be the additional effort necessary to designate staff roles
and harmonize the logistical operations of two organizations with different
regulations and/or financial capacity.
