http://funredes.org/mistica

MISTICA: CMSI: Modalidades participacion Sociedad civil

From: Daniel Pimienta ([email protected])
Date: Wed Feb 26 2003 - 05:20:25 AST

He encontrado este informe en ingl�s bastante informativo y sint�tico
de la actual din�mica de participaci�n de la sociedad civil.
Como veran hay progresos pero no los suficientes, y toda esta energia
gastada en arreglar procedimientos se hace al detrimento del tratamiento
de los contenidos. El peque�o grupo latinoamericano presente y constituido
en Caucus regional esta tratando de mantener activos los dos frentes:
- presiones hacia los gobiernos de nuestra regi�n (Grulac) para que dejan
espacios de participaci�n a la sociedad civil en sus reuniones;
- trabajo sobre contenidos (por ejemplo, el tratar de rescatar lo que
se considera prioritario de la declaraci�n de B�varo y complementar
con lo que se considera prioritario).

Creenme que tiene muchos meritos este grupo porque eso implica una agenda
de trabajo sin pausa... y demasiado veces se debe sacrificar la participaci�n
en reuni�nes plenarias para poder avanzar. Digo eso porque me siento
un poco culpable de haber llegado tarde a esta reuni�n y dejarl@s sol@s
frente a esta tarea de interes regional.

>From: Rik Panganiban <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [wsis-prep1] Report on Civil Society Participation at WSIS
>
>Interim Report on Modalities for Civil Society
>Participation at the World Summit on the Information
>Society Preparatory Process
>February 25, 2003
>by Rik Panganiban, World Federalist Movement
>email <[email protected]>
EXTRACTS:

>CURRENT MODALITIES OF CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION
>There are, like in most United Nations preparatory
>committees, several different kinds of actors present:
>the government representatives, of course, NGO
>representatives, private sector / business
>representatives, and representatives of
>inter-governmental organizations, including UNESCO,
>WHO, Council of Europe and the European Union. The
>official list of participants reports 662
>representatives of non-governmental organizations
>accredited to the Prepcom II.
>The modalities of participation for civil society are
>a mixed bag, which I will try and describe here.
>
>CIVIL SOCIETY BUREAU
>As a result of meetings between the secretariat staff
>of the WSIS, the Conference of NGOs and other civil
>society representatives in between Prepcom I and II,
>the idea of a �civil society bureau� to work in
>conjunction with the government bureau was developed.
>For the NGOs, the "civil society bureau" is to
>interact with the government bureau and the WSIS
>secretariat on matters of procedure, such as NGO
>participation, speaking rights, access to meetings,
>etc. The bureau is not supposed to deal with matters
>of substance, although there is inevitably some
>overlap with other content groups.
> The bureau is composed of various "families" of civil
>society including regional groups, sectoral groups,
>and thematic groups. There are about 25, including
>for example the gender caucus, the youth caucus, the
>West Asian group, ICT governance, media, the disabled
>/ handicapped, parliamentarians, and local
>authorities. Each family elected or selected a
>representative who serves on the bureau.
> At the time of the introduction of the concept of the
>civil society bureau to NGOs on the first days of
>Prepcom II, there was significant concerns, fears and
>confusion in general about the bureau. However now
>in its second week of operation, it seems for the
>moment to be an acceptable body to channel the
>concerns of NGOs to the governments related to
>participation and other procedural matters.
> There will certainly be more feedback, discussions
>and potential modifications to the bureau structure
>between Prepcom II and III.
>
>OPEN AND CLOSED MEETINGS
>The meetings of the government bureau is open to
>participation by the civil society bureau. This in
>itself is a significant innovation.
> The plenary and subcommittee meetings have been open
>to observers. There have been a few opportunities for
>various non-state actors to make brief interventions.
> The working group sessions are closed, except for a
>short meeting in the morning, where the chair of the
>working group gives a 15 minute report on what was
>achieved in the previous day, followed by a total of
>30 minutes of responses from civil society, the
>private sector and inter-governmental organizations.
> NGOs and private sectors groups are appealling the
>decision of governments to close the working group
>meetings and may get them opened to a few observers to
>observe but not participate.
>
>THE OBSERVERS WORKING GROUP
>Parallel to the government's working group, which is
>drafting text for the summit, is an "observers working
>group" composed of everyone who is not a government.
>So it is private sector, IGO and NGO reps all in the
>same meeting room, discussing the items before the
>governments in a different meeting room at the same
>time. Ideally the observers working group would draft
>consensus texts which would feed into the the
>government process. Realistically it isn't clear if
>this is even feasible given the differing interests of
>the various groups involved. But the concept is an
>interesting one, at least.
>
>MULTISTAKEHOLDER DIALOGUES
>There were also multi-stakeholder dialogues the entire
>first week. They were on focused topics related to
>the WSIS agenda, chaired by government
>representatives, with participation by IGOs, private
>sector and NGOs. These were all selected ahead of
>time, and many of the NGOs were not participants in
>any of the main NGO plenaries or other bodies. There
>was a brief time for open discussion at the end of
>each session.
> It was the right idea, in my opinion. There were
>no name plates, no priority given to anyone over
>anyone else. But the content in general was in the
>opinion of many participants a bit weak, particularly
>on the non-trade related issues.
>
>LONGER TERM IMPLICATIONS
>Whether or not these processes of civil society
>participation will set a new standard for our
>participation in UN summits and other conferences is
>unclear. There are definitely interesting innovations
>such as the civil society bureau that should be
>studied and critiqued within the larger context of
>civil society�s role in inter-governmental
>negotiations. However, there are those who feel that
>�exiling� NGOs to a parallel �observers working group�
>and leaving only 10 minutes for official NGO input
>each day is too limiting and controlling a structure
>for channeling civil society input. This seems to be a
>far cry from a real multi-stakeholder dialogue and
>contrary to the emerging �new diplomacy� of
>government-civil society-IGO partnerships.

Este archivo fue generado por hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Mar 08 2004 - 12:18:16 AST