Monitoring as a feature of democratic multistakeholder processes' A framework to design and monitor

1
Monitoring as a feature of democratic
multi-stakeholder processes.A framework to
(design and) monitor post-WSIS and IGF

• Claudia Padovani
• University of Padova
• claudia.padovani_at_unipd.it

2
Setting the context

• Multi-stakeholder processes as a step in the
  complex process of democratizing global
  governance
• Democratic emancipation as an open-ended
  process (Patomaki 2003)
• Effective governance as a set of steering
  mechanisms that achieve not only efficiency and
  order but also public participation and public
  accountability (Scholte 2002)
• Participation serves three important democratic
  values legitimacy, justice and the effectiveness
  of public action (Fung 2005)

3
Setting the context

• The international management of the Internet
  should be multilateral, transparent and
  democratic (Tunis Agenda par. 29)
• Three relevant dimensions
• WHO participate - different levels of inclusion
• HOW participants interact - different levels of
  intensity
• WHAT is the connection between discussion and
  action - different degrees of authority

4
The democracy cube

• The three dimensions combined allow different
  balances between legitimacy, justice and
  effectiveness (Fung 2005)

5

• To assess the potential for democratic
  emancipation in participatory processes
• need for a specific focus on legal arrangements
  and practice concerning participation
• need for specific assessment tools

6
Building on former experiences(in environmental
policy, WSSD)

• Operational definitions of MSPs and their
  features
• Framework for design and assessment of MSPs
• Monitoring frameworks specifically oriented to
  assessing access principles

7
Why monitoring MSPs

• help in the overall design of the MSPs
• assess consistency between participatory
  objectives and results
• enhance understanding and awareness of the
  process (learning approach)
• develop mechanisms for a refocusing of the
  process or aspects of it, in order to improve
  public participation systems
• publicize results and obtain support.
• raise public awareness of opportunities to obtain
  information, participate in decision, and seek
  remedy
• build a broad movement among the public for
  improved access to information, participation and
  justice in policy making
• (elab from Accessing Access to Information,
  Participation and Justice for the Environment a
  Guide, TAI 2003)

8
Monitoring from early stages

• make arrangements to organize and collect
  adequate data through which the monitoring should
  be conducted
• devote sufficient resources (people, time, money)
  to the monitoring
• contribute to a better articulation of the
  overall project, identifying critical aspects on
  which on-going collection of information is useful

9
Assessing MSPs in IC governancea (draft)
framework for post-WSIS

• A general framework
• To be further elaborated on the basis of the
  Tunis Agenda
• To be adapted and applied in different
  situations assessment at national and
  international level, IGF
• To be applied to assess other participtory
  processes of relevance to IG

10
Assessing MSPs in IC governancea (draft)
framework for post-WSIS

• A) A set of general questions to assess (and/or
  design) different stages of an MSP, with
  reference to structural and procedural aspects,
  clustered according to the three dimensions of
  the democracy cube
• who participate,
• how they interact and
• what is the influence of their deliberation
• This should allow an overall assessment of MS
  processes.
• B) A set of specific indicators that allow to
  monitor and assess specific aspects relating to
  access to information, access to participation
  and capacity building (for an on-going monitoring
  and/or final assessment)

11
A) Assessing MSPs in general
12
B) Assessing access and capacity building

• The second part of the framework utilizes
  categories referring to access to information
  and participation and to capacity building
• Each category is divided in subcategories,
  considering both the legal framework (which
  provides support to access principles) and the
  practice that develop through processes
• For each subcategory a set of indicators allows
  to consider specific aspects.

13
B) Assessing access and capacity building
14
Access to information

• Different types of information should be
  identified and their accessibility monitored
• provisions for access to information (type 1),
• info concerning rules and procedures, conditions
  regarding accreditation (type 2),
• proceedings, minutes, reports from processes
  (type 3),
• documents, working papers, databases (type 4),
• facilities, communication channels (for
  manufacturing, processing, recycling allowing
  timely and accurate information to be
  available)(type 5)

15
An examplesubcategory 1.b and indicators
16
Access to participation

• Participation can be assessed keeping the
  democracy cube as a reference point, and
  adopting its three dimensions to define relevant
  subcategories
• who participate and the degree of inclusiveness
• opportunities to participate and intensity of
  interaction
• outcome and influence on other decision-making
  bodies and sites.
• If the process is structured around different
  bodies - such as secretariat, steering group or
  bureau, working groups, plenary sessions - then
  it would be possible to monitor each of them
  separately and then compare.

17
An examplesubcategory 2.c and indicators
18
Assess capacity building

• Capacity building should be assessed both in
  relation to participants in the process and in
  relation to the general public, and it should
  refer to appropriate and timely information,
  specific training activities, translations,
  support to disadvantaged groups.

19
An examplesubcategory 3.b and indicators
20
Monitoring post-WSIS and IGF

• Adopting a monitoring tool would allow to follow
  processes, events, institutional arrangements
• Identifying strengths and weaknesses,
• Evaluating the combination of who, how and what
  in terms of their effectiveness
• Assessing how legitimate and just they may be
  perceived by participants and the public
• A framework can also be used as a reference tool
  in the design of MSPs

21
Monitoring post-WSIS and IGF

• Furtheremore, a monitoring exercise would
  contribute to enhance the democratic potential of
  post-WSIS processes by
• keeping the momentum of civil society
  organizations and other stakeholders
  involvement and sustain trans-national
  cooperation in the post-WSIS phase
• offering a concrete tool for groups and
  associations in national contexts to be active
  and remain connected to the broader global
  mobilization while being effective as policy
  interlocutors at the national level
• giving incentives to governments who seem to be
  reluctant to commit to participatory
  decision-finding and decision-making
• to contribute in clarifying the potentialities
  and challenges of multi-stakeholder practices
  (basic values, pre-conditions, resources,
  learning processes).

22

• This is the rationale behind the MuSt
  initiative, launched in Tunis by the WSIS-CS
  working group on MSPs
• We welcome comments and cooperation from
  interested stakeholders in carrying this project
  forward.
• Thank you