The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) its specificity, its challenges

Transcription

1 The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) its specificity, its challenges Charles Geiger Special Adviser to the CSTD (Former Executive Director WSIS) Geneva, May 2008

2 The WSIS Geneva Summit (Geneva, December 2003) More than participants,, 4590 from Governments, 174 States, with 44 Heads of State or Government 100 UN and International Organizations with 1192 participants representatives from 481 civil society entities 514 representatives from 98 business entities 979 media representatives from 631 media entities More than 300 Parallel events,, and m2 Exhibition space (ICT4D-exhibition in Hall 4 of Geneva PalExpo

3 The Geneva Summit outcomes Geneva Declaration of Principles Para 1: We, the representatives of the peoples of the world, assembled in Geneva from December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Geneva Plan of Action Content: 10 objectives, goals and targets, 11 Action lines (17 with the Sub-Action Lines in chapter 7)

4 The WSIS Tunis Summit (Tunis, November 2005) participants,, out of which 5857 from Government 174 States, with 50 Heads of State or Government 92 UN and International Organizations with 1508 delegates 6241 representatives from 606 civil society entities 4816 representatives from 226 business entities 979 media representatives from 6426 media entities 306 Parallel events,, and m2 of exhibition space (ICT4All-exhibition)

5 WSIS Tunis Summit Outcomes The Tunis Commitment The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society Content: - Introduction - Financial Mechanisms for meeting the challenges of ICT for development - Internet Governance - Implementation and follow-up All documents of phase 1 and 2 are available at

6 WSIS, a successful UN Summit Of the 12 UN Summits that were held up to now, WSIS is considered to be among the most successful ones. WSIS has opened also the door more than any other UN Summit before for civil society and business entities, it was a true multi-stakeholder Summit. There were a certain number of specificities that made WSIS so successful. Let us look at some of them now:

7 A. The special content (1) Previous UN Summits dealt mostly with a specific problem that had to be solved (gender, sustainable development, population etc.). WSIS dealt with the future,, with the coming Information Society. Some say it was the first Summit of the 21st century. In the words of Kofi Annan: WSIS is a Summit of opportunities.

8 A. The special content (2) When you deal with a problem, you try to solve it by negotiating the core concerns, and you try to keep these core concerns as restricted as possible, (e.g. in the case of carbon emissions, you basically try to negotiate a percentage and a time frame). When you deal with opportunities, you can accept dozens of proposals, recommendations and commitments. As a result, the Geneva Declaration has ten targets, and more than 160 recommendations and commitments.

9 A. The special content (3) By doing so, you can make everybody happy, but it is difficult to follow up on so many targets, recommendations and commitments. And it is impossible to negotiate for every recommendation and commitment who should take the lead, who should be in charge, and what the indicators and the benchmarks could be. This is one of the weaknesses of the adopted texts and one of the difficulties in follow-up of WSIS (we come to this later)

10 B. The lead Agency (1) The idea of WSIS was brought up for the first time by Tunisia at the Plenipotentiary Conference of the ITU at Minneapolis, in The original proposal from Tunisia was a World Conference on the challenges of the new Information Technologies, the globalization and the deregulation.

11 B. The Lead Agency (2) When Tunisia and Switzerland, the two host countries, brought the initiative to the UN General Assembly in December 2001, the General Assembly, in Resolution 56/183 stated that the meeting should address the whole range of relevant issues related to the information society, through the development of a common vision and understanding of the information society and the adoption of a declaration and plan of action for implementation by Governments, international institutions and allsectors of civil society. With this, WSIS had shifted from a more technically oriented Summit to a Summit with a large social and development component.

12 B. The lead Agency (3) Nevertheless, the UN General Assembly decided also that the Summit is to be convened under the patronage of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, with the International Telecommunication Union taking the lead role in its preparation, in cooperation with interested United Nations bodies and other international organizations as well as the host countries, WSIS was the first UN System Summit to be organized by a Specialised Agency. That ITU was to take the lead in the organization of the Summit had a number of consequences. In the following two slides, I would like just to cite the most important ones:

13 B. The lead Agency (4) The Summit became a Geneva-centred undertaking. Advantage: Good collaboration with the UN Agencies based in Europe, like UNESCO and the FAO. Disadvantage: WSIS was not on the Radar screen in New York. Agencies and programs based in NY (e.g. UNDP) did not really get involved in WSIS. The same is true for the World Bank. ITU as an organization is much older than the United Nations and has always had a strong collaboration with the private sector. Therefore, the first foundations for a multi-stakeholder Summit were already laid.

14 B. The lead Agency (5) Very often, the diplomats dealing with WSIS were the same that dealt also with ITU matters. This influenced the setting of the WSIS-Agenda. Advantage: from the beginning, the negotiations were less politicised, and it was easier to find compromise solutions. This has definitively contributed to the good Summit outcomes. Disadvantage: The social and development policy components of WSIS got less attention. The approach was often more technical than development-oriented. oriented. Only few bilateral development Agencies participated finally in WSIS.

15 C. The multi-stakeholder approach (1) During the Agenda setting process of WSIS, Governments had to realize that WSIS touched on several matters where Governments were not the first and not the main stakeholder. The other stakeholders of the Information Society needed to be involved in the process, without changing the character of a UN Summit as an intergovernmental undertaking. Governments had to agree on practical solutions to involve the observers in the drafting process, without changing the standard rules of procedures for UN Summits (these practical solutions were called the WSIS practice ).

16 C. The multi-stakeholder approach (2) WSIS was the first Summit to develop a real multi-stakeholder approach. This was facilitated by several important elements: - ITU had already experience with business participation. - Both PrepCom-Presidents Presidents (Mr. Adama Samassékou from Mali and Ambassador Janis Karklins from Latvia) were elected for the entire duration of the preparatory process of each phase and strongly supported a multi- stakeholder approach. - Governments agreed to the necessity of participation from civil society and academia, major stakeholder especially in Internet Governance questions.

17 C. The multi-stakeholder approach (3) - Bureau members were elected for the whole phase, there was no rotation, and Bureau members, after initial hesitation, supported the multi-stakeholder approach. - Civil society organized itself through the Civil Society Bureau (CSB), and business through the Consultative Committee of Business Interlocutors (CCBI). Both entities became respected partners in the process. - Due to the fact that the WSIS process had a duration of 2 phases (four years), trust was built up among Governments and between Government delegations and the representatives of civil society and business. This was the single most important success factor for WSIS.

18 From the Tunis Agenda: Multi-stakeholder Implementation In the Tunis Agenda, Governments agreed that WSIS-implementation is multi-stakeholder effort: Implementation is to take place at national, regional and international level, and by Governments, international organizations, civil society and business. Let us look now at national, regional and international level separately:

19 Implementation at national level (1) Here the full text of the Tunis Agenda regarding national implementation At the national level,, based on the WSIS outcomes, we encourage governments, with the participation of all stakeholders and bearing in mind the importance of an enabling environment, to set up a national implementation mechanism, in which: a) National e-strategies, e where appropriate, should be an integral part of national development plans, including Poverty Reduction Strategies, aiming to contribute to the achievement of internationally agreed development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals.

20 Implementation at national level (2) Para 100 ff: b) ICTs should be fully mainstreamed into strategies for Official Development Assistance (ODA) through more effective information-sharing and coordination among development partners, and through analysis and sharing of best practices and lessons learned from experience with ICT for development programmes. c) Existing bilateral and multilateral technical assistance programmes, including those under the UN Development Assistance Framework, should be used whenever appropriate to assist governments in their implementation efforts at the national level. d) Common Country Assessment reports should contain a component on ICT for development.

21 Implementation at regional level Upon request of governments, regional international organizations and UN regional economic commissions should carry out WSIS- implementation activities in collaboration with all stakeholders Overall focus on the use of ICT for development and for reaching the MDGs Regional level can also include sub-regional coordination

22 Implementation an international level (1) UN funds, programs and agencies should act within approved mandates and resources. Implementation should take place along the 17 Action lines defined in the Geneva Plan of Action and the tasks defined in the Tunis Agenda. Implementation should include intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder components, i.e. should encompass Governments, International organizations, civil society and business. Overall review of WSIS implementation in 2015 by the UN General Assembly

23 Implementation at international level (2) Governments decided on a process of multi- stakeholder facilitation/moderation by UN Agencies along the Action Lines defined in the Geneva Plan of Action, to exchange of information, create knowledge, share best practices and assist in the development of multi-stakeholder partnerships. ITU, UNESCO and UNDP should lead the Action Line Facilitation process Negotiation result of Tunis: There is no Agency, Commission or new entity in charge of the multi-stakeholder implementation of WSIS

24 Implementation at international level (3) A tentative list of possible Action Line Facilitators/moderators was annexed to the Tunis Agenda. Consequence of the multi-stakeholder approach at International level: Action Line Facilitation meetings are informal meetings. No decisions can be taken. They are open to all stakeholders. As there is no WSIS-accreditation process anymore, they are, in all logic, open to the general public (this is actual practice).

25 Implementation at international level (4) Action Line Facilitation: Lead facilitators as of 2007: ITU for Action Lines C2 Information and communication infrastructure e and C5 Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs UNESCO for Action Lines C3 Access to information and knowledge, C7 sub-theme e-learning, e C7 sub-theme e-science, e C8 Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content, C9 Media and C10 C Ethical dimensions of the Information Society UNDP for C4 Capacity building and C6 Enabling environment UN-DESA for C1 The role of public governance authorities and all stakeholders in the promotion of ICTs for development, C7 sub-theme e- e government and C11 International and regional cooperation UNCTAD for C7 sub-theme e-businesse ILO for C7 sub-theme e-employmente employment WHO for C7 sub-theme e-healthe WMO for C7 sub-theme e-environmente environment FAO for C7 sub-theme e-agriculturee

26 The special case of Internet Governance (1) The Internet is today the backbone of the Information Society. Governments started to realize during WSIS that the Internet has developed outside the Government realm. Therefore, Internet Governance became the key issue for the Tunis phase of the Summit, despite the original idea that the Tunis phase would rather deal with ICT4D and poverty reduction issues

27 The special case of Internet Governance (2) Time was not ripe to find a solution to the question of Internet Governance, as this is a very complex issue involving many stakeholders, including academia. Governments decided therefore to apply the same idea of the informal multistakeholder facilitation also to Internet Governance and asked the UNSG to create a Internet Governance Forum.. This forum has very successfully held two meetings, in Athens in 2006 and in Rio in 2007, each with more than one thousand participants from Government, civil society, business and IOs.

28 The special case of Internet Governance (3) The experience of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is exciting, because you can somehow feel the emergence of a new governance model, where Governments, International Organizations, civil society and business sit together around a table and discuss important issues. But at present, the IGF is informal, and cannot take any commitments or make recommen- dations.. The difficulties will start when this informal model should become more formalized. Would a more formal collaboration still be multi- stakeholder? Or, in other words, will the multi- stakeholder process be able to take the hurdle of formalization?

29 The special case of UNGIS: Implementation by UN-Agencies and Programs UNGIS is a new sub-entity within the Chief Executives Board for coordination (CEB) of the UN. Main task is facilitation (read: coordination) of implementation of WSIS outcomes by the different UN Agencies. UNGIS is not a multi-stakeholder body and does not deal with Action Line Facilitation. It is a formal body. UNGIS was launched by the UNSG Mr. Kofi Annan and met for the first time in July UN funds, programs and agencies work under rotating chairmanship of ITU and UNESCO (UNDP has withdrawn). The Group should enable synergies aimed at resolving substantive and policy issues, avoiding redundancies and enhancing effectiveness of the system while raising public awareness about the goals and objectives of the global Information Society. Links between UNGIS and other coordination efforts like One UN have not been established up to now.

30 WSIS-follow follow-up: ECOSOC through CSTD ECOSOC decided to carry out its responsibilities for overseeing the system-wide follow-up to the Summit outcomes in the context of its annual consideration of the integrated and coordinated implementation and follow-up to all the major United Nations conferences. ECOSOC decided further that the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) shall effectively assist the Council as the focal point in the system-wide follow-up of WSIS. The Commission should be strengthened in its substantive capacity through the effective and meaningful participation of Member States in its work,, as well as enlarged by the inclusion of 10 new members While preserving the inter-governmental nature of the Commission, ECOSOC decided that CSTD should make use of the successful multi-stakeholder approach that was pioneered by WSIS

31 WSIS follow-up: Tasks of CSTD Tasks of CSTD in relation to the WSIS follow-up (a) Review and assess progress at the international and regional levels in the implementation of action lines,, recommendations and commitments contained in the outcome documents of the Summit; including the set of connectivity targets of the Geneva Plan of Action, to be reached by 2015 (b) Share best and effective practices and lessons learned and identify obstacles and constraints encountered, actions and initiatives to overcome them and important measures for further implementation of the Summit outcomes; c) Promote dialogue and foster partnerships, in coordination with other appropriate United Nations funds, programs and specialized agencies, to contribute to the attainment of the Summit objectives and the implementation of its outcomes.»

32 WSIS follow-up: Challenges of CSTD (1) WSIS was a Summit on opportunities. Result: many recommendations and commitments in numerous Action Lines The WSIS outcome documents are not scientific documents, they are the result of a negotiation, and therefore have overlaps and gaps. In the Geneva Plan of Action, Chapter B with the targets and Chapter C with the Action Lines were developed at different times and are not directly linked to each other. The Tunis documents contain additional themes: Financial mechanisms, Internet Governance and the theme of measuring the Information Society, which enter also into the WSIS follow-up.

33 WSIS follow-up: Challenges of CSTD (2) While the targets in chapter B are quantified, most recommendations and commitments in chapter C (Action Lines) are not quantified and sometimes not to quantifiable. Also, the recommendations and commitments do usually not specify who would be the main protagonist, and have no time frame. The sheer number of recommendations and commitments makes it very difficult to measure progress in implementation. There are so many actors, at national, regional and international level, and innumerable actions and programs. Even if the WSIS follow-up of CSTD is limited to regional and international implementation, it is a daunting task.

34 WSIS follow-up: Challenges of CSTD (3) There are also institutional challenges for the CSTD: - Time constraints: the CSTD meets only 5 days per year - Budget constraints: The CSTD-budget was not increased - A mix of traditional and new issues: WSIS follow-up is an additional task, the CSTD has important other tasks in the field of Science and Technology for development (think e.g. in the field of Agriculture, especially now with the new food crisis. We are still quite far away of a systemwide coherent approach of ICTs for development in the UN System, and CSTD has no mandate for coordination, only UNGIS.

35 New content challenges Digital divide is becoming a broadband divide Inequality in access costs (high interconnection costs from the South) Improvements necessary on the fiber- optic network mobile phones play a much bigger role than what we thought in the WSIS process Privacy issues will become important

36 Multi-stakeholder policy discussion space: The Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID) In April 2006 the launch of a Global Alliance for Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and Development was approved by the UNSG The mission of the Global Alliance for ICT and Development is to facilitate and promote the use of ICT in attainment of internationally agreed development goals by providing a platform for an open, inclusive, multi-stakeholder cross- sectoral policy dialogue on the role of information and communication technology in development. It will thus contribute to linking the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society with the broader United Nations development agenda.

37 Global Alliance (GAID) (2) In July 2006 the participants in the GAID Kuala Lumpur Inaugural Meeting agreed on a number of approaches and decided that the focus should be on the following key priority areas that are considered most relevant: Education; Health; Entrepreneurship; Participation in policy debate and decision making (governance). GAID organized several events in the past 24 months, which were well attended by all stakeholders. Some events were even organized at UN Headquarters in NY, one in Silicon Valley. The Chairman of GAID is the former CEO of Intel, Craig R. Barrett Next GAID event: Steering Committee meeting in the third week of May in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

38 Thank you for your attention