WSIS Implementation: Specificity, Challenges, and Follow-up

WSIS implementation and follow-up its specificity, its challengesCharles Geiger, UNCTADSpecial Adviser to the CSTDGeneva, May 2008

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 event. • To better understand WSIS implementation and follow-up, we have to go back to the history of the Summit. We need to understand the specificities of WSIS. There were three main specificities: A. The special content, B. the fact that ITU was the lead Agency, and C. the multi-stakeholder approach.

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”.

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.

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

B. The lead Agency (1) • In December 2001, in the UN General Assembly Resolution 56/183, the UNGA resolved 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. With regard to our theme of measuring the information society, I would just like to point out one consequence:

B. The lead Agency (2) • Very often, the diplomats dealing with WSIS were the same that dealt also with ITU matters. This influenced not only the setting of the WSIS-Agenda but also the outcome documents. • The approach was often more technical than development-oriented. Only few development Agencies remained active in the WSIS process. The outcome documents assume that ICTs have an incidence on poverty reduction and the MDGs, but the outcome documents lack a conceptual framework how ICTs influence development and poverty reduction.

C. The multi-stakeholder approach • 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”).

Outcome of the Geneva Summit:Geneva Declaration and Plan of Action • The Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Geneva Plan of Action are structured along 11 Action Lines. • The Plan of Action contains, besides the 11 Action Lines in Chapter C, 10 connectivity targets, and the Action Line C7 on ICT-applications is subdivided into 7 sub-Action Lines. • The Geneva Agenda refers in several paras to the MDGs (most importantly in para 2 the Declaration). The Geneva Plan of Action (para 28) calls for a realistic international performance evaluation and benchmarking through comparable statistical indicators and research results.

Outcome of the Tunis Summit:Tunis Commitment & Tunis Agenda • The Tunis Commitment contains mainly a reaffirmation of the commitments from Geneva. • The Tunis Agenda for the information society has 4 chapters: Introduction, Financial Mechanisms for Meeting the Challenges of ICT for Development, Internet Governance, Implementation and follow-up. • In the following slides, we touch mainly on the last chapter.

Outcome of the Tunis Summit: Multi-stakeholder Implementation • As a direct consequence of the WSIS multi-stakeholder approach , in the Tunis Agenda, Governments agreed that WSIS-implementation should also be a 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:

Implementation at national level Governments are encouraged to set up national implementation mechanisms, with the participation of all stakeholders. National e-strategies, 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.

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.

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.

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 at the international level. CSTD is only in charge of follow-up.

Other outcomes of the Tunis Summit: The Internet Governance Forum • Internet Governance was a core theme of the Tunis Summit. As time was not ripe for any solution, Governments agreed to ask the UN SG to convene an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. • Similar to Action Line Facilitation, this forum is informal, cannot take decisions, and is open to all stakeholders. IGF had two successful meetings in Athens in 2006 and in Rio in 2007 with each more than 1400 participants.

Other outcomes of the Tunis Summit:The UN Group on the Information Society • UNGIS is a 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. The meetings are closed meetings, like the CEB meetings.

Other outcomes of the Tunis Summit: Measuring the Information Society • The Tunis Agenda calls for appropriate indicators and benchmarking, including connectivity indicators, to clarify the magnitude of the digital divide, both its domestic and international dimensions, and to keep it under regular assessment, and track global progress in the use of ICTs to achieve the MDGs. (para 113 of the Tunis Agenda) • The Agenda also noted the launch of the Partnership for measuring ICT for development, and its efforts: a) to develop a common set of core indicatorsb) to promote capacity buildingc) tp assess the current and potential impact of ICTs on development, poverty reductiond) to develop specific gender-disaggregated indicators to measure the digital divide in its various dimensions (para 114 of the Tunis Agenda) • The Partnership is one of the most successful cases of interagency (& others) coordination that have ever existed.

Other outcomes of the Tunis Summit: Follow-up by ECOSOC and the CSTD • The Tunis Agenda (para 105) requests ECOSOC to oversee the system-wide follow-up of the Geneva and Tunis outcomes of WSIS and to review the mandate, agenda and composition of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD). • ECOSOC decided to carry out its responsibilities for overseeing the system-wide follow-up to the Summit outcomesin 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.

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…. »

WSIS follow-up: Challenges of CSTD (1) • WSIS was a “Summit on opportunities”. Result: many targets, 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.

WSIS follow-up: Challenges of CSTD (2) • While the 10 targets in chapter B are partly quantified, the more than 160 recommendations and commitments in chapter C (Action Lines) are not quantified and sometimes not quantifiable. They do not have benchmarks 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.

WSIS follow-up: Challenges of CSTD (3) • CSTD has to rely on Action Line Facilitators to make a first assessment of the implementation of the respective Action Line by all stakeholders. In the 2007 ECOSOC Resolution on the flow of information, Action Line Facilitators were asked to report on implementation by all stakeholders. This did not work, the UN Agencies reported only what they were doing. • MDGs: As I said before, there is an assumption that ICTs can help to better and faster reach the MDGs. But this assumption is not based on a conceptual framework. And this is exactly where I see the challenges for your Partnership:

Challenges for the Partnership (1) • We observe that ICTs have certain effects like: - possibility of people’s mobilization (example Philippines). Remember: 3.3 billion cellphones!- Example Bhoomi system, Karnataka: Electronic land registers allow for easier buy, sale and mortgage of land = increase economic opportunities- Example Akshaya in Kerala: Decentralized planning allows for transparency, accountability and curbing corruption = increased polictical participation- Example e-choupals: Possibility to know commodity prices increases income or farmers etc., but can also increase access to health information, distant education etc.

Challenges for the Partnership (2) • The partnership should decide to find ways and means to measure some of these effects, i.e. measuring the impact of ICTs: Some attempts have been made regarding economic impact, but very few studies were undertaken regarding social impact, and impact on increased political participation, on health, on education, on security issues etc.. • Why is this so important? As Deepa Narayan mentions in her book “Measuring empowerment”, edited by the World Bank, “if empowerment cannot be measured, it will not be taken seriously”. Similarly, if we cannot measure the economic, social and political impact of the ICTs on poverty reduction and human and social development, , Governments and bilateral and multilateral donors will not take ICT4D seriously.

Challenges for the Partnership (3) What are the difficulties: • Need of a conceptual framework, which is not in the Summit outcome documents. • In my personal view, a useful conceptual framework is in the World Development Report 2000/2001, “Attacking poverty”, which was published practically at the same time as the Millennium Summit outcome documents. • The basic assumptions of “Attacking poverty” is that poor people lack empowerment, opportunities and security. The Report was based on more than 50’000 interviews with poor people (“Voices of the poor”). Increasing empowerment, opportunities and security is the way out of poverty.

Challenges for the partnership (4) • Increased political participation (empowerment) or increased opportunities and security is often difficult to measure, in some cases, it can only be observed in action. • It may be necessary to use soft data and participatory methodologies, • There is a need for a mix of quantitative and qualitative data. • But: No need for worldwide data, but some striking examples should be measured (start small).

Thank you for your attention

WSIS Implementation: Specificity, Challenges, and Follow-up