“Active Democracy: Citizen Network for Summit Compliance on the Part of Governments”

1. “Active Democracy: Citizen Network for Summit Compliance on the Part of Governments” Follow-up strategy project for the Action Plans of Québec and Mar del Plata

2. 11-year plan: 1997- 2008 Achievements NGO networks in 24 countries Quebec consultations : 18 countries participated and 50% of proposals were included in official Summit documents Project included within OAS Presented in the following summits: Miami United States 1994 Santa Cruz Bolivia 1996 Santiago Chile 1998 Québec Canada 2001 Monterrey Mexico 2004 Mar del Plata Argentina 2005

3. GENERAL OBJECTIVE For civil society to monitor and follow-up the level of compliance with the mandates derived from the Summits of the Americas on the part of 24 American governments; additionally, to encourage civil society’s participation, impact and knowledge of these multilateral processes. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE Consolidate the capacity of civil society organizations (CSOs) to monitor Summit mandates. Establish collaborative alliances between CSOs and national governments to make progress in the implementation of mandates. Significantly increase the knowledge of the Summits of the Americas in the relevant countries Insist on the need for good quality dialogue in the institutional spaces for CSO participation in the OAS and Summits, at both the national and international levels.

4. “ACTIVE DEMOCRACY” STRATEGIES a) Evaluation of compliance with commitments in 24 countries and 4 themes: 1. Access to information 2. Freedom of expression 3. Strengthening of civil society participation 4. Local government and decentralization b) National government-civil society alliances c) Reporting and repercussion of results and proposals • WHAT ARE THE MANDATES DERIVED FROM THE SUMMITS? • General and permanent commitments. • They oblige governments to take constant action. • Actions that – within the framework of public policy – seek compliance with the objectives established at the Summits. • They prevent governments from going against these established objectives.

6. GOVERNMENT COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INDEX (GCEI) A VALIDATED METHODOLOGY

7. What is the Government Compliance Evaluation Index? It evaluates the level of implementation of the mandates derived from the Summits of the Americas. It creates the perception of a role of independent evaluators in four theme areas: • Access to information • Freedom of expression • Strengthening of civil society participation • Local government and decentralization Who evaluates? Theme experts Representatives of civil society organizations

8. Why are CSOs included? In order to strengthen the Network in its requests to governments to initiate processes and/or actions that advance the implementation of the commitments established in the general and permanent mandates. The CSOs will be associated to 8 areas of action: 1. Gender 2. The environment 3. Ehtnic groups 4. LGBTQ 5. Human rights 6. Poverty and community development 7. Labour rights 8. Childhood/adolescence

9. The scoring methodology, based on the judgement of a panel of experts, has been extensively validated. It has been used, among others, by: World Bank : CPIA – IDA exercise Switzerland’s IMD: component of its competitiveness index The Freedom House: “Nations in transit” exercise Economist Intelligence Unit. The Economist: Country Risk Service exercise All of the above are then used in the composite exercise of Transparency International

10. Theme areas and dimensions to assess

11. “Access to Information” Theme Area Proposed observed activities and dimensions

12. “Freedom of expression” theme area Proposed observed activities and dimensions

13. “Strengthening of civil society participation” theme area Proposed observed activities and dimensions

14. “Decentralization and local government” theme area Proposed observed activities and dimensions

15. Steps in the construction of the GCEI 2 Creation of the preliminary list of observable activities for the period 2006-2007 1 Creation of the National Investigation Team 3 Creation of Panels of Experts for each theme area 4 Observable activities are validated by the Panels of Experts. Creation of list 2 of observable activities. 7 List 3 (activities to be verified) is presented to the government official in charge of Summit follow-ups. Creation of the definite list of observable activities. 6 Validation (PARTICIPA) of the information collected on observable activities. Creation of list 3 of observable activities. 5 Collection of information on the activities listed in list 2 (validated by experts). 9 Creation of 4 CSO Panels, one for each theme area 10 Scoring of the activities by CSO Panels 8 Scoring of the activities by Panel of Experts. 12 Information is sent to the Hemispheric Coordination Team 13 National and Hemispheric Reports are created. 11 Information is systemized

16. Its members are persons and organizations from each country that are highly qualified and legitimate in the area in question. There are two types of evaluators: Academics, researchers and independent professionals that perform their evaluations individually. Institutions or CSOs that specialize in the issue being evaluated and perform their evaluations collectively within themselves. It contains a fair representation of the CSOs involved in the organizational network that sustain this project. It also contains a fair representation of the different concerns and approaches that are relevant to the issue in question. The number of panellists will vary, depending on the characteristics of each country. There should be at least 8 experts per area. This panel will be created by national teams. Panel of evaluators

17. The role of the evaluator Evaluators will weigh, in general, government compliance in each theme area. It is not the activities in themselves that will be evaluated (whether they are good or bad). What will be evaluated is how much the activities contribute to mandate compliance. The GCEI will have a score for each theme area and a general index for each country. The GCEI will rank each country against the other 23 in respect to mandate compliance.

18. SCORING OF ACTIVITIES

19. Methodological simplicity = transparency = legitimacy Strategies are coherent with available resources at the local and central government levels. It allows for comparative evaluation in the short and medium run. It allows for inter- and intra-national comparisons. It is a participative process within a network. It occupies a niche for public advocacy that has not been sufficiently explored: “do governments comply with their international obligations?” The analyzed evidence allows to construct arguments for civil society to demand accountability on the part on governments, and to construct alliances with them. Advantages of the Proposed Strategies

20. In terms of public advocacy, this evaluation design allows us to show when a country has undertaken more initiatives than the others in a given area. We can also identify countries that have been able to operationalize high-impact initiatives in specially complex areas, so we can use them as an example for the others. To sum it up, we can identify who has done much, who has done little, and who has done nothing to comply with their commitments. Thanks to this, we anticipate an important impact in the media, which will amplify messages that can not be ignored by governments. Advantages of the proposed strategies

21. Project timeline April 2007 – July 2008 National report 2007 2008 2009 Oct. Mar. Apr. Jun. Aug. Mar. Implementation of methodology steps OAS General Assembly Hemispheric report Summit in Trinidad and Tobago Compilation of the Government Compliance Evaluation Index (GCEI)