The Commission for Science and Technology for Development is one of a few UN bodies that coordinate the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) follow-up. The tenth session of the Commission was held from 21-25 May 2007 in Geneva, Switzerland. It focused on “the follow-up to the outcome of WSIS at the regional and international level, to identify achievements, gaps and challenges, as well as future action needed to further implementation”. APC was there, and submitted concrete proposals to ensure meaningful inclusion of voices of the people most impacted by the digital divide.
The Association for Progressive Communication’s input at the opening of the Tenth Session of the Commission for Science and Technology for Development
21 May 2007
Presented by Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director
The Commission for Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) has an important role in system-wide follow-up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). We support the concept of a multi-year programme that is implemented with the inclusion of multiple-stakeholders.
Coordination of WSIS follow which includes an enormous range of social and economic issues is not a trivial task and we want to urge the CSTD to consider the following suggestions:
On stakeholder participation:
We realise we are stating the obvious, but we want to remind those gathered here that meaningful inclusion of voices of the people most impacted by the digital divide requires more than multi-stakeholder panels in Geneva or New York. ECOSOC’s Resolution 2006/46 provides a basis for the development of a multi-stakeholder approach to WSIS follow-up. But, to build on this effectively, the CSTD needs to:
i) establish mechanisms for the inclusion of the perspectives of business and civil society in determining its programme of work, its deliberations and in the drafting of the recommendations that it submits to ECOSOC;
ii) undertake efforts to ensure that multi-stakeholder participation is integrated in WSIS follow up and implementation at the level of coordination of action lines, at the level of regional UN commissions and implementing of regional action plans, and at national level.
How can this be done? APC proposes that at the very least a multi-stakeholder advisory group is established to assist the CSTD chair and secretariat in designing its work programme, CSTD, and to help prepare for the annual and inter-sessional meetings on information society issues. The CSTD already benefits from inputs from thematic boards such as the Gender Advisory Board. The multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) that assisted the Internet Governance Forum secretariat in preparing for its first meeting in Athens in 2006 also serves as a useful precedent.
Other useful means of enhancing participation are devices such as online consultations (such as the one convened by the GAID in preparation for this week’s meetings), round tables, the IGF’s use of online tools to facilitate remote participation in face to face meetings, or one day thematic forums such as those being proposed by BASIS.
We also want to emphasise that civil society and business are diverse, and this diversity needs to be considered by mechanisms for participation.
On the CSTD’s programme of work:
APC supports the 5 proposed thematic areas to frame the CSTS’s programme of work. APC submits the following comments for consideration:
i) Prioritisation: The WSIS covered a very wide range of issues relevant to building a people-centred information society. APC is concerned that if a long list of activities, issues, and recommendations are presented to ECOSOC it is less likely that governments will pick up on them.
APC proposes that in addition the CSTD undertakes to work with UN agencies and other stakeholders involved in WSIS implementation to identify three to five priority areas.
ii) Measuring progress: We propose that the CSTD agrees on a few simple indicators that can be used to measure progress in addressing the priorities areas it identifies. For APC, physical infrastructure is one such key priority.
iii) On obstacles to implementation: Understanding obstacles to implementation of WSIS goals is essential if these obstacles are to be overcome. As the CSTD has an overarching role it is best placed to do this, and to alert ECOSOC to these obstacles. Identifying these obstacles, and developing ways of overcoming them, should be done collaboratively with a variety of stakeholders. The CSTD can also recommend related agenda items to bodies such as the IGF, GAID, and the UN implementing agencies.
iv) On reporting submitted to the CSTD by institutions tasked with follow-up and implementation: It would be useful for at least one section of each of those reports to follow a common reporting format. This can be used to make it easier to monitor implementation and lessons learned on specific issues, e.g. application of the WSIS principles on stakeholder participation.
v) National implementation: We believe that mechanisms for measuring national implementation need to be strengthened. What are countries doing? How do national entities interact with action line implementation? Is there a national overview reporting frame work and cycle? We recommend that such a reporting framework be developed and that governments are asked to submit reports every year. These reports can become focal points for stakeholder participation. Business and civil society entities can participate in compilation of national reports, and present comment and critique on governments’ assessment of progress.
In closing our input we quote from an APC and IteM (Third World Institute) publication, Global Information Society Watch report, to be launched here tomorrow:
“Different degrees of access to technology and connectivity mirror the social and economic divides within and between countries. Increase in access to ICTs will not, by itself, reduce poverty or secure freedoms on a sustainable basis. But there is a real danger that lack of access to ICTs, and to the spaces where decisions are made about information and communications infrastructure, content and services, can deepen existing social exclusion, and create new forms of exclusion.”
There is no time to waste. It is a characteristic of the digital divide that it increases at a rate that is similar to the rapid rate of change in ICTs themselves.
