Claudia Padovani

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) has been an interesting exercise in a new field: that of multi-stakeholder relations in the international arena. Something not completely new, but a recent development in international relations, if we think of experiences such as the G8 DOT Force or the Global Knowledge Partnership. Interestingly the idea of different stakeholders being involved in global policy forum is developing in close relation to Information and Knowledge Society-related initiatives. For these reasons the multi-stakeholder approach, as it deployed within WSIS, is something worth some critical reflections, with reference to the underlying motivations, actors' expectations and understanding as well as to the actual outcomes. This approach is not a given, nor it is clear what the real meaning of it would be in different policy sectors and levels of policy-making. Reflections should, therefore, aim at clarifying its boundaries and its potential.

Throughout WSIS stakeholders have been mentioned, attempts have been made to conceptually define them and structures have been set up to offer them spaces to get organized and participate in the process[1]. The general outcome seems to be a four-sectors categorization, recognizing governments as (more equal than others) actors, alongside with IGOs, the private sector (business entities) and civil society.

The present work is an attempt to consider an apparently marginal aspect of such development. Having had the chance to attend the World Summit of Cities and Local Authorities in the Information Society (held in Lyon the week before the Geneva Summit) I suggest that a number of issues emerged that are worth elaborating on, as I believe we shall witness interesting developments in the coming months, leading up to the Tunis phase of WSIS. Issues that can be summarized in the following question: what is the role, perception and self-perception of local authorities within the multi-stakeholder approach?

I will very briefly introduce the Lyon Summit and then propose some reflections relating to this specific question.

Lyon somehow paralleled WSIS: it was the end of a process (four regional meetings held in different continents); it presented itself as a multi-stakeholder event (though local autorities were definitely protagonists on the scene); it aimed at sharing and evaluating initiatives promoted in the different fields of ICT by local powers around the world e to develop forms of cooperation building on already existing networks. Lyon adopted a final Declaration, presented in Geneva where an official side event was also organized. The Lyon Summit was structured around two general Assemblies (with high level institutional representation[2]), thematic forum and workshops (network meetings and initiative presentations). A (quite small) "agora of practices" was also organized, with a definitely prevailing presence of private entities. Overall an amazing "window", strongly French-speaking oriented, where local authorities celebrated their energetic involvement in building information societies.

In order to understand something about our issue of concern, a first thing to be noticed is that meaningful exponents of the convening local governments, such as the President of the Basque Region, Ibarretxe and the Mayor of Geneva, Cristian Ferrazino, publicly and repeatedly, both in Lyon and Geneva, have defined local authorities as "members of the civil society". Our doubt concerning the fact that these actors are, in reality, "governments" had already emerged from by the fact that the official WSIS gave recognition to such self-representation, in devoting one the (over twenty) families composing the Civil Society Bureau, precisely to local political actors. A few problematic observations follow.

On one side it is clear that cities and local governments have the economic resources, knowledge, competencies and experience that make them relevant actors in the Information Society. The number and quality of projects and initiatives that were presented in Lyon is a clear sign that in many aspects cities and regions are innovating faster than governments, while planning to strengthen mechanisms for global cooperation in ICT developments. Moreover the autonomous initiative taken by the cities of Geneva and Lyon and announced at the WSIS Closing Plenary of instituting that very Digital Solidarity Fund which governments refused to even mention in the Action Plan, is another sign of the independent path local powers are setting for themselves. On the other side, WSIS never made explicit mention of the local institutional level amongst the official categories of stakeholders. The final documents indicate several times roles and responsibilities for governments, IGOs, business and civil society but local authorities never appear in these sections and are only briefly mentioned in the final Plan of Action[3].

Even more problematic, the actual relation between local powers "as civil society" and the Civil Society constituency inside the WSIS process: a dialogue that, a part from individual members of civil society involved in the Lyon organization, has been almost non-existent. The Lyon Declaration is rich in references to civil society and local communities but, on the other side, the Civil Society Declaration adopted in Geneva on December 8th does not mention at all local authorities as possible partners. Lyon was supposed to be a multi-stakeholder event, but civil society was hardly "visible" in the Conference Hall. This appears even more paradoxical if we go through the documents elaborated respectively by these two stakeholders and find a number of theme of common concern and very similar perspectives on concrete issues, such as cultural diversity and the adoption of free software; community participation and decentralization processes or the role of community media. Dialogues, alliances and partnerships could therefore well be developed on a substantial level; but this does not yet seem to be the case.

We are probably, something we can say both for civil society and local powers, in a situation where legitimacy of action and legitimation of actors still is the crucial issue, on a changing international scene. We can, therefore, think of a strategic choice made by local authorities, through this self-representation: cities, provinces and regions are constantly mastering their capacity of involvement in supra-national policy settings (as is well demonstrated by initiatives taken inside the European Union or the functioning of networks such as Eris@, Telecities, Global Cities Dialogue); they are now trying to make this reality not just more visible but also legitimate, building their own identity autonomously from governments. Paris next May will host the funding meeting of the World Association of Cities and Local Governments, as the merging of the existing World Federation of United Cities and the International Union of Cities and Local Powers. WSIS-related connection to the Civil Society may therefore be just a step in a longer process, that will lead to an explicit recognition of local authorities as stakeholders, not only in Knowledge Societies but in international politics as well.

One final critical point, in my opinion relevant in contributing to a better understanding of multi-stakeholder relations, concerns the level of practise. Here the concept of "governance" comes into the scene. This is also a very ambiguous term but the reality of governance can be said to be characterized by a particular feature: the involvement of different actors in policy processes and policy-making. Multi-stakeholder, therefore, relates directly to governance and it is interesting to consider that such participatory mode is probably developing easier and quicker in local spaces that it is at the national or international level. Did Lyon say anything in reference to these issues? Citizens were mentioned as they are involved in the identification of needs and definition of programmes; consultative practices are deploying in various contexts; business entities are entering partnership with local powers to face challenges in ICT applications. Nevertheless in Lyon we have found very little critical thinking on these practices: little analysis of the constraints and challenges this new mode of participatory politics carries with it; little mention of the pre-conditions that would foster successful efforts in multi-actor governance; and little will to even enter such a reflective exercise. Somebody said "It is still too early", but my point is that this kind of effort is precisely what is needed and it could become a strategic tool in the hands of local governments to prove they have something to contribute in international politics. They are facing the novelty, they have gone through processes, they are developing creative practices. All this should be valued not only in terms of output - programmes and policies - but also in terms of outcome, meaning the processes through which policies are developed and programmes run, involving different stakeholders.

While the reflection on governance and the multi-stakeholder approach will continue, from Lyon and Geneva to Tunis we may witness interesting developments. It will be useful to develop sound conceptual frameworks allowing us to better understand the relevance of changes in political processes of knowledge societies.

-----------------------

[1] We can think of the different Divisions of the WSIS Secretariat, the institution of the High Level Summit Organizing Committee, the Civil Society Bureau set up at Prepcom2 as an identifiable interlocutor to the governmental Bureau (which has also been a good example of the ambiguities that accompany the very understanding of civil society).

[2] Speakers in the Opening Plenary were Adama Samassekou, President of the WSIS preparatory process, Erik Liikannen, European Commissioner, the Mayors of Geneva and Lyon, among others.

[3] Through very generic formulas such as: "The international community and other stakeholders should support capacity building for local authorities in the widespread use of ICTs as a means of improving local governance." (C3, f)

Claudia Padovani
Department of Historical and Political Studies
University of Padova
Via del Santo 28
35123 Padova
claudia.padovani@unipd.it
office +39.049.8274280
home +39.045.7701933