CAE   Paving the way towards ICAE World Assembly in Nairobi, 2007

Virtual Seminar

March 6 - 24, 2006



Welcome to ICAE Virtual Seminar: Paving the way towards ICAE World Assembly in Nairobi, 2007 that is starting today,
March 6 and ending on March 24.
 
Through this virtual Seminar we intend to provide a participation space with relation the preparatory process of ICAE World Assembly and the definition of strategic and organizational aspects. At the same time, we want to promote the reflection on global networks, their functions and challenges in the present global context, incorporating new perspectives, experiences and lessons learnt, as part of this preparatory process and as a new step for the renewal of ICAE.

 

Programme











Programme

Session 1: March 6 - 10

Introduction - Paul Belanger

Global Networks. Functions. Organizational Models

Sharing and learning from the experience of some global networks: Advantages and challenges of global networks
Cecilia Alemany - Social Watch
David Archer - Global Campaign for Education/ CIRAC (Reflect -Action)
Ximena Machicao - REPEM
Kumi Naidoo - CIVICUS-GCAP 
Summary of GCAP Review
Analyzing in depth how networks operate in the present global context - Jeanine Anderson
Summary of the week


Session 2: March 13 - 17

Brainstorming: How do we want ICAE to be in 2009?
Contributions from the Executive Council, regional and national members
Babacar Diop Buuba - ICAE Vicepresident for Africa
Robert Hill - ICAE Vicepresident for North America
Summary of the expectations and visions for ICAE towards 2009. (The systematization of this session could give place to a 2^nd. virtual seminar)

Session 3: March 20 - 24

Exchange of proposals on:
Definition of a “Slogan” for the Assembly
Thematic lines to be dealt with in depth at the Assembly.
Issues / work guidelines
Creation of commissions for the organization of the Assembly

Summary of proposals

Final conclusions

Regarding logistics, we would like to remind some practical issues about this virtual seminar:

* All of you have been suscribed to the seminar list to follow the whole seminar. If you do not wish to participate, or if you wish to do so through another email address, please write to: secretariat@icae.org.uy or  oficina@icae.org.uy

* In order participate, sending your inputs and comments, you have to reply to the list:
icaeworldassembly@listas.chasque.net
* The seminar will last 3 weeks and will be coordinated from Montevideo, with weekly summaries through a moderated list, that is to say, we will try to gather short messages into single messages so as to make reading easier and to avoid receiving hundreds of messages per day.
* The documents will be put up in our website: www.icae.org.uy
We invite you to participate and enrich the debate through your contributions and comments, from your vision and experience.

Warm regards,

Celita Eccher
ICAE Secretary-General


8th. March, 2006 - International Women's Day:  "May the rights become a fact"



Inputs by Ana Laura Rivoir

Greetings from the south to all the people participating in this seminar. From an external point of view (outside ICAE) and without directly experiencing the way it works, its structure and participation forms, I would like to make some comments linked to Jeanine’s contribution, and based on Celita’s and Sofia’s comments:

I believe that the main challenge is to be able to achieve organizational innovation towards a more flexible, communicative, informal network organization that facilitates communication and participation, etc.. I agree with Jeanine in this point, with her proposal of a “new social technology”. In this sense, creativity is essential. However, it is also important to rethink about the issue of “representativity and leadership”. Evidently, there are leaderships in networks. Shall we leave aside representativity for the sake of a more horizontal organization?

Once the network is already established, it is very important to think how open it must be and on which occasion. If we close the network too much, we run the risk of running out of inputs, information, initiatives and the network will be doomed to die.  Thus, we find organizations which are just a shell or groups of friends. It is also true that if we open too much, links scatter, no identity is created nor feeling of belonging, and, in the end, the organization stops existing. When and to which issues shall we open and/or close the network?

A third key issue posed by Jeanine and Sofia, is the local global connection.
I believe that the link among local organizations is important, and in the case of education issues it is vital. It is also very important to facilitate intercultural dialogue, allow the exchange across different contexts where a specific problem is posed or where the same issue is dealt with. This enriches everyone and, a the same time, enables the elaboration of a proposal / discourse  that is global but not necessarily homogeneous. Are there mechanisms for this? Which are the most relevant and adequate ones for ICAE?

These are some of the questions I ask myself. Is this a too local perspective?  I would like to know your opinion, from other contexts

...............................
Dear all,

We would like to share with you a paper elaborated by David Archer, particularly for this virtual seminar, which provides a reflection based on his experience, through two specific cases, enriching and extending the vision from practice: International Reflect Circle (CIRAC) and The Global Campaign for Education

As David says, we hope these reflections "spark further dialogue  in a number of directions".

Cecilia Fernández



REFLECTIONS ON GLOBAL NETWORKS ON EDUCATION: DAVID ARCHER 
david.archer@actionaid.org

Though active inn many networks I have been closely involved in two particular international networks on education: the International Reflect Circle and the Global Campaign for Education - and my reflections will focus on these.

My first reflections involve the International Reflect Circle (CIRAC), which links practitioners using the Reflect approach to adult learning, inspired by Paulo Freire. There are over 500 organisations in 70 countries using this innovative approach, developed through experimental field practice coordinated by ActionAid in Uganda, Bangladesh and El Salvador between 1993 and 1995. CIRAC itself emerged in 2000 and won a UN International Literacy Prize in 2003. The network has organised annual meetings of practitioners, produced a series of publications and manages a multilingual website www.reflect-action.org. There is a CIRAC coordinating team of eight people, two each from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the North  nominated or elected annually by regional networks.

One of the early principles of CIRAC was that the network should be premised on the same principles and practices that characterise grassroots practice of Reflect. The Reflect process starts from a recognition of the existing knowledge and experiences of participants, and involves working to create a democratic space, using participatory methodologies to promote the analysis of power relations and to strengthen communication practices.

To be effective, we have found that training of facilitators and training of trainers must be coherent with these core elements  and the same applies to the practice of national, regional and international networks. We need to work to create a democratic space in which each representative / participant is valued. We need to analyse the power relationships within every process, using the same participatory methods and with the same intention of building our own capacity to communicate effectively. This has meant for example, that all CIRAC meetings operate in four languages (English, Spanish, French and Portuguese) and all core publications are produced in these languages.

What has certainly become clear is that effective practice of the principles in CIRAC helps to create a culture of better practice at all other levels. But equally, the good practice of these principles in CIRAC depends on strong national networks that are equally committed. It is a multi-directional relationship.

There have certainly been distortions of power within CIRAC and we cannot claim that it achieves all that it strives to do. ActionAid was a dominant player initially and retains significant power through the human and financial resources it commits to CIRAC. But what is healthy is that there is serious critical analysis of this power and there has been a progressive shifting of that power to independent regional networks.  The secretariat role (just one part time person) shifted last year from ActionAid to Pamoja (the Africa Reflect network). The lack of a large secretariat has meant that there is no risk of it becoming an institution in itself and it depends entirely on the commitment of practitioners around the world.

One key learning for me has been that the effectiveness of CIRAC depends on the human relationships and power dynamics between the individuals who are most active within it. Reflecting on the complex nature of our individual and institutional power is essential. There are dangers of course that the network ends up depending on a core group of people who are closely bound together and can ensure continuity  and that the bonds between these people act as an inherent pressure excluding other people. There is no perfect recipe to solve this, though we have sought, for example, to ensure that there is a constant renovation of those who come to the annual meetings (no-one can participate in more than two meetings in a row). 

 The Global Campaign for Education (www.campaignforeducation) is of course very different, not least in being a campaign rather than just a network. It was founded in 1999, before the World Education Forum in Dakar, with ActionAid, Oxfam, Education International (the global federation of teacher unions) and the Global March of Child Labour as key co-founders. It has an International Board with two seats for the unions, two for child labour activists, two for international NGOs and two each for regional representatives from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the North. This operates by teleconference and at least two face-to-face meetings a year.

Until last year there was just one full time paid GCE employee, but now there is a secretariat in South Africa and plans for 7 members of staff. To date the remarkable mobilisation of GCE events like the Global Action Week has depended on mass mobilisation of the membership (involving coordinated work across 115 countries during one week at the end of April … which involved 5 million children last year in the “Send My Friend to School” action). The credibility of its high-level advocacy and lobbying work has also depended on members being willing to submerge their own institutional identity and to label themselves and their work under a GCE banner. The development of a larger team of paid employees is clearly a significant shift and it will be important to ensure that the stronger secretariat does not end up doing all the work, diminishing the active engagement of member organisations.
 
GCE started very much from “above”, though it certainly built on a emerging trend towards interagency collaboration and campaigning on education. One of the key challenges in the GCE has been to build trust at all levels between NGOs and teacher unions. There are historical tensions between these different types of organisation and very different working cultures. There are now 57 national coalitions that are full members of GCE  and it is a requirement for membership that both NGOs and teacher unions are involved. This has certainly helped to promote union / NGO collaboration.

Much more could of course be said but I want to remain very brief. I hope these initial observations / reflections will spark further dialogue  in a number of directions.


.....................

Hi everybody,

We go on sharing experiences that show different practices and lessons learnt in other global networks that, like ICAE, work for a transformative action.
We would like to thank Cecilia Alemany from Social Watch for her open and solidarity contribution for our virtual seminar.

Your comments are welcome.

Cecilia Fernandez



Social Watch
by Cecilia Alemany

a) What is Social Watch?

Social Watch was created in 1995. It is an international network of organizations fighting for the eradication of poverty and its causes, in order to ensure the equitable distribution of wealth and the full enjoyment of human rights.

b) How does Social Watch work?

Social Watch is a network comprised by more than 60 national groups of civil society organizations (watchers), which means more than 400 organizations. Each national group is organized according to its own priorities and it manages its own funds for the national activities.

Each national group has a Focal Point, which is the main contact regarding proceedings or requests for information. However, daily communications are sent to e-lists (one in Spanish, one in English, and another one in French); these lists reach all those organizations that are part of each national group, as well as the network’s “friendly” organizations. On account of this, it can be affirmed there is a vocation of open communication that does not apply only to the inside of the network, but it reaches out to  its partners and “friendly” organizations or networks as well.

The network’s operation is run by the International Secretariat Coordination, based in the Third World Institute, Montevideo, Uruguay. The International Secretariat is composed by: the Coordinator, the Networking Area (a coordinator and an assistant), the Research Area (the Research Team on Social Sciences, comprised by a coordinator and a group of researchers), and the Editing Area ( a coordinator and an assistant; this team incorporates more people during the editing period of the Annual Report).

The executive decisions and the decisions at global level are made by the Coordinating Committee (CC). The CC is composed by two people from each continent (North America, Latin America, Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia), elected at the General Assembly by the Social Watch organizations of each region, and a President, also elected by GA. The CC communicates daily through an e-list (in English) and meets twice to three times a year. The CC’s decisions are made by consensus, both in the e-discussions and in the meetings.

Until 2003 the General Assembly used to be held every 3 years, but from 2003 on it was decided to hold it every two years. In the General Assembly at least one representative of each National Group (elected by the national organizations), and two representatives maximum participate per country. Next General Assembly will be held in Bulgaria in September 2006.

c)  Which are Social Watch’s tools for the incidence, and how do they work?

Social Watch demands accountability from the governments, the UN system, and the international institutions, about the fulfillment of the assumed national, regional and international commitments on the eradication of poverty. The main tool for this objective for the incidence at national, regional and international levels is the Social Watch Annual Report. The focus of this report is on gender issues and the commitments assumed by governments at international level, and the fulfillment (or not) of such commitments, but every year the central issue varies. Social Watch Annual Report is published in several languages (Spanish, English, Portuguese, French, German, Arab, Italian, etc.), and it is comprised by Thematic Reports, National Reports, and a global quantitative and qualitative analysis, accompanied by a ranking of the countries, according to the social indicators that are elaborated by the Research Team.

The central issue of each Annual Report is discussed within the CC, and it is communicated immediately afterwards to all members (watchers) for its discussion through the electronic lists. After the focus of the Annual Report is agreed upon, the Research Team elaborates a thematic guide for the elaboration of the National and Thematic Reports, and the Editing Team elaborates an editorial guide and coordinates the whole production process of the Annual Report. Every year the Annual Report is launched in the different countries and international fora.

On the other hand, Social Watch’s website is a key tool, featuring the Report, as well as other publications of the network; the information is available in both English and Spanish. The national groups and the watchers send to the website those articles or information they wish to share, and the International Secretariat publish them in the site.

d) Which are the current priorities in the capacity building process?

Ten years after the creation of the network, the second external evaluation takes place. This evaluation aims at analyzing the recent trajectory of the network, as well as suggesting action guidelines and future scenarios. Currently, the priorities relate to: capacity building of the national groups and their member organizations, and strengthening some national groups and regional dynamics.

Strengthening capacities refers to the needs in terms of research, as well as in terms of incidence and implementation of the monitoring itself, identified in the National Groups and the International Secretariat. Strengthening the National Groups links to the need to develop them in those places where Social Watch is not present, and to broaden the membership in those countries where the national groups are not large enough. Broadening the membership is not a formal or closed process, but it depends on the interest showed by the organizations that work along the lines similar to those of Social Watch, and their coming closer to the national group of their respective countries. The regional dynamics (particularly in Europe, Latin America, West Africa and Asia) constitute a more recent phenomenon and result from the network’s maturity. These dynamics do not generate more structures -nor aim to- , but  they aim at being a space for regional reflection and action within Social Watch, with the support of the International Secretariat.