ISP-resolutionerna Underlag till styrelsemöte 1-2 juni 2007

Till: Styrelsen
Från: Sune Montán
Datum: 31 maj 2007


ISP-resolutionerna

Till årets ICM har fem sektioner lämnat in resolutioner som helt eller delvis handlar om den internationella handlingsplanen. Det är Nederländerna, Danmark, Tyskland, Schweiz och vi. Resolutionerna handlar om:

1. Processen kring ISPn: resolutionerna från DK, NL och CH handlar bl. a om konsultationen som leder fram till ISPn, beslutsprocessen m.m.
2. Innehållet i ISPn; vi och danska sektionen skriver i våra resolutioner att ISPn måste prioritera och inte innehålla så mycket som nu.
3. Hur ISPn implementeras; NL, CH och DE vill ha mer av utvärdering, uppföljning och rapportering.

ICMs Preparatory Committee har föreslagit att vi fem sektioner ska omarbeta våra förslag till en gemensam resolution kring ISPn. Danska sektionen har skrivit till de andra sektionerna om detta, men bara vi har svarat. Just nu pågår en diskussion på nätet mellan framför allt mig, danska sektionens ordförande Lisbet Birkedal och Angie Hougas från USA. Lise deltar också på ett hörn. ISPn diskuterades också på de nordiska sektionernas förberedande möte. Jag har sammanställt min uppfattning av var vi befinner oss i diskussionerna i bifogade dokument (på engelska).

Jag antar att styrelsen inte har några invändningar mot att resolutionerna slås samman. Svenska sektionen kan väl utan vidare ställa sig bakom att processen som leder fram till ISPn ses över, liksom att uppföljningen och rapporteringen förbättras. Jag ser därför denna punkt som en informationspunkt och hoppas få fortsatt förtroende att utarbeta ett förslag till gemensam resolution med danska sektionen.

The following is a conclusion of web discussions between persons from the Danish, Swedish and US sections, and of discussions at a preparatory meeting between the Nordic sections.

There appears to be quite some discontent with the present ISP, related to the plan as such and to the way it is implemented and followed up.

The plan

1. is too wide and lacks focus. This means that it does not fill its purpose. It cannot be used as a planning instrument and it cannot be used for prioritisation. The former means that s/s have to wait for the operational plans from the IS; they cannot act on their own. The latter means that priorities are set by the IS/IEC, without democratic influence from the ICM.

2. contains nothing about what resources will be needed, nor any plans for implementation. At the time of deciding upon the ISP, this made it impossible to determine whether the plan was realistic or not. As a consequence, what is actually implemented seems to be rather at random.

3. is not followed up. The way the plan is written makes it difficult to follow up. Although efforts are made, the general impression is that there is a serious lack of monitoring, evaluation and transparency, which nourishes a sense of distrust in the movement.

The conclusion is that radical improvements are required for the next ISP. I have heard the following suggestions for points to make in a resolution:

- The process leading up to the present ISP should be evaluated and a new process should be set up, based on the experiences;

- The present ISP should be evaluated;

- The next ISP should make clear prioritisation;

- The next ISP should include an estimation of the resources needed to implement it. It should also include a rough plan for implementation.

- The plan should be a plan for the entire movement. Thus resources from all parts of the movement could be taken up. However, the plan should not be a plan for all resources. There must be capacity to handle unforeseen events. Room should also be left for independent initiatives from different parts of the movement.

- Planning and decision-making during the implementation of the plan must involve all AI entities.

- The plan must be followed up, both as for how much resources has been spent on the different goals of the plan and as for what achievements have been made. Follow-up includes monitoring of what has been done, transparency as for what results that have been achieved, and accountability for decisions and implementation.

- ICMs could be used for adjustments in the implementation of the plan. With results at hand, ICMs could decide to reallocate resources or to reformulate goals of the plan.

PrepCom proposes that the resolutions dealing with the ISP be considered in the World Café. At the Nordic meeting it was concluded that the topic is likely to benefit from discussions in such forms, but given the importance of the question, a formal decision is to be preferred to a Chair’s Statement.