[fse-esf]
ESF Methodology Working Group: Proposals to Lisbon, Notes, History.
CymruEuropaPress
waleseuropa at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Mar 26 12:21:30 CEST 2007
(From Fabrice SF Belgium, Merlin SF Cymru/Wales - we felt it would be useful to send this to the ESF list again so that the issues are fresh in people's minds for Lisboa - apologies it is a little long!.)
Content:
{1} Proposals from Paris Meeting 19/Feb/07 (including from Bussels 11/Jan/07).
{2} Notes from Paris meeting.
{3} Some history in between.
{4} Frankfurt EPA Proposals-Discussions, 4-5 November 2006
{ 1 } Proposals from Methodology group 11/1/07 Brussels, 19/02/07 Paris General proposals PG. 1. The European Social Forum should have a focus?
PG. 2. What is the role of the Porto Alegre Charter and what should be the relations between ESF and WSF?
PG. 3. ESF needs to be in one location
PG. 4. ESF frequency and in-between
PG. 4.1. What is the frequency of the ESF? Every 2 years?
PG. 4.2. How to coordinate the ESF and the European agenda?
PG. 4.3. What between 2 ESF
PG. 5. An international collective working group for the ESF on organising the last demonstration to avoid what happened in the last ESFs
PG. 6. What is the type of relation between the ESF and the political parties? Should the parties have an independent space of the ESF ?
P.G. 7. How to fulfil Forum task (from Porto Alegre charter) consisting of launching campaign and articulating actions (place for Assembly of Social Movements, 1 day of campaign group at ESF
). How can the EPA and the whole process make sure this work will be better prepared.
Methodology Proposals PM. 1. Do we need a political discussion before merging process and program definition?
PM. 2. ESF architecture, thematic definition
PM 2. 1. The ESF architecture should be elaborated before or after the proposed activities?
PM 2. 2. Should be the networks, the local organizational committees or EPA that define the thematic discussion?
PM. 3. Should we improve the merging process by new methodology
- first selecting themes
- than having discussion by themes for merging preparation
- networks actors of the merging
- selfmerging is important and needs more time
- we have to find a way to push for more merging acceptation by the organisations
- a working group should facilitate the merging process
PM. 4. How to include the women?
- Parity in all levels of the process
- Self-organization of the autonomic space of the women
- Reflect in all thematic the women's perspective
PM. 5. Do we need to launch a new enlargement process (not only to other country but also new organisations, other components of the movement)
PM. 6. How to include the self-organized spaces in the process?
PM. 7. ESF in a country where there is a will of co-operation? Small countries can be also chosen as the Greece experience shows
PM. 8. How to improve communication, how to build an interactive website and to make sure that information on network is spread
PM. 9. How to involve more and better the participants with different methods (smaller groups for discussion, notes written at the computer simultaneinly with a projector
, brainstorming, informal meetings)
EPA organisation proposals PE. 1. Should we have a methodology group working on EPA’s and ESF improvement?
PE. 2. How to improve the efficiency of the EPA and ESF process there are several proposals:
PE. 2.1. Have a rotating coordination group composed by a) the ESF hosting country, b) the last EPA’s hosting country, c) the current EPA’s hosting country. (as decision made in Brussel 2005)
PE. 2.2. Have rotating EPA facilitation groups
PE. 2.3. Have a permanent comitee
PE. 2.4. No coordination at all.
PE. 3. How to favour discussions at country/local levels and bring back the ideas to the EPA and vice versa
PE. 4. Rules at debates
PE. 4.1. Do we need rules for the debates in the meetings and an active moderation for the respect of them.
PE. 4.2. Which kind of rules do we need (time to speak, repetitions, out of agenda, number of speaker from the same association, number of country speaking, avoiding dogmatic lecturing
..)
PE. 5. Does the EPA agenda must be agreed beforehand, better structured, respected and circulated in the list
PE. 6. How to give the possibility for people to take an active part in EPA’s while keeping efficiency : i.e. work more on small workshop groups during EPA’s
PE. 7. How to sort out problem of language at EPA: number of translation available, possibility to express in one’s own language.
Logistics proposals PL. 1. Funding is a collective responsibility for ESF future.
PL. 1.2. What political choice, guideline for funding and solidarity (how to raise the money collected, where does money come from and go to).
PL. 1.1. How can we allocate funds for ESF preparation (EPA, methodology, program meeting
) and ESF organisation (i.e. Eastern organisations participations, grassroots participation
).
PL. 1.3. What about having a group focussed on funding and finance control.
PL. 1.4. What about fundraisers.
PL. 2. We need to improve our communication before, during and after ESF.
PL. 2.1. Do we need to organise our media tools: newspaper, radio, internet
and what about the current website updating?
PL. 2.2. How to train activists for improving our communication
PL. 2.3. What about an international communication group on: communication with people and media, before, during and after ESF.
PL. 3. Should we continue to use non commercial items: foods, tools for translation (ALIS, BABEL
)
PL. 4. How can we better use the experiences as a resource (from one ESF to the other)
PL 5. How can we better solve security issues at the Forum and during demonstrations.
The methodology working group meeting in Brussels on the 12th of January discussed the following:
A presentation of the two candidate host countries was made. ( Vienna and Copenhagen )
A more thorough detailed presentation should be made in the next meeting of the Methodology WG.
Key elements for choosing the next ESF host country
-Political Issues
-Level of preparation-capacity-openness for the organizing committee in the country
-Level of political support for preparatory process (a list of organisations supporting the process shall be provided)
-Vicinity to important places ( Eastern Europe ,
)
-Helpful for mobilization in the country
-Accessibility
-Financial support
-Facilities (one big place or several places)
-“Political” town support
-Capacity in enlargement
-Timetable (shall be provided by the organizing committee)
-Capacity to organize a democratic internal process
As a working methodology, it was decided to see each point of the questions raised in Frankfurt 's EPA, but it is possible to add, take and resume discussion points.
PG1- The European Social Forum should have a focus?
PG2- The ESF architecture should be elaborated before or after the proposed activities? Should be the networks, the local organizational committees or EPA that define the thematic discussion?
PG3- What is the role of the Porto Alegre Charter and what should be the relations between ESF and WSF?
PG4- Equal
PG5- a) What is the frequency of the ESF?
b) How to coordinate the ESF and the European agenda?
PG6- Go to the point of program
PG7- What is the type of relation between the ESF and the political parties? Should the parties have an independent space of the ESF ?
PM1- How to include the women?
Parity in all levels of the process
Self-organization of the autonomic space of the women
Reflect in all thematic the women's perspective
PM2- Equal
PM3- how to include the self-organized spaces in the process?
Next Methodology WG Meeting in Paris on the 19 February.
The working group compromises to continue to Exchange impressions until the meeting and to give, promptly, information to all that will allow the good functioning of the meeting.
Practical information about the meeting will be sent to the participants of the Brussels meeting.
Next EPA will take place in Lisbon on the 30, 31 March and 1st April.
Friday 30th March: Morning-Meeting to finalise the methodology issue
Morning&Afternoon-Network meetings
Saturday 31st March: Assembly
Sunday 1st April: Assembly
***************************************************************************
{ 2}
ESF Methodology Group Meeting.
CGT HQ Paris Monday 19th February 2007.
Notes by Merlin (SocialForum Cymru/Wales)
PM4. Athina ESF experience – Is it possible to strike a balance between the Seminars/Workshops. E.g. There were 30 on War – 2 on Racism.
Some organizations don’t accept proposals from other groups.
This is linked to PG2.
How to build the programme from below? Not repeat activities.
How can we fill the gaps in the programme?
Merging in Athina was a product of lobbying. Originally 55 on War – 5 on The Environment.
How can the EPA intervene to correct the inbalance between themes?
We must construct Thematic Spaces.
We need more Time and Push for better merging. And equilibrium between themes.
We need more and better communication. Develop ESF Website to include NewsLine and interactive Forum.
EPA to propose Tematic Spaces.
We must CONFRONT the EU (Council of Ministers decisions).
Some Themes, Organisations are not involved in the ESF process.
We must contact these Organisations and bring them in!
We must decide to Decisively orient the ESF to ACTION.
Give more space to The Assembly of the Social Movements (Active Networks)
(see Fabrice’s notes on decisions)
PM5 covered
PM6. We must have an Active Working Group on the ESF Website with an All-European Newsline and interactive Forum feature.(see PM4)
PM7 is redundant.
PM8. How can we put the 3rd Point of the Porto Alegre Charter (CO-ORDINATED ACTION) plus existing PM8 into Practice?
PM9. put all this to the EPA in Lisboa.
PE1. (see PM9)
PE2.Should we have a continuous Methodology Group.
Should we combine PE1,2,3. and put proposals of what kind of working group to build to the EPA Lisboa?
How to improve the efficiency of theEPA?
A Methodology Working Group including 1) The Host Country2)The Last Host Country3) The next Host Country.
Other Models for Continuity and Efficiency:
1.The Belgian Social Forum with 2 part-time workers (making one full-time Co-ordinating Post (Job). With their up to date Website.
2.The World Social Forum Office in Porto Alegre . With their up to date website and Bulletin.
PE4. PE5. Do we want an Active Moderation?
PE.6. Agenda balance and efficiency.(see PM4.)
PE7.PE8.PE9. How to bring More People, Organisations into the ESF Process?
PE10. How to sort out Language Questions?
LOGISTICS:
PL1.Funds to facilitate East European Participation at all EPAs, ESFs – A Full-Time Fund Raiser from the Rich West. (see also PE2. PE3.)
There are Funds to support Civil Society activities (e.g EPA, ESF) at EU Member State.other States, EU Parliament, EU Commission Levels.
Some people in th process have a lot of experience of getting Grants (e.g. Rafaella Italia, Leo Austria.). This good practice should be Generalised.
Fund Raising is a COLLECTIVE Responsibility.
We need Emergency Funds.
We need Guidelines for Use of Funds.
Imposed Quotas for Numbers coming from individual East European States to EPAs and ESFs because of limited Solidarity Funds was proposed at the meeting.
There was no consensus on this. In the absence of Eastern European comrades at the meeting this was regarded as ‘Western Colonialist’ by some .
PL2.Media Tools. Enhanced ESF Website.
We need to set up Training Courses for Activists to become Journalists Also on Our ESF Website and with Our Media Group.
We need an Active/Efficient Communication/ Media Group/Network in the ESF.
We must ask again in Lisboa for new active people to join our Website Working Group.
The Portugese Hosts gave an ouline of preparations in Lisboa.
It was pointed out that greater participation from the Poor areas of West Europe and no doubt East Europe would be Dramatically Increased if Hosts could find a lot more Free Accomodation e.g at Community Centres,Workers Social Clubs, Rugby/People’s Sports Centres,Squatts etc. This on a ‘Bring your own Sleeping Bag/Camping Mattress’ basis.
This would also enhance ‘Informal Networking’ and making the whole thing a much more PLEASURABLE experience.
There were proposals to have much more FOCUSED POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS at the Lisboa EPA:
e.g. ‘THE ESF ‘IN OPPOSITION TO’ THE EU Council of Ministers Rather than ‘In Parrallel With’.
Opposition to US Military Bases in Europe.
Against the G8.
Nairobi Report Back.
It was proposed that Networks should discuss these Political Questions and possible Co-ordinated Actions.Also discuss Co-ordinated Actions Decided already at the Nairobi WSF.
************************************************************************
{ 3 }
By Giorgos Karatsioubanis and Nuno Tito Morais 17/1/2007
Dear colleagues,
Tahnk you for the minutes! I would like to add that during the next EPA on Friday evening we scheduled an "Assembly of Social Movements".
Sven
0 preliminary provisions Social fund: if there is no opposition we will ask 50 euro to each person attending this meeting in order to reimburse travel expenses for people from Eastern Europa. This money will be equally divided between the people asking for reimbursement.
1 objectives First and major goal of this group is to improve EPA and ESF process: therefore addressing the issues listed at Frankfurt.
Its aim is not to select the next ESF host country (we will share some information but please do not lose to much time on this, the subject is not yet mature) It is not also the place where your organisation will express something about campaign (of course well during informal chat)
but not formally because this must occur at EPA’s not here. Here it’s purely methodology.
Second objective is to prepare next EPA but first we must focus on improving EPA process.
2 Methodology for this meeting Facilitation: one person from Belgium + one person from the audience for each slot: facilitator will have the right to cut people speaking out of the subject or too long.
Schedule: 1st slot 11.00 -13.00 – BREAK – second slot 14.00 - 16.00
Reporting: First we must elect two reporters who will make sure that decisions and a summary of the core discussions are reported to esf list (not a full minute made of 10 pages that nobody will read). The report should be sent to the attendant next week for comments. Comments to be made by end January; final report to be sent for 10 February.
Language: no budget was provided for translation facilities nor for reimbursing translators expenses; therefore we can count only on volunteers amongst us for “chuchotage”.
*********************************************************************************************
{ 4 } Discussions Frankfurt 4-5 November 2006 Issues General issues IG. 1. We still need the ESF because it is a useful space, is a reality, is a common space to search for consensus, is a platform for discussions, we can build political projects, we can co-ordinate effective actions, build alternatives, exchange experiences, confront different points of views
IG. 2. In some countries the risk is that the ESF is no longer seen as the place where to organise mass movements.
IG. 3. We need to better define what we expect from next ESF, what are the objectives.
IG. 4. Difficulties to understand each other (different culture, different organisation’s structures, languages not translated).
IG. 5. For somebody there isn’t enough radicality, for others its too much. A lot of interventions underlined that the problem is not to have a space for your own point of view but to confront each other’s
IG. 6. Some people said Porto Alegre charter is not enough respected. For some people Porto Alegre Charter is impeding us to go ahead
IG. 7. Need to concentrate more on building alternatives and not only to oppose current neo-liberals policies.
IG. 8. There is the need for an enlargement to have all the spectrum of social movements, trade unions, ONGs, individuals in the ESF process
IG. 9. No implication of young people in the process
IG. 10. Gender, racial, youth/old, east/west
balance in ESF seminars, workshops, and in EPA networks and assembly must be improved
IG. 11. What link with political parties?
IG. 12. East/ West : a crucial political point. We have to discuss the past to know what we can do together now
IG. 13. Need to organise at a local level (local/ regional
social forum )
IG. 14. Where is the support money coming from? Trade Union? Public institutions?
IG. 15. There will be a day of global action in 2008. What will be the process to build for it?
IG. 16. There is not enough debates on Europe / European Union political strategies
Methodology issues IM. 1. How to come from discussions to practical actions to build real and successful alternatives
IM. 2. Difficulty to articulate local, European and global dynamics (think globally act locally and act locally in a global alternative framework)
IM. 3. How to articulate network themes within a more global political reflection.
IM. 4. Transversality cannot be solved only by the networks. How is possible to balance the work between networks and common places?
IM. 5. Networks not enough open or too much controlled by some organisations
IM. 6. How to give in each country the possibilities to participate to networks and to the process
IM. 7. Unable to make our proposal visible outside, in the media
IM. 8. What is the role of the assembly of social movements : what’s the link with the struggles in different countries, how to improve the visibility of an European strength? Why the actions decided aren’t carried on? Do we need more flexibility? What about its representativity as some org.s participating in the ESF don’t recognize the Assembly of Social Movements as the place where having political discussions and co-ordinating decisions?
IM. 9. What is the place of political parties ?
IM. 10. We need to make converging Eastern and Western movements by giving more tools for Eastern movements
IM. 11. Need to better prepare the seminars and self-managed areas, too many repetitions, no space for debate for the people participating, too little space for the assembly f the movements and to prepare actions at the ESF and between one and an other ESF
IM. 12. Increase interactivity of the debates
IM. 13. Debates must be centred on actions
IM. 14. How to make debates accessible immediately after ESF
IM. 15. How to facilitate later cooperation between organisations on plans designed at ESF
IM. 16. How to have more participation of local level
IM. 17. How to create local forum everywhere
EPA issues IE. 1. Translation / languages
IE. 2. Role of EPAs: it’s working to prepare ESF. The process needs to improve and involve more people, being open, efficient and inclusive.
IE. 3. Difficult to understand how EPA functions for external people (lack of information in the web-site, not possible to access information about networks, no agenda
)
IE. 4. Small groups are taking the leadership at EPAs: facilitating, taking decisions. There is no rotation
IE. 5. Needs of visibility of networks, more networks but also more transversality. Risk that network become affinity political groups
IE. 6. Not yet a space during the EPAs to debate on European political issues, to confront different point of views, co-ordinate campaign and actions
IE. 7. Normally the people who can participate are the ones who have big organisations who can pay for them. How to involve all in the process
Logistics issues IL. 1. Website need clarification: is it updated? who’s in charge? what next? Not possible to access information. Too difficult to access
IL. 2. Need to allocate better human and materials means for our goals
IL. 3. Financial difficulties (too much is depending on host country financial support) so it is impossible for countries in East Europe to host an ESF if is not supported by the rest of Europe
Proposals General proposals PG. 1. Some suggested next ESF focussed on youth people, some focused on East/West Europe
PG. 2. Decisions on big themes to be taken in advance (one or more).
PG. 3. Make Porto Alegre charter more strictly respected or
.not to use it as an important reference?
PG. 4. ESF needs to be in one location
PG. 5. 2 years between ESF and the Assembly of the movements at each EPA also to co-ordinate campaigns and actions
PG. 6. An international collective working group for the ESF on organising the last demonstration to avoid what happened in the last ESFs
PG. 7. Is a space for parties outside and parallel in the ESF an answer to the problem?
Methodology Proposals PM. 1. Women in all the process and in self-organised space (Women assembly)
PM. 2. Launch a new enlargement process (not only to other country but also new organisations, other components of the movement)
PM. 3. Enlarge self managed spaces in the ESF
PM. 4. Improving merging process by new methodology (first selecting themes, than having discussion by themes for merging preparation, networks actors of the merging, selfmerging, more time to work on the merging)
PM. 5. ESF in a country where there is a will of co-operation. Small countries can be also chosen as the Greece experience shows
PM. 6. Make sure that information on network is spread; by website with info: who’s contact person, how to join, practical info on the network functioning
PM. 7. 2 years between ESF , Assembly of movements in between at the EPA
PM. 8. Leave a day after ESF for cooperation between organisations, networks and all the subjects to prepare co-ordinate actions to be decided in the assembly of movements if there is consensus
PM. 9. Involve the participants with different methods (smaller groups for discussion, notes written at the computer simultaneinly with a projector
, brainstorming, informal meetings)
EPA organisation proposals PE. 1. EPAs should have always a space for political discussion and to decide campaigns and common actions (Assembly of movements ?) specially if there isn’t an ESF every year
PE. 2. Have a methodology group working on EPA’s improvement
PE. 3. To improve the efficiency of the EPA there are several proposals:
PE. 3.1. Have no co-ordination at all: everything decided in the assembly
PE. 3.2. Have rotating EPA facilitation groups on the issues decided in the meetings doing secretary job, concentrating and diffusing infos, co-ordinating the work between the meetings
PE. 3.3. Create an initiative committee for ESF
PE. 4. The issues have to be discuss at country/local levels and the ideas brought back to the EPA and vice versa
PE. 5. We need rules for the debates in the meetings and facilitators have to ask for the respect of them (time to speak, repetitions, out of agenda
..)
PE. 6. EPA agenda must be agreed beforehand and circulate in the list
PE. 7. After EPA make a list of concrete issues and proposals; 30 days to add proposal through ESf list ; a group in charge of follow-up; decision on this at next EPA
PE. 8. work more on small workshop groups during EPA’s
Logistics proposals PL. 1. Allocate funds for Eastern organisations participations
PL. 2. We need to organise our media tools: newspaper, radio,
PL. 3. Continue to use non commercial items: foods, tools for translation (ALIS, BABEL),
PL. 4. Use the experiences as a resource ( from one ESF to the other)
PL. 5. Security fund to overtake no planned problems
By Mariangela Casalucci and Fabrice Collignon 11/11/2006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fse-esf.org/pipermail/fse-esf/attachments/20070326/29956af1/attachment-0001.html
More information about the FSE-ESF
mailing list