This year at the Civicus World Assembly, in addition to sessions that involved detailed presentations, there were three days - three afternoons from 2-5 - that were devoted to sessions with very generalized titles and that were conducted using Open Space Technology. This is not "technology" in the sense of computing, phones, tweeting or Web 2.0 generally, but is a very simple democratic facilitation technique (very "low tech" in fact. )
Open Space Technology is a facilitation method that has no structure, within a defined set of rules. I have seen it work amazingly well but I think it did not work well (although it was done very well) at the Civcus Assembly, for a number of reasons. There were three Open Space groups and my experience is based only on one; the other groups may have had more cohesion and better/more satisfying outcomes. . .
According to Open Space World
In Open Space meetings, events and organizations, participants create and manage their own agenda of parallel working sessions around a central theme of strategic importance, such as: What is the strategy, group, organization or community that all stakeholders can support and work together to create?Usually, in my limited experience, with Open Space, the participants create the agenda, and the questions, based around a shared or mutual interest in the outcome – for instance – every one works for the same organization and wants to maximize profits, or increase impact, or improve service. In my experience, it does not work well when the outcome, that we want to achieve, is a weak or vague vision, or so large that the people in the group cannot take control of the strategies that need to be implemented to achieve the desired outcomes.
So my group was titled: Reconciling economic development, the fight against poverty and climate justice: what and how can civil society contribute?
The first day the room was full. I am guessing, perhaps more than 50-60 people were in the room, maybe more (I never thought to count). We had some opening remarks from Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International and Past General Secretary of Civicus, that were appropriately directed to the question of how the three things were related and how they intersect. I was excited. I definitely see tensions between these three – not outright hostility just a question of priorities. If you are busy trying to get the world to cut down on carbon, or save the ocean, or get rid of cars, in order to save the planet and eventually improve people's lives, even save them from climate devastation/crisis - your priority may not be working on poverty and social justice/human rights, today. But people are dying and being imprisoned and kept from organizing to improve their lives - today! Not that environmentalists don't care about that, I realize it is just not what they are working on – but everyone cannot be doing big climate change work. . . Although people do not always like the comparisons, I think that the concept is useful: someone has to be building the dam while others are pulling the drowning out of the water. The question - how do we make sure that we are all working together - no point in your diverting the river so that others will flood. . .
I felt that the agenda on day two became one in which direct action on climate change became the priority and the question that was posed and the issues represented in the title were lost by the end of day 2. The agenda was essentially “hi-jacked” buy a focus on the environment. Now I understand all the way, that the south is going to be affected first by climate change and that drought and floods are going to affect the south first, and most extremely. I wrote about it in a previous blog, but I felt that too much time was spent on individual solutions for the north – get rid of cars, use your purchases to buy a new world. . . etc. I wanted to see solutions based on green jobs and technologies for the developing world – how small farms, eco-farming, agroecology, and perma-culture could help and would be good for the environment and people. How does moving to sustainable fishing or farming or manufacturing help the move to improve democracy, human rights, gender equity and civil society space (yup – I love the big questions?)
So although unsatisfied at the end of day two, I was nevertheless interested enough to return, as I wanted to see what kind of action would emerge from some rather “deep” discussion. By Day 3 though, we were a very small group – one of the “rules” of Open Space is that “you let your feet talk” - if you are not getting anything out of your group – move to another group – or go out in the hall, or go home, but don't hang around feeling that you are wasting your time. The other principles are: 1) Whoever comes are the right people, 2) whatever happens is the only thing that could have, 3) when it starts is the right time, 4) when it's over it's over. These aren't prescriptive, according to Open Space World - they are the results of thousands of little experiments.
So none of the actions on Day 3 seemed to include all of the elements of the question – how can civil society contribute to the reconciliation of the fight against poverty, economic development and climate justice. The discussion that came closest – and the one that I worked on - was to create an index against which governments of any economic model, north or south, could be rated against, with data mostly available, and that would measure poverty, human rights and environmental impact/justice. But this action was far too big for anyone in the group to take on, although all of us were willing to work on it. There are many other measures, indexes etc., but they take many people to analyze the data and they are usually based on the OECD only, or on the U.N. development index etc. Another problem with most current indexes is that they use the current economic model of growth as an indicator – this needs to be altered to measure improved sustainability, relative poverty and inequality, and Human Rights. Other groups came up with great projects – plant a million trees in Mozambique, or distribute Diva Cups (reusable menstrual cups)to young women in a country in the global south. . . but they seemed specific and didn't seem to reconcile all three issues at all – but then I was not in those groups – feel free to tell me about your different experience in the same group.
So I enjoyed my time in the space, and think it is a great facilitation technique because it demonstrates what can arise out of an open, free democratic space. Personally, I learned some things and made some friends, but I thought that there was not enough cohesion in the group, to ask harder questions - that the overall question/goal/outcome/ of the group was ignored by the majority (or perhaps everyone was influenced by the more aggressive) in the group. It was a great use of open, democratic space – the group takes control - but a disappointment for me and I expect others. . . since the group went from so large, to so small.
I would use Open Space again for a Civicus Assembly, (though I am not involved in those decisions!) but I would suggest that either the questions be ones that would attract a group of people with a more common goal/outcome (who could debate ways of getting there); that how the actions would be implemented (web based follow up - Civicus as an organization committed to follow up on one or two most promising items?) was clearly outlined, or, alternatively, that the entire Civicus Assembly be involved in creating the agendas, groups and spaces in the first place so that we could follow the group questions to a group facilitator with a specific agenda, that I share, and want to work on. It would be unwieldy with so many people but it could also be magic.
No comments:
Post a Comment