Introduction and Executive Summary

This is a proposal regarding the establishment of a solutions-oriented global consultation on the major global challenges that the world is currently facing.  It is proposed by the State of the World Forum, the Convening Chair of which is Mikhail Gorbachev, that a global consultation would be conducted outside of governmental and intergovernmental channels and would use creative collaborative processes and a consistent planning framework and methodology to produce an integrated, multidisciplinary, long-term approach to the many interrelated challenges that confront us, the most important of which is global warming. 

We propose that such a consultation seek to develop global solutions that are fact-based, values-oriented, and developed through an open, participatory, and transparent global process that would utilize and rely upon globally recognized subject matter experts to lead and manage the consultations. This consultation would include a technology platform for conducting and managing the consultative processes to ensure that they are deeply rooted in the power of information and technology.  We refer to this technology process as a “Global Solutions Wiki” designed to be expert based and moderated as well as open to input from interested parties on a global scale.

The principal conclusions set forth in this Memorandum can be summarized as follows:

• We are currently in the formative stages of “the largest social movement in history.” This is reflected in the “one—and maybe two—million organizations” working on ecological degradation, climate change, and “social justice” issues around the world as well as the roughly 30% -- 35% of the populations in the US, Europe, Canada and Japan which may be categorized as Cultural Creatives. This new and emerging population is “paying close attention to world events and global trends” and is also “fed up with politics and politicians.”  Paul Ray’s work suggests that Cultural Creatives may represent as many as 60 million adults in the US alone.

• This massive “social movement” does not currently “match the scale of the problems” we are currently confronting and it has not been “mobilized into a cohesive political force” or a “united front that can counter the massive scale and power of the global corporations and lobbyists that protect the status quo.”  In addition, the immediacy and urgency of the challenges we face suggest that we must act quickly and together and now if we are to ameliorate rapidly deteriorating conditions. 

• The global challenges that are now before us can be addressed in a “non-ideological” manner and with “solutions-based approaches” that utilize well-established and well-accepted taxonomies, frameworks, methodologies, and processes, many of which have been developed within the context of multi-stakeholder consultations conducted by the UN and other multi-lateral institutions.  Two of the distinguishing characteristics of Cultural Creatives are (i) their propensity for direct, social engagement and (ii) their focus on practical, sustainable “solutions” rather than on ideology and theory.

• A collaborative, internet-based communications platform will be an essential element of any effort to deal with global challenges by means of global consultations.  Such a platform will also be required to establish and manage any common program or “action plan” that might evolve from these consultations.  As a general matter, a communications platform of this type should be open, transparent, and participatory.  The process of developing “global solutions for global challenges” should be led and moderated by subject matter experts, but should also accommodate and encourage broad multi-stakeholder participation on a global basis.  One might look to Wikipedia and to certain UN processes for models along these lines. We have referred to this platform as a “Global Solutions Wiki” which would “focus on global challenges from the perspective of their solvability.”

• The essential thrust of this proposal is how we might initiate a global dialogue to consider how what is now a “fragmented” and “dispersed” “social movement” of organizations and individuals might be coalesced and organized into a more coherent force.  Four specific issues for consideration are set forth.  In addition, it is suggested that a small gathering of “thought leaders” from this movement could be convened to consider these issues as well as the advisability of establishing a more technical, expert-led global consultation focused on “global solutions for global challenges.”   

Research and Review

Our research has consisted of a review of (i) a variety of UN websites and materials, (ii) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Synthesis Report, (iii) the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAAKSTD) (iv) the Global Marshall Plan brochure and “Consultation Draft for a Common Action Plan,” (v) websites and materials from the World Future Council, We Can Solve It, World Changing, and Wiser Earth, among other organizations, (vi) Blessed Unrest by Paul Hawken, (vii) materials related to the “Cultural Creatives” by Paul Ray, and (viii) additional sources set forth in Appendix 1.

Discussion

Based on this admittedly limited and quick review, we make the following observations:

• Paul Hawken is correct when he posits that we are in the midst of “the largest social movement in all human history.”  I believe this movement has arisen as a collective response to the unprecedented and daunting challenges we are currently facing, as Hawken suggests with his apt analogy of the “movement” as an “immune” response to the “disease” that is besetting the planet and its inhabitants.  This “disease” is “marked by massive ecological degradation and rapid climate change” along with a variety of complex “social justice” issues and inequities. 

Hawken is also accurate when he describes this “movement” as “compelling.”  He views it as “coherent, organic, self-organized congregations involving tens of millions of people dedicated to change.”  His research and analysis suggest that “there are over one—and perhaps maybe even two—million organizations working toward ecological sustainability and social justice” and he sets forth an excellent and comprehensive taxonomy for these groups and the issues they are addressing as an Appendix to his book and at the Wiser Earth website.  These organizations are organized, managed, and supported by people all around the world.

Hawken correctly concludes that this “social movement” does not “fit the standard model.”  It has no “leaders” or “followers;” it is “dispersed, inchoate, and fiercely independent;” it has “no manifesto or doctrine, no overriding authority to check with.”  In addition, it is distinctive because it is “arising from the bottom up,”  focuses on offering solutions rather than on ideology, and utilizes the power of the internet and global communications technologies to “connect” like-minded people and organizations around the world and thus to shift “the loci of power” away from traditional, centralized structures.

However, the “movement” also suffers from serious limitations, as Hawken has observed.  While it has strength in its multiplicity, diversity and adaptability, it is also fragmented, lacking in cooperation and collaboration (“especially when organizations are forced to compete for scarce resources”), and subject to “narcissism,” “gossip,” “churlishness” and “backbiting.”  Most importantly, “while issues grow in importance, a balkanized movement does not match the scale of the problems,” and “as yet there has been no coming together of organizations in a united front that can counter the massive scale and power of the global corporations and lobbyists that protect the status quo.”

• At the same time, Paul Ray identifies a related, supportive, and perhaps more fundamental trend suggesting that “Cultural Creatives” may now represent roughly 30% of the US population and even higher percentages in Western Europe, Japan, and Canada.  This population now amounts to approximately 60 million adults in the US and may help to explain in large measure the recent success of Barack Obama.

Ray’s sociological work, which has been conducted over more than 20 years, suggests that Cultural Creatives are “essentially comprised or people who have participated in the social and consciousness movements…, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, the women’s movement, the organic food and alternative health care movements, the new spirituality and growth movements, etc.”  This group is constituted of individuals who are “spiritually motivated and committed to personal growth but are not dogmatically religious.  They embrace technology and economic development but only with a deep affirmation of the environment and community.  They tend to view the world from the perspective of holistic systems… [and] are paying close attention to world events and global trends…”  They are “fed up with current politics and politicians,” largely because they “believe in ecological sustainability and personal growth.” They also “have a planetary focus beyond nationalistic interests” and are “concerned with the legacy that is being left for future generations.” Most significantly, they are deeply “involved in many of the most socially active NGOs and non-profit organizations,” and thus presumably constitute the core of the “social movement” that Hawken describes from his organizational perspective.

But as there has been no “coming together of organizations in a united front,” the Cultural Creatives as a whole have “not mobilized into a coherent political force.”  They remain a population of “individuals who hold progressive values” rather than an “effective moral, economic, and political presence.”

Paul Ray is currently concluding a major new study on Cultural Creatives in the US. The results of this study are expected to be released in the fall of 2008.  Similar studies have been conducted in France, German, Holland, Hungary, Italy, Canada and Japan to document and confirm the global reach and primacy of this important social phenomenon.  Additional studies are being conducted in Canada and Sri Lanka and are contemplated in India. It is expected that these studies will, with very recent data, collectively quantify and describe the demographic basis for what could become a significant global political force if properly organized and mobilized. 

• We do not believe that much time needs to be spent identifying or articulating the challenges that we face.  While different sources and groups might use different or nuanced technical definitions or listings, the basic problem sets are well known and well described by a variety of authors, in a variety of contexts and media.  Thus, it does not seem necessary to develop new or additional “problem statements;” those that already exist should be sufficient to frame the challenges and could be readily adapted for our purposes.

• Taxonomies of these challenges, which break them down into smaller, more manageable, component parts, are also available.  The summary taxonomy used for UN “Global Issues” is located at www.un.org/issues/index and its “Sustainable Development” taxonomy is located at www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues. The Wiser Earth classifications are highly articulated, as a result of lengthy group refinement, and directly applicable.  These are attached hereto for easy reference and can be found at www.wiserearth.org/aof/browse.  The World Bank method of organizing its Projects around Themes (see www.worldbank.org “Projects and Operations by Theme”) follows a different but also useful methodology.  Further, the World Future Council (WFC) and the Global Marshall Plan (GMP) utilize their own thematic arrangements, which can be found on their websites as listed in Appendix 1.  Thus, it does not seem additive or a useful expenditure of time to seek to establish a new methodology or framework for organizing discussion or problem solving groups.  Rather, utilizing what is already available should be satisfactory.

• Many groups and institutions have long been focused on policy level proscriptions, prescriptions, and recommendations for the many challenges that are now before us.  These groups include the UN, other multi-lateral and bi-lateral development institutions, NGOs and CSOs (as Hawken and his Wiser Earth data base confirm most elegantly and authoritatively), universities and other academic institutions, religious institutions, a variety of public policy think tanks, the private sector, and many others.

In particular, the UN is leading and managing many global, multi-stakeholder consultations.  The IPCC and the IAASD are merely two recent ones.  The UN Millennium Declaration, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, the UN Conference on Trade and Development, the ILO Core Labor Standards, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the UN Conference on Disarmament, the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, the United Nations Human Settlements Program, and the International Hydrological Program are other examples. 

These UN consultations utilize well established and well accepted frameworks and methodologies for discussing and developing policy issues in specific technical areas.  Intergovernmental policy deliberations of this type are complemented and supplemented by the activities of many groups and institutions that are “outside” the UN system but who participate regularly and actively in the UN consultative processes.  While these processes are unquestionably complex, cumbersome, and slow, they also frequently establish scientific and fact-based decision making frameworks, present policy options and recommendations without being proscriptive, represent the best available global consensus and describe global best practices regarding policy issues and options at a particular time, and take into account equity and other social justice considerations that are too frequently not considered in other institutional settings.

Any solutions-oriented global consultation outside of governmental and intergovernmental processes should utilize fully, and not seek to recreate or reinvent, existing global policy making frameworks and methodologies such as those established by the UN and other normative global bodies.  While such consultations should not be bound, limited or restricted by these frameworks or methodologies, they should be used to an appropriate extent as “foundational,” as “building blocks,” for global engagement at policy level.

• Several organizations are already or will soon be utilizing technology platforms that provide collaborative tools for discussing global themes and developing global solutions.  Four of these organizations include the Global Marshall Plan, Wiser Earth, the UN, and Wikipedia.  These were identified during our limited research effort and are utilized solely for illustration purposes; they do not purport to be an exhaustive or representative list.  Also, we did not capable of and therefore did not undertake any assessment or evaluation of any issues related to the adequacy or appropriateness of these or other technology platforms.

Thus, we would need to carefully explore the best technology platform for the global consultations suggested herein. If certain “Wikis” or technology platforms have been previously established and are readily available, it may make more sense to consider building a partnership or working closely with others who are engaged in this type of activity. Further, if the “solutions” orientation is the principle distinguishing factor for the global consultations, we should be sure that the any technology platform that is utilized is carefully designed around that specific functionality.  We should also seek to assure that any “Wiki” or other collaborative, internet-based communication platform is complemented and supplemented with appropriate consultative processes that provide for actual meetings and face-to-fact interaction.

• With regard to collaborative multi-stakeholder consultations, we reiterate that much can be learned from UN experience.  The recent IAASTD process is instructive. 

The IAASTD was a three year collaborative effort (2005-2007) that assessed the “relevance, quality, and effectiveness of agricultural knowledge, science, and technology.”  Its goals were “reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental stability.”  The assessment was an “independent multi-stakeholder and multi-disciplinary process” that presented in an integrated fashion the “conclusions of studies by a wide range of scientific authors, experts and development specialists” while also providing for “a diversity of views” on a variety of issues.  From a substantive perspective, the assessment was a “multi-thematic, multi-spatial, multi-temporal intergovernmental process with a multi-stakeholder Bureau” that managed its process and work.  The “stakeholders” were selected as “representative” on a balanced geographic basis and included 30 government representatives and 30 civil society representatives (“NGOs, producer and consumer groups, private sector entities and international organizations”).  The “Bureau” that served these “stakeholders” then selected 400 of the world’s leading experts, “following nominations by the stakeholder groups,” to prepare the IAASTD Report.  The Report contained “Global and 5 sub-Global” assessments” and specifically focused on “using local, traditional, and formal knowledge” as bases for its analysis and conclusions.  Experts “worked in their own capacity and did not represent any particular stakeholder group.”  Additional individuals, organizations, and governments were involved in the peer review process.” Authors and reviewers were “largely” uncompensated.

The IAASTD focused on 8 topics:  “bioenergy, biotechnology, climate change, human health, natural resource management, traditional knowledge and community based innovation, trade and markets, and women in agriculture.”  It conducted an “analysis of some future development alternatives to 2050 to form the basis for assessing options for action” but it did not “advocate specific policies or practices.”  It sought to be “policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive” and to “provide information for decision makers confronting conflicting views.” Its “key findings” were controversial and far reaching and portrayed a highly problematic near term future at several levels.

The relevance of the IAASTD experience here is threefold:

First, it demonstrates an excellent model for fact-based, long-term policy development and decision making involving technical, complex, interrelated, and multi-disciplinary subject matters. If the “movement” is to “scale up” so that it can adequately “match the scale of the problems,” it will need to learn from and take advantage of this kind of process model. 

Second, the IAASTD did not recommend or provide any “solutions.” As a result, it demonstrates the limitations of certain (if not many) UN and other intergovernmental processes and confirms the “added value” that a “solutions” approach would have.

Third, it suggests the efficiency and benefit that would be derived (as suggested above) from participating in and building on UN and other intergovernmental processes and then taking the results of these processes forward to a “plan of action.”

• With respect to developing a “common plan of action,” we are mindful of Hawken’s astute observation that the “social movement” he characterizes is essentially “non-ideological.” Even while its members “share…a basic set of fundamental understandings about the earth, how it functions, and the necessity of fairness and equity for all people dependent on the planet’s life-giving systems,” the “movement” itself remains “eminently pragmatic” and “offers processes, concerns, and compassion,” rather than ideology. This “movement,” he concludes, “does not invoke the masses’ fantasized will but rather engages citizens’ localized needs;” it is “not a liberal or a conservative activity; it is a sacred act…a massive enterprise undertaken by ordinary citizens everywhere…” 

In our view, a “non-ideological” and “solutions-based” approach to global challenges is not inconsistent with a “common plan of action.”  Indeed, it is likely that a “common plan of action,” or some set of related “plans of action” organized around critical themes or issues, will be required to “match the scale of the problems” and to facilitate the “coming together of organizations in a united front.” 

In this regard, the approaches of the Global Marshall Plan (GMP) and the World Future Council (WFC) are instructive.  Summaries of these approaches are set forth in Appendix 3. We provide these summaries regarding GMP and WFC to make three key points:

First, both GMP and WFC demonstrate that global challenges can be approached on a global basis without necessarily becoming “ideological,” “hierarchical,” or “centralized.”  Both organizations manifest values-based, solutions-oriented approaches that model a “common action plan” orientation. Each organization also presents a somewhat “integrated” and “holistic” platform, although the GMP is far deeper and is articulated much more clearly. Because substantially higher levels of cooperation, collaboration, and organization will be required to address our global challenges, it seems an unequivocal necessity to encourage and support “common” and more comprehensive structures that push the “movement” to the larger scale required to have meaningful impact.

Second, the initiatives of both GMP and the WFC are very recent and may therefore indicate that Hawken’s “self-organizing” “movement” may be “evolving” naturally and imminently toward a greater degree of organization, collaboration and cohesion as it seeks to “match the scale of the problems.” If this is the case, it would make focus on the four “critical and related issues” set forth in Conclusion 2 below particularly relevant, timely and beneficial. 

Lastly, GMP and WFC may represent natural “partners” or “colleagues” in any effort to establish a “common action plan” for addressing global challenges, as would several of the other organizations mentioned in this Memorandum.  On the other hand, we should be sure that duplicative and redundant activities are avoided to the greatest extent possible and that appropriate roles and responsibilities are thoughtfully allocated among “partners” and “colleagues” to maximize efficiency and effectiveness within a “movement” that will always be resource constrained.  Accordingly, it would seem productive to explore at an early stage appropriate relationships with GMP, WFC, The State of the World Forum, and other well-aligned organizations that we might identify after more comprehensive analysis.

• The challenges that we face are urgent and immediate.  While basic problem sets and taxonomies have been identified and certain governmental and intergovernmental frameworks and methodologies have been established to discuss and address many of our most acute global problems,  there remains a substantial risk that these processes will not yield ameliorative results fast enough to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences.  We point out in this regard comments from Rajendra Pachauri, who accepted the Nobel Prize on behalf of the IPCC: 

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.  What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future.  This is the defining moment.”

More recently, James Hansen, NASA’s Chief Scientist, argued in a paper submitted to Science magazine that immediate and drastic steps must be taken to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere “if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted…” 

Conclusions

Within this background and context, we draw the following conclusions:

1. The “largest social movement in history,” with its global constituency of organizations and individuals (as described by Paul Hawken and Paul Ray, respectively), is not yet able to “match the scale of the problems” that confront us.  It remains “fragmented” and is not organized into a “united front” that would counter “the massive scale and power” of the corporations, governments, and other institutions that (i) protect the status quo and (ii) prevent the development of timely solutions for significant and predictable global catastrophes.

2. If this “social movement” could be organized into a more coherent force, with greater ability to collaborate and cooperate toward commonly shared objectives, it would undoubtedly have much greater potential for beginning to address our most serious challenges in the near term.  Because these challenges are immediate and urgent, every effort should be made to develop a “coherent political force” from this “social movement” as quickly as possible.  Paul Ray’s analysis and data with respect to the Cultural Creatives could be foundational in this regard and would certainly be of great benefit in helping to define, locate, and develop appropriate messaging for this important global constituency.

3. We need to begin a dialogue to consider four critical and interrelated issues that the current “dispersed” state of this “social movement” and the growing number of Cultural Creatives present:

• What will be required to help this “movement” successfully “match the scale of the problems”?  The situation is becoming increasingly urgent and options increasingly limited as the challenges increase in intensity, complexity, intractability, and impact on future generations.
• Can the people and organizations that constitute the “movement” “work together in a more cooperative and collaborative fashion to challenge deeper systemic issues” and to have a greater impact?  If so, how would such cooperation and collaboration be organized, managed, and financed?
• Would it be beneficial for the “movement” to consider a more “centralized” or “integrated” approach or structure with stronger “leadership” and a statement of “core” “beliefs,” “values,” or “understandings”?  Would it make sense for the “movement” to try to develop, and coalesce around, a “common plan of action” that would be “integrated,” “holistic,” “long-term,” “solution oriented” and organized around the key issues?  If so, how might we consider such an approach, structure, or “action plan” more fully, and who should be included in such a deliberation?

4. Such a dialogue could be initiated by calling together a small gathering of “thought leaders” from this “social movement” for the purpose of considering these issues.  These “thought leaders” would be (i) subject matter experts who have been deeply involved in global consultations through governmental and intergovernmental processes, (ii) heads of well-respected NGOs and CSOs involved in global issues, and (iii) perhaps several progressive politicians. State of the World Forum, in partnership with supporting organizations, could “host” and “sponsor” this gathering with a view toward encouraging and supporting the initiation of a more formalized process and structure for enhancing the reach and impact of the “movement.” 

The main issue to be addressed, in short, would be how to maximize global political effectiveness of this inchoate “social movement” in the immediate near term as well as in the coming years.  The gathering would also consider the merits of establishing a “global consultation,” either as part of or separate from, efforts to build more cohesion around the “social movement.”  As set forth in the “Introduction” to this Memorandum, such a consultation would seek to develop “global solutions for global challenges” outside of governmental and intergovernmental channels. The consultations would be organized and led by subject matter experts but would also seek to provide multi-disciplinary and integrated, long-term solutions derived from open and participatory processes.  Such consultations could provide the substance underlying, and perhaps guiding, the “platform,” “positions,” “agenda,” or “common action plan” of the newly organized “social movement” but would not themselves constitute the “movement.”

The most appropriate technology platform and collaboration tools for exploring global themes and developing global solutions, or “Global Solutions Wiki,” should also be an important topic for these discussions.

• The State of the World Forum, which is in the early planning stages for its 2010 Forum in Washington D.C., is prepared to assist in organizing and structuring this gathering.  This Forum, which has tentatively identified its main theme as “Networking Global Solutions,” will seek, among other things, to “catalyze people, solutions and resources into a movement of social activism” and to “build a coalition of groups” to provide “global solutions for global challenges.”

We are prepared to meet with any interested parties to discuss this proposal in more detail. An appropriate formal proposal and budget could be prepared for consideration relatively easily and quickly if there is sufficient interest in this topic and approach from potential partners.

Appendix 1:  Research Sources

• The “Global Issues” section of the UN website (see www.un.org/issues), along with a more detailed review of selected issues set forth therein (specifically, “Agriculture,” “Atomic Energy,” “Climate Change,” “Culture,” “Disarmament,” “Energy,” “Environment,” “Food,” “Governance,” “Human Settlements,” “Oceans and the Law of the Sea,” “Population,” “Sustainable Development,” “Trade and Development,” and “Water”).  This more detailed review included a high-level perusal of the web-sites of the UN agencies and organizations involved with each of these issues (such as FAO and IFAD for “Agriculture,” UNEP for “Climate Change” and “Environment,” the Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) for “Disarmament,” UNFPA for “Population,” etc.) with a focus on their programmatic content and issue identification.  I did not review “Education” or “Health” issues or organizations due to the limited time available and my general feeling that these topic areas already have broad and deep global constituencies and relatively well-established and integrated agendas.

• The Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued in the fall of 2007 (IPCC) and the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development (IAASTD) delivered in Johannesburg on April 7, 2008.  These reviews focused on the processes that were utilized to conduct the global, multi-stakeholder consultations and on the quality and format for the recommendations of the expert groups.  The IPCC Synthesis Report can be found through the UNEP website, and the IAASTD Report can be found at www.agassessment.org.

• The “Global Marshall Plan” brochure and “Consultation Draft for a Common Action Plan,” both of which can be found at www.globalmarshallplan.org.  This review focused on the approach, consultative process, and “global action plan” that will be developed around the “Convention for the Global Commons.”

• The websites and associated documentary material for the World Future Council (www.worldfuturecouncil.org), We Can Solve It (www.wecansolveit.org), World Changing (www.worldchanging.com), Wiser Earth (www.wiserearth.org), and Beyond GDP (www.beyond-gdp.eu).  These reviews focused on the missions, approaches, and programs of these organizations.  I also reviewed on a cursory basis related websites for organizations such as Focus the Nation, YES!, Global Youth Action Network, Zaadz, and the World Social Forum.

• Paul Hawken’s book, Blessed Unrest, which sets forth “how the largest social movement in all human history is restoring grace, justice, and beauty to the world.” 

• Information regarding the “Cultural Creatives” as defined and described in Paul Ray’s book, The Cultural Creatives, and set forth at the Wisdom University website (www.wisdomuniversity.org/cultural-creatives). 

Appendix 2:  Existing and Developing Technology Platforms

• The Global Marshall Plan will follow-up its first major multi-stakeholder discussion at the end of 2007 with a “Wiki-based interactive website” that would “open the dialogue and feedback process to a much larger number of individuals and organizations in 2008-2009, inviting a wider circle of input for the modification of the [Convention on the Global Commons] text.”  This text, as discussed in Appendix 3, is organized around six broad thematic areas and is being circulated as a “Consultation Draft.”  The “Wiki-based interactive website” will presumably accommodate and help structure discussion in each of the Draft’s thematic areas.

• The Wiser Earth website is a “community directory and networking forum that maps and connects non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and individuals addressing the central issues of our day: climate change, poverty, the environment, peace, water, hunger, social justice, conservation, human rights and more.  Content is created and edited by people like you…” More than 100,000 organizations, 500 groups, and 12,000 people are currently involved.  While not technically a “Wiki,” the Wiser Earth website is “the first online data base that can be edited by the community it serves.”  It is “community-drive and –operated” and it is created using open-source software.  Significantly, it allows users to “create a group,” “join a group focused on your issues,” and “network with others.”

• The UN frequently uses internet and communications technology to support and structure its global consultations.  Since these generally involve many professional and other participants and highly technical subjects and documentation, there is considerable learning and experience within the UN regarding how to best conduct and manage complex, substantive, thematic discussions aimed at collective problem solving and using inclusive and participatory collaboration techniques.

• Wikipedia itself has excellent entries regarding many of the topics that the “movement” seeks to address.  While these entries may not be as comprehensive as other available sources and may not be “solution oriented,” they represent a solid and established platform and communication mechanism for consistent and valuable collaboration.

Appendix 3:  Approaches to “Common Action”:
The Global Marshall Plan and the World Future Council

 

1. The Global Marshall Plan

The GMP begins with the premise that “the multilateral system we have developed over the past sixty years is breaking down because nation-states resist sharing their sovereignty and cooperating together more effectively.  The strategies currently being pursued by our major global actors—the self-aggrandizing policies of nations, the shareholder-driven interests of transnational corporations and banks, and the biased rules of international institutions—are not adequately addressing the social, environmental and economic dimensions of globalization.” 

The Plan then suggests that our “international priorities today include: agreeing on a global plan of action guided by our spiritual, ethical, and cultural values, making the world economy fairer, dealing with climate change equitably, [and] creating a peaceful, sustainable and prosperous life on Earth.” 

It proceeds to suggest that the “international community has not yet organized effectively to address these overarching interests” and concludes that “the development of equitable global solutions to these challenges requires the application of ethical values, a commitment to sustainable development, economic expertise and an entrepreneurial spirit, successful political strategies, an understanding of cultural diversity, and the participation of the people of the entire world.”

From this perspective, the GMP proposes that “global citizens…must organize and assert their right to make equitable decisions to address the global commons.”  It urges the “direct action of citizens for social justice” and suggests that “we use the technologies of modern communications to network and disseminate [a] program for global justice on an international basis.”  The Plan seeks to utilize a “common communication strategy” to create global awareness around the message “save the world now” and contemplates “national campaigns” that “target their own messages” but that are also “integrated through the common campaign theme, which ensures that all of the national campaigns are working toward the same goal.” 

The “Convention on the Global Commons” is intended as “the first draft of a global action plan” that will provide “the initial impetus for a multi-stakeholder process” and that will work closely with the “thousands of individuals and organizations which are already focused on a particular aspect of the global commons.” 

The GMP brochure is attached hereto and can also be found at the GMP website.  It includes the “Consultation Draft for a Common Action Plan.”  The Draft sets forth “six essential directions for action” for the “Common Action Plan:”

• “Fulfilling the Millennium Development Goals,
• Protecting our common global resources,
• Restructuring global economic rules and institutions,
• Establishing new forms of governance, multilateral financing for the implementation of international standards, and
• Realizing human and social potentials.”

The brochure indicates that multi-stakeholder discussion of the Draft was to begin in December 2007 and that consultations will occur through 2008 and 2009, culminating in a “major conference of international stakeholders in early 2010, where consensus on a final action plan will be completed and announced.  This action plan will then be executed step-by-step through coordinated worldwide activities in accordance with agreed upon implementation and communication strategies.”

The World Future Council

The WFC “unites fifty highly respected figures from across the globe and from all walks of life to create a strong ethical voice to represent future generations.”  The Council held its first meeting and issued its “Call to Action” in Hamburg in May of 2007.  This Call indicates that the Council will “work with policy-makers and civil society worldwide to identify, draft, and help implement model policies, laws and agreements to:

• Rapidly phase in renewable energy technologies…,
• Protect our forests and oceans and secure healthy food and water supplies…,
• Shift funds from military to environmental security, healthcare education and shelter,
• Shift taxation from labor to resource use, pollution and waste,
• Build a sustainable production, trade, financial and monetary system,
• Revive local democracies and economies,
• Reform global governance with a strengthened, democratized and revitalized UN system…,
• Safeguard traditional indigenous tribal rights…,
• Contribute to reforming education in accordance with these purposes.”

The Council was formed after a “wide consultation process with input from more than 8000 organizations, elected representatives, activists, and other interested people, from some 200 countries…”  Since its first meeting, it has designed its projects as “global campaigns that involve parliamentary hearings, legislative assistance, tailored mailings, events and [a] website which is envisioned to become a multimedia clearinghouse for information on policies to change the world.” Initial activities are focused on “Climate” and “Energy” although an issues taxonomy is provided under the main headings of “Environment,” “Economics and Politics,” and “Social Issues.”