Content
I. Introduction and Justification
II. Methodology
III. Facts about the WSF
IV. Findings and Analysis
V. Major Conclusions and Recommendations
VI. Annexes
VII. Footnotes and Bibliography
I. Introduction and justification
The present study was carried out with the objective of assessing and systematising the World
Social Forum’s (WSF) experiences in resource mobilisation for the organising of the global events
and the process that has taken place since 2001 to 2005. The Terms of Reference (TORs) of the
study [1] determined that the objective of the exercise was to serve as the basis for the elaboration
of a more autonomous and sustainable financial strategy that could deal with the nature, growth,
modus operandi, and demands from all the stakeholders involved in this worldwide process.
The political initiative and general concept of the consultancy was born in the WSF’s Resources
Commission, as a result of demands from within, the need to respond rapidly to more diverse and
complex situations, and demands from its growing interaction with major funders and financial
supporters. Thus, after due considerations and reflection, the consultancy was formally proposed
and approved by the WSF’s International Council in March – 2006. [2]
A review of existing fundraising practices and an assessment of opportunities for a long-term
sustainable financial proposal for the WSF were considered to be urgently needed. Until 2006,
each WSF Organising Committee (Brazil, India, Pakistan, Mali, Venezuela, Kenya, Senegal),
Regional Forums (European, Mediterranean) National (Colombian, Palestinian, etc.), Thematic
(Democracy, Human Rights, War and Drug Traffic), etc. basically had to raise its own funds for
the event as well as for the local processes. In general terms, funds had been sought from
governments and non governmental sources (usually the same sources). Little had been done to
explore other sources of funding, or to share and systematise experiences, principles, and modus
operandi.
This entails a number of risks. In the absence of a proper and coherent strategy, the biggest risk
being faced in this period is to run the few well known sources dry, trigger donor fatigue and
frustration, exacerbate internal contradictions and fail to detect and recognise emerging
capacities or opportunities. This consultancy was implemented in order to overcome present
limitations, and enable the WSF to succeed in making a qualitative leap towards a new financial
life period.
Due to the urgency of the consultancy, and the added need to link its findings to the fundraising
initiative of the Nairobi WSF, the study was carried out by three people [3] from May to September
of 2006. Since the beginning of the exercise, special care was taken to keep the Organising
Committee of the WSF 2007 abreast of its developments and findings, and whenever possible,
meeting physically to exchange views and information in the concrete area of fundraising.
The report was first delivered to the Resources Commission on September the 22th 2006. A
special devolution and feedback session took place in the Netherlands between the researchers
and the Resources Commission on September 24th and 25th. The material being presented now
incorporates all the changes, additions and suggestions received to date.
The list of people who have made this document possible is long, however, at this point in time,
we would like to thank all members of the WSF who gave their time and made special
arrangements to respond to the interview requests. Our apologies to all those with whom
communication was difficult, or appointments had to be changed or cancelled. We would like to
thank the Brazil and India Organising Committees, the India and Brazil Secretariats, the funding
sources interviewed and/or contacted, especially to the sponsors of this exercise, to the research
centres who contributed with documentation, academics and fund raisers who gave their opinions and points of view on the subject matter. Our efforts are dedicated to those who will take up the
concrete challenges registered and posed in the study, and manage them in the next historical
period.
II. Methodology
The methodology utilised was determined by the objectives of the study, by the universe of
global issues, actors, activities, etc. of the WSF, and by the time and means available to carry out
the exercise. The objectives were very clear (design of a more autonomous financial strategy),
but the universe of actors, ideologies, actions, and geographic spread were very wide. In spite of
being the first exercise of this nature to be undertaken by the WSF the TORs were (intentionally)
very ambitious. Fortunately enough the objectives were met, mediating only a small time
extension, and pending political decisions.
Taking into account all the elements mentioned above, the methodology and its implementation were divided in five basic steps:
A) Research and Investigation
B) Design of the Study, Questionnaires & Implementation
C) Systematisation of Responses, Findings and Writing of the Report
D) Workshop with Resource Commission to Devolve the Findings and Review the First Draft of the Report
E) Writing and Presentation of Final Report
A) Regarding the initial research, a total of approximately 23 internal and external WSF
documents [4] were compiled, read and analysed. Most of them at the beginning of the study,
others as they were needed or became available. A total of approximately 11 Social Forum
websites were also consulted [5]. The internal documentation consisted basically of definitions,
foundational and historical records, minutes and resolutions from internal meetings, commissions’
and International Council meetings, financial reports, etc. Regarding financial reports it should be
made clear that this exercise did not have the same mandate as a strict audit exercise. The
external documentation was made up of literature and articles about the WSF, appraisals, critical
accounts, political descriptions and positions and general projections.
B) The study was designed based in the consultants’ previous experiences with world wide
networks’ evaluations, the first findings of the documentation review, in such a way that the
three objectives posed in the TORs would be fully met. Two people began the design of the
study, and a third one was added after one of the envisioned team members announced the
impossibility to participate in the exercise. Originally, two interview guides were designed, each
one for: face to face and telephone interviews and a separate one for written interviews. Both
interview guides had a set of specific questions for donors and their willingness to continue
support to the WSF. The interview guide was enhanced in the course of the interiviews with
additional key questions. The great majority of the interviews were recorded in written notes that
were later transcribed, or directly incorporated in the section Findings and Analysis. In the case of
one interviewer, a few interviews were recorded electronically, with the prior consent of the
person being interviewed. At the end of the implementation, a total of 102 people were
interviewed. Telephone interviews accounted for only 8 % of total interviews, and 92 % were
face to face interviews. Interviewees came from 27 countries on four Continents, belonging to
some 82 organisations, social movements and institutions, from approximately 14 sectors of
Global Civil Society. In order to reduce travel costs, most of the face to face interviews took place
at WSF or other types of meetings attended by people selected to be interviewed. In addition, a
total of 12 countries were visited expressly, by at least one of the interviewers, to insure full
coverage of the list of people to be interviewed. The selection criteria of people to be interviewed
was based on: active participation, sample representation of a specific sector, IC Organising Committee or Commission membership, country and geographic sample representation, political
stance and views, age, gender, and type of donor or financial source. The first tentative list was
gathered via concrete suggestions or proposals requested at the Nairobi IC meeting in March
2006, and later complemented by the Brazil, and India Organising Committees, members of
different sectors, national and regional Social Forums. From a total of 113 people identified in the
original list, only 11 people were missed for reasons beyond our control. Fortunately most of
these people had made their points of view very clear in writings, in minutes of meetings, or in
the different forums held so far.
C) As far as the systematisation, organisation and analysis of the findings, five steps can be
identified in the process. First of all answers to the substantive questions, key and emerging
issues, and major projections were recorded, synthesised and analysed. This process was done
individually and then discussed orally and in writing in cyber space. In doing so, key interviews
were transcribed and shared, assuring identification of areas of consensus, and inclusion of
diverse or antagonist points of view. Secondly a physical meeting of all three consultants took
place in July in order to: discuss and share the first general findings, identify the major
tendencies, discuss the eventual organisation of the study and divide pending and
complementary tasks. An important encounter also took place during this meeting with a
representative of the Kenya WSF organising committee in order to share initial findings and
support their fundraising efforts. Thirdly, interviews continued as well as systematisation of
findings and writing of the first individual pieces of the study. By the third week of September,
the first draft of the study was shared with members of the Resources Commission in preparation
for the Devolution Workshop to be held on September 24th and 25th in The Netherlands. Three
days before the workshop, a second physical meeting of two of the consultants took place in
order to finalise pending activities, polish the document, work on future scenarios, and prepare
the final power point presentation.
D) The workshop with the Resource Commission concluded with a series of suggestions and
recommendations for the editing of the consultants’ final report, and the decision by the
Resources Commission to present their concrete recommendations –based on the study- to the
International Council.
E) The final draft was edited and presented on the 28th of September 2006. Final copies and
translations of the study were distributed to the International Council members by the Resource
Commission on October 4th and 5th 2006. All the findings, conclusions and recommendations will
be discussed, and decisions made at the International Council meeting in Parma, Italy in October
2006.
III. Facts about the World Social Forum
A. Origin and Participants
The WSF was the first global civil society event (explicitly) designed to take place in the South,
with the express purpose of bringing together activists and global civil society organisations
working on diverse issues, through diverse methods, within a format described as a social forum. [6]
The WSF phenomenon has been described as probably, the most global initiative ever to exist in
respect to any other historic gatherings of anti-systemic movements. [7] Its antecedents in (antisystemic)
historical interpretations are traced back as far back as 1848. Most recently and most
significantly, the antecedents are tied to the global anti-capitalist movement, anti neo-liberal
forces, and as an opposing or alternative force to the World Economic Forum.
The first Brazilian WSF Organising Committee was formed in 2001. It consisted of 8
organisations: ABONG, ATTAC, CBJP, CIVES, CUT, IBASE, MST and RSJDH [8]. These organisations
were responsible for the first three editions of the WSF from 2001 to 2003. The fifth edition of the
WSF that took place in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2005 was convened and organised by a total of 23
organisations, (including the founding group) subdivided in 8 working groups. In 2004 the WSF
took place in Mumbai, India, under the responsibility of The Indian General Council consisting of
135 members representing different sectors and an India Organising Committee made up of 67
organisations, subdivided in 8 working groups.
The definition and guidelines of the WSF are stated in a Charter of Principles. The charter
contains 14 principles which explain and define the objectives, nature, character, composition,
and functioning of the forum. The charter was approved and adopted by the organisations that
made up the Brazilian Organising Committee on April 9, 2001, and later approved with some
modifications by the International Council on June 10, 2001. [9]
Since the first WSF in Porto Alegre, (Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil), in 2001, over 200 local, national,
regional, thematic and global Social Forums have taken place around the world, inspired directly
or indirectly by the World Social Forum and its Charter of Principles. Four of the global forums
were held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, one was held in Mumbai, and in 2006, three Polycentric Forums
were held in Karachi – Pakistan, Bamako – Mali, and Caracas – Venezuela. In terms of
Participants, the following table (No. 1) gives an approximate view of the number of participants,
countries, journalists, languages, etc. Map No. 1 in the other hand, illustrates the geographical
location, and type of forum held worldwide from 2001 to 2005 [10].
Table No.1: Statistics of the WSF 2001 – 2005
. | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |
Registered Participants | 4.702 | 12.274 | 27.000 | 74.126 | 155.000 |
Estimated Total Participants | 20.000 | 68.000 | 100.000 | 115.000 | 200.000 |
Registered Organisations | 500 | 5.000 | n/a | 2600 | 6.872 |
Countries Represented | 117 | 131 | 123 | 132 | 135 |
Registered Journalists | 1.870 | 3.356 | 4.094 | 3.200 | 6823 |
Volunteers | 860 | 400 | 650 | 1800 | 3.100 |
Interpreters | 51 | n/a | n/a | 180 | 533 |
Official Languages | n/a | n/a | n/a | 12 | 16 |
Estimated Youth Camp | 2.000 | 16.000 | 26.000 | 5.000 | 35.000 |
Total Events Held | 458 | 718 | 1.372 | 1.203 | 2.157 |
(Source: London School of Economics Yearbook 2005/6)
The following samples and synthesised data will give a general idea of the profile of WSF
participants. Regarding their origin (as a sample) in the case of Brazil WSF 2005, 80% were
Brazilian, 20% from the rest of the world, headed by Latin Americans (without Brazilians) 8.8%
and 4.5% Europeans, followed by 2.6% from EUA/Canada, 2.5% from Asia, 1.6% from Africa
and 0.1% from Oceania. As far as age and gender are concerned, between 2001 and 2005 the
average participants (outside the youth camp) were middle age people, averaging 50% females
and 50% males. In 2004 the percentages were 42.3% females and 53.5% males. In terms of
occupation, including youth camp statistics, (with a few variations), the majority of attendants
were students 32.7%, the second largest group was made up of public servants (except Mumbai
2004) with 16.4%, third largest were NGO or civil society organisation employees with 16%, and
finally, individual participants at 11.56%. For the 2005 WSF, 73.6% were not affiliated to a
political party, only 30.8 knew the Charter of Principles, 36.8 knew it a little, and 27.8% were not
at all familiar with the charter. At WSFs from 2003 to 2005, 60.23% of participants were enrolled
in a social movement or social organisation, 39.6% were not organised in any movement or
organisation. In the 2005 WSF the majority of people interviewed (choosing multiple answers)
attended the forum in order to: exchange experiences, contribute to developing proposals for a
more just world, to debate democratic ideas, and to get to know the forum a bit better. A lesser
number attended to: seek articulation to networks, discuss specific issues, contribute to
alternative proposals to the neo-liberal model, and to demonstrate opposition to the dominion of
world capitalism [11].
The following samples and synthesised data will give a general idea of the profile of WSF
participants. Regarding their origin (as a sample) in the case of Brazil WSF 2005, 80% were
Brazilian, 20% from the rest of the world, headed by Latin Americans (without Brazilians) 8.8%
and 4.5% Europeans, followed by 2.6% from EUA/Canada, 2.5% from Asia, 1.6% from Africa
and 0.1% from Oceania. In Mumbai 2004 the origin of participants was _(Info Pending)___. As
far as age and gender are concerned, between 2001 and 2005 the average participants (outside
the youth camp) were middle age people, averaging 50% females and 50% males. In 2004 the
percentages were 42.3% females and 53.5% males. In terms of occupation, including youth camp statistics, (with a few variations), the majority of attendants were students 32.7%, the
second largest group was made up of public servants (except Mumbai 2004) with 16.4%, third
largest were NGO or civil society organisation employees with 16%, and finally, individual
participants at 11.56%. For the 2005 WSF, 73.6% were not affiliated to a political party, only
30.8 knew the Charter of Principles, 36.8 knew it a little, and 27.8% were not at all familiar with
the charter. At WSFs from 2003 to 2005, 60.23% of participants were enrolled in a social
movement or social organisation, 39.6% were not organised in any movement or organisation. In
the 2005 WSF the majority of people interviewed (choosing multiple answers) attended the forum
in order to: exchange experiences, contribute to developing proposals for a more just world, to
debate democratic ideas, and to get to know the forum a bit better. A lesser number attended to:
seek articulation to networks, discuss specific issues, contribute to alternative proposals to the
neo-liberal model, and to demonstrate opposition to the dominion of world capitalism [12].
Map 1: Social Forums Type and Year [Not reproduced here]
B. Organisation and Structures
Some of the most difficult areas and issues to portray clearly, and in a simple manner, are
governance and the organisational structures of the WSF. This difficulty has existed since the
origin of the forum. Part of the difficulty probably lies in the attempt to reconcile certain practices
and issues in the Charter of Principles (horizontality, non representativity, decentralisation,
decision making by consensus and collective power, etc.) with growing, changing, and urgent real
life, organisational, administrative, and managerial demands from thousands of people,
organisations and dynamics from all over the world. The evolution of the governance structure of
the WSF is as follows:
Until March 2006 the structure was made up of an International Council, made up of around
110 organisations (frozen since 2002), with a set of operational rules and 6 commissions. (The
Resources Commission dealing with resource mobilisation and fundraising is one of these commissions); an International Secretariat, made up of members of the Organising
Committees of WSF events, namely Brazil and India; and to an extent the Organising
Committees of regional and thematic forums, which had some level of relations with organizers
of previous WSF- related events.
Since the end of March 2006, the governance structure underwent some changes. The
International Council is now made up of 146 organisations, with an increased presence of African
and Asian organisations. (A criterion for expansion, size, role etc. of the IC is still not yet totally
clear to everyone). Even though the number of organisations has grown, the number of active
and fully participating ones has not grown in the same proportion, and varies throughout the year
cycle, depending on the nature of the activities being carried off. The International Secretariat
and its mandate as such, expired on June 2005 after the Barcelona International Council meeting.
The designation of “International Secretariat” was abandoned due to the fact that this expression
tends to be associated with vertical organisational structures of the past. Since the expiration of
its mandate, the International Secretariat has been in a sort of impasse. Proposals about its
name, composition, and function have been presented and discussed, but no formal decisions
have yet been made. In fact, both in India and Brazil there are two very small and pragmatic
physical offices with two or three highly committed permanent staff in each one. In general in
both offices additional people are hired according to concrete planned activities and tasks
needed. In the case of India this office is called WSF India, in the Case of Brazil the office is part
of the Brazil Organising Committee (for some), or the Brazil Facilitating Group for others. Some
confusion was also detected between the role of the physical offices and the role of the
Organising Committees, especially in the case of Brazil. Again, in actuality, somehow between the
organising committees, the physical offices and active and concerned IC commission members
the life and continuity of the WSF has been somehow assured. Basically, pending, planned or
upcoming activities set the pace and set the work programme of the old Secretariat. This has
involved, different types of support to the Polycentric Forums, the upcoming Nairobi Forum,
convening and implementation of OC and IC meetings, minute taking, and more permanent tasks
such as information and communications flow, upkeep of data base and web sites, narrative and
financial reporting. Looking towards the future it is more than certain that this process will soon
cease to be sustainable.
C. Financial Support and Financial Management
In the very beginning most of the funding and in kind cooperation, came from government
sources in Brazil. From the first event onwards, the WSF was also strongly supported by a few
International NGOs and Foundations, by registration (and other) fees, and by a small number of
socially responsible corporations. It is estimated (exact figures are lacking) that in the 2001 WSF
government contribution was between 400 to 500 thousand US dollars, and over 1 million US
dollars in 2002.
Table No.3 bellow, as an illustration, shows basically the contribution of INGOs and Foundations,
some of the larger areas of expenditure, and financial flow during the last 5 years.
Table 2 (statement of income and expenditure –in millions- per annum in USD)
. | WSF 2001 | WSF 2002 | WSF 2003 | WSF 2004 | WSF 2005 | TOTAL AMOUNT |
. | P.Al.(1) | P.Al.(2) | P.Al.(3) | Mumbai | P.Alegre | . |
1. Incomes | 443.978 | 1.201.74) | 3.298.542 | 2.982.032 | 6.709.358 | 14.635.661 |
1.1. Total International Cooperation Agencies | 321.114 | 717.738 | 1.418.971 | 2.302.868 | 2.365.774 | 7.126.465 |
NOVIB | 161.707 | 285.511 | 504.903 | 480.137 | 567.176 | 1999.434 |
FORD | 100.000 | 121.057 | 576.982 | . | 300.000 | 1098.039 |
ICCO | 42.314 | 61.622 | 87.958 | 210.985 | 171.025 | 573.904 |
EED | . | 70.697 | 77.482 | 169.224 | 124.128 | 441.531 |
CCFD | . | 39.937 | 25.098 | 47.591 | 45.819 | 158.445 |
ActionAid Brz/GB - Delhi/ | . | . | 53.999 | 55.438 | 57.566 | 167.003 |
Misereor | . | . | 31.802 | . | . | 31.802 |
ChristianAid | . | . | . | . | 133.770 | 133.770 |
Rockefeller Brothers | . | . | . | . | 50.000 | 50.000 |
SIDA – Sweden | . | . | . | 493.548 | 241.240 | 734.788 |
Hivos | . | . | . | 654.466 | 365.574 | 1.020.040 |
SDC Switzerland | . | . | . | 69.124 | . | 69.124 |
Development and Peace, Canada | . | . | . | 23.028 | . | 23.028 |
Support of various organizations (amounts until US$ 20.000) | 17.093 | 138.914 | 60.747 | 99.327 | 309.476 | 625.557 |
1.2. Registration Fees | 122.864 | 484.009 | 413.457 | 645.500 | 538.127 | 2.203.957 |
1.3. Local Government (municipality and State) (est.) | (450.000) | (1.000.000) | 1.070.895 | . | 1.093.501 | 2.164.396 |
1.4. Federal Government | . | . | 17.431 | . | 1.129.954 | 1.147.385 |
1.5. Mixed-stock Corporations | . | . | 315.544 | . | 1.581.100 | 1.896.644 |
1.6. Financial investment results | . | . | 62.244 | 4.064 | 902 | 67.210 |
1.7. Local Contribution Trust & Other | . | . | . | 29.604 | . | 29.604 |
2. Expenditures | 345.224 | 910.566 | 3.682.140 | 2.727.777 | 8.313.016 | 15.978.723 |
2.1. Support Structure (WSF process) | 39.058 | 279.808 | 1.213.566 | 183.495 * | 709.532 | 2.425.459 |
2.2. Event | 258.084 | 585.106 | 2.199.584 | 2.381.392 | 6.870.688 | 12.294.854 |
2.3. Administrative fees | 48.082 | 45.652 | 268.990 | 141.099 | 356.917 | 860.740 |
2.4. Solidarity Fund | . | . | . | . | 297.564 | 297.564 |
2.5. Unplanned costs | . | . | . | 21.791 | 78.315 | 100.106 |
3. Previous Balance | 0 | 98.754 | 389.935 | 0 * | 30.345 * | . |
4. Final Balance (&) | 98.754 | 389.935 | 6.337 | 254.259 | -1.573.313 | -1.573.313 |
Notes:
(^) The Ford Foundation has only contributed to the process, not to the events as such.
(#) The 2001 and 2002 WSF in Porto Alegre were to a large extent organised and financed by the state and municipal
government. No exact financial data of those contributions are available. The figures for 2001 and 2002 are rough
estimates and appear in brackets. Actual costs and income of the forums in 2001 and 2002 are therefore higher then
indicated here.
(*) The Brazil organising committee has received funds for in total 122.965 USD for the process in 2004 and for their
contribution and support to the Mumbai Forum, and spent in total 98.958 USD. These figures do not appear in this table,
except for the amount of 30.345 that is the balance for 2005. The Mumbai balance was used by the Indian O.C. to
support I.C.-meetings and the deficits in Brazil and Pakistan.
(&) The deficit from the 2005 forum in Porto Alegre has been reduced to R$ 500.838 (appr 230.000 USD) by the end of
June 2006, thanks to additional contributions from various international development agencies, fundraising campaigns
among individuals in Brazil and internationally. Abong and Ibase have also contrbuted to reducing the debt by investing
the funds they should have received from the budget to compensate their administrative support.
To date each WSF has been organized independently, in a decentralised fashion. Organisers and
funders have changed, growth has been continuous, changes and innovations in implementation
have occurred. For all of these reasons, standardized formats have not been used to record
income and – to make things even more complicated – expenditures. Organizing dynamics and
the formats were modified each year, adapting to changing situations and demands. This is an
issue that needs to be understood rather than explained. As it can be seen in the illustration,
(above), except for the case of Mumbai – India the costs of the World Social Forums have been
increasing each year. The numbers of donors have also been increasing due to the conscious
effort to diversify income. Until now a total of approximately 14.6 million US dollars has been
registered and spent in WSF events alone, not including polycentric forums. If unregistered social
capital, infrastructure, volunteers, and institutional contributions are taken into account, the
actual (conservative) costs of the WSF events most likely surpasses the 19 million US dollars.
Regarding general management, the Brazilian Organising Committee has two general accounts,
one managed by ABONG in Sao Paulo and another by IBASE in Rio de Janeiro. In certain cases
due to administrative or donor requests and procedures, individual accounts for individual
projects are opened and then closed at the end of the project. In Brazil the institutions
responsible for the accounts are legally registered entities, as such, they have to report to their
respective fiscal authorities. The India Organising Committee has only one account under the
WSF India trust name. For the WSF 2004, six other organisations had been identified to receive
the funds on behalf of the WSF India trust. All financial expenditure from these various accounts
was done through the finance commission which was given the responsibility of raising and
managing funds. In the case of India, the WSF India Trust as well as all the other six
organisationas are legally registered organisations which must abide by national laws and
regulations. In all cases internal and external audits have to be performed and reported. In this
sense, at the end of the day, it is the Boards of these organisations that can be held legally
responsible for any financial problems, conflicts or irregularities. In the case of the debt incurred
in Brazil in the 2005 WSF, (for instance) it was the local organising committee which finally took
up the responsibility to address the debt issue.
The creation of the Resources Commission (formerly called the Finances Commission) has helped
to organise certain activities a bit better, to suggest new initiatives – such as the Solidarity Fund – and arrive at very pragmatic practices. Its role and relationship to the IC, new Organising
Committees, and other commissions, however, still needs further definition and clarification.
IV. Findings and Analysis
The following section will deal with the most relevant and important findings encountered in the
investigation process. They are all products from the face to face and telephone interviews held
with participants, commission members, donors, etc. Even though they are not exactly organised
in order of priority, we have made an effort to classify them in such a way that their presentation
would follow a coherent and understandable logic. For pragmatic reasons, we are basically
concentrating on the findings themselves, leaving room for overall, and deeper analysis according
to the discussion format to be utilised.
Optimism and Concern
The first overall finding that should be recorded and established is the total and unquestionable
optimism and satisfaction about the birth, growth and development of the WSF. Its appearance
and continuing existence in a perilous and difficult international environment, is recognised and
valued by all of those interviewed. In regards and due to the (largely successful) complex political
and financial managerial operations, the WSF has been qualified by many simply as “a miracle”,
especially by those with experience in managing financial operations of diverse, large global
events. However, as they themselves admit, “miracles” only happen once. A second overall
finding that also should be recorded and established from the beginning is the existing concern
and the realisation by most of those interviewed, that the present period is critical if not crucial to
the future of the WSF. In the minds of most people there are managerial, administrative and
political issues that need to be addressed in this period, if the WSF is to continue to succeed
playing the global role it has played until now. These initial findings should serve as a lens and as
the basis for interpreting the rest of the work.
Evolution and growth of the WSF
The WSF initiative started in Brazil, with a small group of people who knew each other and
trusted each other. Key international supporters were brought in and integrated from the very
beginning. The Brazilians have been instrumental from the start. Brazilian local and federal
governments as well as progressive political forces have also been determinant in the first stages
of the process. There is also a group of faithful donors that have contributed financially to the
forum, right from the start. Their contributions were largely built upon institutional, personal and
networking relations and above all with trust in the initiators. As the forum evolved, more people
came on board and different agendas, struggles, mandates, cultures and interests emerged and
became part of the process. This has enriched the process enormously, but as the forum grows, a
new balance needs to be found in terms of understanding, sharing ideas and managing
responsibilities.
The WSF has been organised every year and in the mean time many regional, national, local and
thematic forums have emerged, many drawing on the experiences of the Brazilian initiative and
the willingness of the initial donors to support them. However, with the increasing number of
events, and increasing budgets, the current financial sources may run dry quickly, with current
donors becoming weary of being solicited all the time, while seeing other potential donors
participate in the forum as free riders. In the interviews many people pointed at the risks of an
ever-increasing event that relies largely on external funding from very few sources.
Frequency
The same concerns apply to the frequency with which the WSF is held. Only with one or two
exceptions, those interviewed stated that the WSF cannot be held every year. There is a
perceived danger of it becoming a self-referenced yearly ritual. Many feel it should be held every
two or three years. According to them it would be more logical and realistic to build it up from
the national, regional, thematic forums that would convene and feed into a large world forum.
This merging and build up do not mean a representational status. An annual WSF every year
takes up too much energy and the costs are too high. At present, forum reports are not yet
finished when people have to start planning the next event. This leads to complaints from donors
and practitioners, about timing and quality. According to many of those interviewed, there is
currently insufficient time to assimilate and put lessons and new ideas into practice. Working at
the grassroots takes time. Coordination and articulation with others takes even more time. There
are always a myriad of other activities, events and meetings to attend all over the world.
Concrete or specific issues could be worked on a lot easier from the bottom up. There are
accumulated positive experiences from two different types of global movements and
organisations, in holding national and regional events before a worldwide event, and on holding a
global event every two or three years.
Internationalisation
According to many who were interviewed, real internationalisation has not occurred yet, only
geographical expansion. Even though geographical expansion is part of internationalisation, in
terms of wider international ownership is still wanting. They state that there has been a growth in
numbers but no sufficient growth in terms of ideas and innovations. Even in terms of geography,
the absence of Eastern Europe, Indonesia, Malaysia, China and large parts of the Arab world is
very well noticed. According to them, ownership of the WSF needs to be internationalised more.
That would entail a debate on a minimum of decentralised structures, and minimum geographical
representation in power sharing, functioning and decision-making processes.
The event and the process
Focus and connectivity
From the start of the WSF most of the attention has been focused on the event itself, with the
process between forums taken up largely with organizing the next one. This way of working relies
too much on ad hoc practices and - according to many - more focus is needed to ensure that the
process itself becomes more coherent and sustainable. Many feel that the connection between
the world forum and the national and regional forums is too weak, and that many opportunities
to add and increase value and positive experiences are being wasted.
Culture of Growth?
As far as the WSF event itself is concerned, the great majority of people feel that the events are
becoming (unnecessarily) more and more expensive and difficult to manage. The same goes for
most of the meetings held by the IC, and the Commissions. Both are running the risk of
becoming mechanical rites relying too much on chance, availability of funds, and goodwill. The
financial deficit of the WSF 2005 for instance, considerably jeopardised continuity, follow-up and
the existence of a badly needed secretariat (physical office) in Sao Paulo. Many interviewees,
including donors, expressed concern that in regards to growth, the relationship with donors (and friendly governments) is taken too much for granted. The culture is becoming such that many
people are tending to think the WSF will always figure out a way out in case of need and
emergency. This is very risky and dangerous. Growth is not a bottomless pit, and at least a small
risk management plan could be considered. At this point in time, sustainability, realistic and
timely planning as well as relationship management are crucial, to begin to address the issue of
growth.
Budgets for the event and for the process
In relation to financial sustainability, many feel that the time has come to address the issue of
financial sustainability for the event and for the process. They feel that the WSF needs to
distinguish more between income and costs incurred for the event itself, and income and costs
incurred for the process. Additionally, a distinction and priorities need to be established between
the costs of facilitation by a secretariat on the one hand, and the costs of IC, commission
meetings and translations on the other.
Translations
Many of the interviewees mentioned translation as a growing problem that needs to be
addressed, specifically in terms of its quality and relatively high cost. A high degree of sensitivity
exists at all levels of the WSF about the value of diversity, languages, their connection to world
views and the political implications of translation. However, in practice very little has been done
to tackle and resolve the issue of translation (both, for the event and for the organizing process).
Costs of equipment and professional translation are a large part of the budget. The issue of
Babels as a movement or as an efficient service provider is not yet resolved. It is seen by many
as a problem that needs to be addressed and clarified. If Babels is primarily a movement, more
emphasis is needed on movement building and creating and sustaining political awareness. If
Babels is primarily a service, more emphasis is needed on increasing quality, efficiency, efficacy,
and reducing costs.
Ownership and self-financing
Many respondents highlighted the fact that too little has been done to generate WSF’s own
internal funds. This could be done in many ways, directly through a better fee and contribution
structure, through registration for events, or indirectly by appealing to people that are
sympathetic to the WSF. More of its own funds would mean greater autonomy, increased
ownership, commitment and responsibility. Generation of its own funds is seen as “sine qua non”
but this should not supplant resource mobilisation, alliances, and complementary funds from
other potential financial sources. Greater generation of resources from within and from solidarity
initiatives are valued very much by all respondents. It is probably one of the highest areas of
consensus. In order to become sustainable, ownership of and by the people is a basic
requirement. Many of the interviewees indicate the need and preference for such a mechanism,
above business type activities or funds from private donors and government sectors. However,
only very few concrete suggestions on strategies and workable models were made during the
interviews. Many interviewees feel that successful generation of its own funds as well as
increased active participation and ownership will depend on the future political strategy of the
WSF.
Culture of Resource Mobilisation
There is no system or principles laid out in reference to resource mobilisation, and as a result
improvisation, institutional and personal credibility tend to prevail. Planning and decision making
for fundraising are usually too late (in relation to the event), and have negative consequences on
cash flow. Given the absence of a central mechanism for resource mobilisation and distribution,
World Social Forum Financial Strategy, FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS – September 2006 – page 15
responsibility and liability falls on individuals and individual organisations. Commitment in time,
individual and institutional resources, infrastructures, etc are not taken into consideration as
financial and social capital in the design and reporting of WSF activities and budgets. The reports
only show Financial Flows mostly from INGOs, which is, unfair and unrealistic. Differential fees for
registration have not been developed and standardised. Many indicate that at this point in time,
there are too many free riders, who if addressed the correct way, could begin to pay, pay more,
or be willing to be charged more. In regards to Organising Committees, the general expectations
for their performance and success are usually very high. The OC’s of the events often expect
hands-on support from the IC and the Commissions. Although commission members express
willingness to provide services, the expectations from the OC’s are much higher than what is
generally provided. Concretely, in the case of the OC of the Polycentric Forums, the expectations
from the Resources Commission, in terms of fundraising and resource mobilisation were very
high. The Brazil OC also expected more from the IC, regarding the deficit.
Mumbai as a model for resource mobilisation
The Mumbai WSF, in the view of most people, created a different model. The advantages and
differences that Mumbai had, were (among others): the accumulated experience from Porto
Alegre, the accumulated experience from the Asia Social Forum held in 2003, a total different
social, political, cultural and economic reality, a rich internal political history, a tradition of
functioning democracy, a totally different regional context, and a world view that differed very
much from previous forums. Contrary to the Brazil experience, the Mumbai WSF organising
committee had to begin with a larger (135) and highly diverse number of member organisations.
It was a conscious decision to identify all social movements, mass movements and invite them to
join the Indian General council. Thus, in spite of political and ideological differences, ownership
was more intensely felt, and participation and contribution from all members, became the culture
of the day. The constituency of both the social movements and NGOs was different from previous
forums. By this is meant that a set of commonly agreed principles, beliefs, practices and
behaviours had to be developed. Due to a very mixed group of people working together, and the
need for total trust in each other, all the financial and economic tasks and responsibilities had to
be totally transparent. Structures were created in such a way that it would not allow any one
person or organisation to misuse their power especially in financial matters. It was an interesting
experiment to have the Board members, signatories of accounts and finance commissions as
separate entities to ensure better checks and balances. To take in on the spot registration fees, a
corporate bank’s services were hired to ensure professionalism and clear accountability. It was a
clear belief of the whole of IGC that any mismanagement of finances and distrust would break
the whole process of coming together.
Communication, information sharing and knowledge management
Information management
There is a widespread feeling that communication, information sharing and learning from
previous experiences is currently very weak and organised in a haphazard way. The role,
mandate and job description of the secretariat are unclear and as a result, the secretariat has
insufficient resources to fulfil expected tasks in facilitation of the process and ensuring some
expected minimum quality standards. Many stressed the need to develop a better Data Base,
database management, website, newsletter, including a fundraising database and capacities to
manage it. Many interviewees felt they lacked essential information about income, expenditures
and decisions that were taken in that regard. The problem is that there is no system of reporting
back on financial matters in the IC. It is only in the recent years that Brazillian accounts are
available for the IC. It is important to highlight that the consultants conclusion – in the case of
Brazil and India – is that all information is there, well scrutinised and audited and as such transparent, but insufficiently shared. As a result there’s an avoidable distrust, caused by lack of
open and timely information.
Data gathering and data management
Throughout the years, much data has been gathered about the WSF and its participants. This
forms a rich resource for analysis and relationship building. This resource is underutilised and
insufficiently used in a pro-active, strategic way. Neither the IC nor the commissions indicate in
advance what kind of information would be useful to improve their work. And in developing their
workplans, they are not making sufficient use of the information that does exist. Valuable
information sits unused at different levels, in different places, as unconnected isolated silos.
Internal Communication and Shared Ownership
Currently there are insufficient tools for internal communication, essential for building a culture of
openness, trust, transparency, accountability, shared ownership and a culture of learning from
previous experiences. Many respondents felt this as one of the major weaknesses of the WSF
– process and the essential reason for the lack of shared responsibility and ownership. This is –
according to many respondents - only feasible if internal communication gets a central role in the
process and is continually emphasised. Internal communication so far has been weak and
decision making on what the secretariat should and should not do has not been based on mutual
agreements or consensus. Experiences in organising, fundraising and reporting have not been
sufficiently shared. For instance, there was no (or at least hardly any) communication between
the polycentrics in 2006, not directly, or indirectly through the IC or any of the commissions. This
creates a sort of void that leads very easily to an atmosphere of discontent, isolation and distrust,
resulting in lack of synergy, and missed opportunities to learn from each other. Lack of
transparency hampers ownership and trust and many times opportunities to raise money from
donor agencies. The roles and responsibilities of the various bodies within the WSF need to be
clearly defined and once this has happened, members should fulfil their commitments in this
regard.
Profile and visibility of the WSF
Several respondents have indicated that the profile and visibility of the WSF are weak and that
the WSF is not dealing properly and pro-actively with media and journalists; especially with
mainstream media. In the area of communications, there is no strategy to deal with the internal
as well as the external environments. There is no strategy on how to pro-actively engage the
media for outreach purposes. According to several respondents, the communications commission
has not yet been able to address these issues in a successful manner and to their full potential.
Lots of proposals and discussions have taken place without positive collective engagement. This is
still the case, despite several imminent signals from funders about the urgency of a pro-active
communication and media strategy. Chances are missed and further financial support is
jeopardised if the WSF is not able to gain a better and wider profile, based on more visibility.
There was also concern over the fact that mainstream media is often keen to find (sensationalist)
contradictions, mistakes, or weaknesses in WSF activities in order to discredit the forum or lessen
its impact and its potential. It is therefore essential for the WSF to have a more pro-active and
more visible media strategy.
ICT
Present day information and communications technology offers a great deal of opportunities and
potential for communication, interactive dialogue and discussion, information exchange,
knowledge building, data management, etc. This has not been taken sufficient advantage of by
the WSF, both in terms of fast connections and access to facilities. Many felt that the WSF could
use ICT much more efficiently and effectively, specifically in areas of networking, dialogue,
outreach, knowledge management and coordination. There is the conviction that much time and
costs can be saved by using new communication facilities more efficiently, beginning with
something as easy and accessible as “Skype”. The Wikipedia experiences show that a more
democratic, more widely shared generation of vision and knowledge is totally feasible.
WSF as a Global Space
The meaning and added value of WSF as a space
The WSF has attracted thousands of people that would normally not have worked together. It
has given confidence and strength and has enabled many alliances and coalitions to form what
would normally not have been formed. This has been possible because people felt attracted by
the opportunities of a platform without a top-down structure, a formal leadership, etc. In the
eyes of most people, until now, one of the major assets of the WSF is the demonstration of
massive force and one of the major motivations for financial support.
An overwhelming number of people who were interviewed – including all donors – affirm that the
WSF as a space is the largest, plural process towards strengthening of civil society in our
globalised time. It is clearly seen as an energizing space, where alliance building takes place.
Donors as well as others have acknowledged its ability to create horizontal and vertical alliances,
and benefit from its nature as an open space, with no final political declarations. According to
many of the people that were involved, this has helped people to own the space collectively and
to benefit from it. Funding sources clearly see the value of this as a different kind of space
compared to international alliances like Civicus or Social Watch. All felt that the Charter of
Principles should not be altered, as it was clear. The operationality or practice of these principles,
however, has in a few instances given rise to some additions like inclusion of struggles against
fundamentalism, castism, patriarchy and war along with the struggle against neo liberal
globalisation.
Perceptions from the perspective of allocating financial resources
There is currently a debate in the IC whether the concept of WSF as a global space is still
sufficient to tackle the challenges ahead, and whether this justifies all the effort and money. This
debate was also reflected in the interviews. Several people stressed the need for more political,
concerted action, opportunities to use the space for concrete agreements. The tension between
the open space and collectivized political directions were recognized but most of those
interviewed stated clearly that moving towards a more politicized dimension would end the WSF
as we know it, as an open space. The majority of the funders emphatically reiterated their faith in
the Open Space and wanted it preserved and guarded. Some were not comfortable with political
leaders dominating the event as, in their perception, was the case of Chavez in Caracas.
Most of the donors interviewed have been associated with the WSF for more than two to three
years. Most of them have provided core funds for the WSF. We also spoke to some donors who
have not contributed core funds but very willingly have supported events. Most donors also made
clear that their counterpart organisations and the networks that they fund have benefited from
the WSF and support it wholly. This - indirect – support in terms of enabling partners to organise
themselves and present themselves at the WSF is currently not taken into account and not yet
fully used as an asset.
How to articulate results from a ‘space’?
From their own experience, several donors strongly felt that the WSF organisers have not
effectively articulated the results from the Forum. Donors (and taxpayers) often require
information about concrete results and effects to show that the money is well spent. This was
according to them currently done insufficiently and therefore a pending task. Even within the
concept of the WSF as a space, the forum generates many interesting and innovative processes
and alliances as well as clear results and these can be claimed and shared with all stakeholders,
including funders. In that regard more effort is needed to identify what goes on at the forum and
identify mechanisms to assess the follow-up of actions and activities born there.
Space or Political action?
This question was addressed by most of the people that were interviewed. Almost everyone
indicated that the WSF should be a space, but at the same time added that a space is not a
vacuum devoid of political positioning. The space is meant to generate some kind of political
action. Everyone was also aware that this debate had by now entered public domain. In this
debate there is a tendency to define and perceive the two points of view as totally and radically
polarised, mutually exclusive and antagonistic. The findings actually show that most people dislike
and take distance from these positions.
There are many who feel that this tension between space and political project needs to be
maintained to evolve a more creative way of providing platforms to movements and networks for
more wide spread, clear and vibrant declarations of political action. In spite of regional or
continental differences of opinion, people tend to think that the WSF can no longer be exempt
from positioning itself politically in terms of (for instance) the war against Lebanon and Palestine,
the Rights of Migrant People, the WTO, the Global Management of Water Resources, etc. Being
against neo-liberal and corporate globalisation, and for social justice – according to many –
demands taking some kind of global political position. The fact that alternatives are not yet
always fully developed does not mean that a position could not be expressed.
Another element of this question is centred on what exactly can be done about it in any case. In
other global organisations and networks, this problem is tackled by examining issues and
problems, case by case. It is also very clear and evident that many in some countries and regions
are at this point very comfortable with the concept of Global Space and against the overt
politicisation of that space. From their perspective, based on their own experiences and
processes, political positioning (understood as public statements and declarations) would tend to
or automatically exclude people and organisations, and would destroy the still frail emerging
dialogue and consensus they have been able to achieve, after long and intense internal struggles.
The challenge now is to discuss and address the concerns being (very openly) expressed, and to
find ways of defusing the tensions by making sure that the “space” created by the WSF, both
during and between forums, is more conducive to the development of collective political action by
and - in the name of - those coming together within that space.
Responsibilities and ownership
Governance
There is ongoing dynamic tension between a desire to both increase effectiveness and efficiency
and to maintain the non-centralized, “spontaneous” aspects of the WSF. Many people complain
about the lack of transparency and accountability. At the end of the day, the question is asked,
who is responsible for what? For many people, the main weakness in managerial terms is the lack
of transparency about ultimate responsibilities, ownership and decision making. Many donors and
others mentioned the weak management of resources and unclear relationship between IC – RC
and local OC in financial responsibilities. According to them there is a lack of clear guidelines for governance. Planning and decision-making for fundraising are usually too late and have negative
consequences on cash flow. In this respect, many mention the absence of a clear mechanism for
resource mobilisation and distribution. In the present moment the entire burden of raising
resources falls on the local organisers and the IC does not play an adequate role. At the same
time, however, many resist the notion of consolidating and centralizing power in the name of
accountability and greater effectiveness, and it is hoped that approaches can be found to improve
the governance of the WSF in ways that do not undermine values of horizontality and diffused
political power.
Decision making
One of the concerns raised by many people in this respect is the unclear composition and role of
the International Council. Specifically mentioning the arbitrariness, indecisive functioning of the
IC, and its ineffective use of meeting time. Some even asked rhetorical questions such as
whether this is a deliberate strategy, so that decisions could be later taken by a few individuals. Does it not allow for an informal power centre to evolve and consolidate? This level of distrust
calls for more transparency and clear mechanisms of decision making, that can eventually build up more commitment and credibility.
Expectations Regarding Ressource Mobilisation
A second concern has to do with resource mobilisation. There is no system or principles laid out
for resource mobilisation, as a result, imagination, improvisation, personal credibility and
individual preferences prevail. This is something donors are quite aware of and understand, at
the same time they see the risks this practice entails, and would definitely prefer clear criteria
and mechanisms for the resource mobilisation process. Many funders feel that the WSF should
clarify its organisational and financial principles and targets before holding an individual event.
There is a lot of individual expertise, but insufficient shared information about how to raise
money and whom to raise money from. Opportunities to take in more money from registration
fee, food stalls, etc. are – according to most respondents – underutilised. There are no criteria or
guidelines for actively generating money from government and the private sector, and this is
seen by many as a weakness.
Planning is left more or less to the local organizing committees and planning tools are not yet an
integral part of each and every commission. Many people complain about the lack of connection
between the agendas of the commissions on the one hand and the actual events that consist of
ground realities and local processes on the other. The current focus of the commissions is largely
on content, and very little on using or learning lessons from previous experiences in areas such
as: planning, organisation, quality and responsible management.
In general terms, money matters are very seldom discussed. The issue is thorny and unattractive.
The discussions usually consist on a few questions regarding reports. Nonetheless, unspoken
concerns exist. Most people feel that financial efforts and delivery are usually taken for granted.
Someone somewhere will deal with it. Criteria, objectives, cycles and deadlines by which proposal
should be submitted to funders, etc. are hardly systematised and followed up. Timing in general
is a major problem. As a result, many opportunities are missed, good reputation can be
jeopardized and money can be lost. Currently, there are insufficient management tools and
human resources to do such systematised tracking in terms of requirement, time and budget
implications.
V. Conclusions and recommendations
This section intends to synthesise findings and offer some preliminary recommendations. In some
instances political decisions need to be made before the issues are dealt with and approached in
a more specialised and technical manner. The section under Annexes should also be paid
attention to with regards to a few detailed suggestions.
Optimism and Concern
The prevailing optimism expressed by most, if not all, of those interviewed should be creatively
utilised and channelled as one of the major assets in the strengthening and design of the financial
future of the WSF. At the same time, and paradoxically enough, the existing concerns must be
examined and addressed in a full and responsible manner. These are no other than positive
tensions created by rapid growth and the increasingly demanding challenges from the external
environment.
Evolution and growth to the WSF
The WSF is on the path of becoming a truly global initiative, deemed badly needed by the
majority of stakeholders. The existence and nature of the WSF is filling a global void on behalf of
the interests of a majority of disempowered people around the world. This means and demands
the establishment of clear roles and responsibilities, in ownership, governance, in resource
mobilisation and in fundraising. At present, still too much time and other resources are expected
from the Brazilian facilitating group. At the same time, a few people still complain about their
style and what they perceive as a lack of total transparency.
There is not yet a global overview of funding resources and the creation of a pool of potential
funders has become essential. The funding base is too small now, and there are risks of donor
fatigue, specifically with an ever increasing growth of financial resources needed to organise the
WSF and its offshoots. In order to guarantee quality, innovation, results at all levels, and to
prevent donor agencies from becoming weary, an annual WSF is not advisable, unless a
mechanism for self-financing is guaranteed and put in place. There is a risk that endless and
unattended growth could surpass financial and other capacities leading to major mistakes and
eventually a total loss of control.
The increasing budgets and number of events lead to concerns about responsible management
and coordination between and among the various initiatives. More time and effort is needed to
focus on real internationalisation and the possibilities and ways of interlinking between the
forums at various levels, local, national, regional and thematic.
The event and the process
It is advisable to make a clear budgetary distinction between the one time event and the ongoing
process. Needed is a clear mandate and job description for the secretariat(s) and other support
structures. Terms of reference and a better agenda are needed to improve output and planning
for the Commissions and for the IC-meetings. A decision is needed about the requirements of and
expectations from Babels.
In order to stimulate ownership, many feel that the WSF should not be dependent on external
funding. A strategy for a large degree of self financing is needed, according to many people that
were interviewed. Many feel that a “Fee Structure” should be established for support and/or
membership. In their view, seed capital should also be procured from Mass Organisations –
NGOs, workers’ associations – etc. in order to increase responsibility, ownership, autonomy,
independence and sustainability. Once this is established, then a complementary percentage can be sought from external and diverse funding sources (see annex for concrete suggestions). In the
interviews, everyone warned about the risk of relying too much on two or three sources of
funding.
Review the criteria and demands for translation
The issue of translations needs to be addressed. Babels, Nomad and now Alis have partnered
with WSF on providing both soft and hard technology for translation. It is clear that translation is
not only about effective communication but it is also a political statement about inclusion. The
issue that has been raised in most of the interviews is the urgent need for a cost-benefit analysis
of existing translation services. There has been a strong suggestion that it is needed to evaluate
Babels as a political movement preparing newer translators who are committed to social
movement issues on the one hand and on the other hand assess their professional ability in
terms of providing effective communications in varied languages, given the high cost of
translations. In this period of expansion of WSF it is once again necessary to assess the number
of languages that can be handled, and potential alternative solutions in terms of simultaneous
translations in smaller groups by the participants themselves. Most global networks and
organisations are also dealing with and searching for solutions to these problems.
Create a charter of principles for resource mobilisation and set standards for global events
Minimum global standards or guidelines need to be established, for events, budgets, event follow
up, reporting, communications, etc. Clear principles for fundraising from governments and
corporate sector have to be developed as a matter of urgency. The view at this point expressed
by many is that the forum is too costly. A more realistic and austere event could produce equal
results achieved up to now. However, this would mean that at some point a bottom-line needs to
be drawn.
The Mumbai experience should be carefully reviewed and lessons drawn from it. A system and
structure for financial management was created there, and – taking all aspects into account –
managed to generate excellent results. Mechanisms for weighed registration fees, food stalls, etc.
were well organised in Mumbai, but underutilised elsewhere.
With regard to the creation of its own fund, many people suggested the option of asking that
different events supported by donors or foundations contribute a percentage to the global
process. In that case, a mechanism needs to be in place to actually receive money and assign it
to the process on the basis of decision making in the IC or another body. All sources of funding
favour the idea of the WSF generating its own funds, and many new funding sources (which have
not yet been officially approached by the organisers) have said that they would probably react
positively to a potential request.
WSF as a Global Space
The WSF has been able to create horizontal and vertical alliances and establish, not always
without some amount of controversy, its policy of open space, one that does not impose a single
political direction or adherence to joint political declarations. This has allowed for a needed space
many could benefit and feel ownership. The global space attracts donors, specifically because of
its size and attractiveness to large masses of people that normally wouldn’t get together or be
heard. It has proven to be viable in creating numerous contacts, compare and share agendas and
build alliances. The WSF is affirmed to be the largest and most plural process towards
strengthening of global civil society in this historical period. But donor support is not sustainable
unless the WSF can show what the results are of the work undertaken. So, a system of
identifying successes and results and a system of monitoring progress is definitely needed.
The meaning of a global space
There is a definite affirmation of the WSF as a unique space and the largest and most plural
process towards strengthening of global civil society in this historical period. The time has come
to take stock of what has been gained, the self-imposed and external limitations, and define the
perspectives of the WSF in the mid and long terms. The meaning of a Global Space needs to be
revisited, specifically to address the concerns of what is possible inside the space and as a WSF,
in terms of political positioning and political action. Many participants expressed the view that this
tension and debate should not be feared, that it should be addressed and kept as a positive
tension in demand of creative alternative solutions.
The vast majority of those interviewed felt clearly that the WSF should not take place every year.
It should take place every two or three years in order to allow for proper financial management
cycles, interconnection with thematic forums, regional forums, national forums etc.
Many have suggested that the struggles taking place around the globe should be mapped by the
WSF in order for its participants to decide if and how to address them.
Review the format
Many feel the WSF format needs to be reviewed and probably re-edited and restructured. It has
to have more depth, and to be strengthened at different levels and in specific contexts. At this
point in time it has become too conventional. The demands have surpassed its capacity. The
original format does not work as well any more. Some people for example expressed the fact that
traditional conferences from Old Left people should probably be evaluated. Young leaders are not
being given the opportunity to express their opinions and their views; they have been relegated
to a camp pretty much outside the centre of the forum dynamics. A comment was made that
while middle age WSF people are thinking of ways to bring about a New Possible World, young
people are creating that world already. The WSF needs now to concentrate more on
“Alternatives”. Critical mass is still needed in this area. The social movements and networks need
to work on this and the WSF should provide that space and supportive conditions, it should make
room and potential for that. The period of permanently and only attacking and denouncing the
neo-liberal project is becoming obsolete and exhausted. The whole issue of Alternatives For The
Future needs to be developed. In the case of culture, “cultural acts” are still seen as
entertainment, something that happens at the end of everything, not as political acts as well. Not
as expressions of alternative political proposals for the new world in construction, the other
possible world. The focus of the forum, has been more in content, very little on experiences in
organising, planning, systems in general, and process.
Communication, information sharing and documentation of lessons learnt
Communication and relationship management, are lacking strategic initiatives and collective
engagement. Information, knowledge and experiences are insufficiently shared. A pro-active
communication strategy and a strategy to make better use of internet, the World Wide Web and
upcoming ICT-opportunities is also an urgent need.
External communication is not pro-active and not based on highlighting achievements, results,
lessons learned and opportunities detected made possible through the WSF. There is no collective
media strategy and no strategic network, search, and there is no alliance-building with
journalists. Most alternative networks within the WSF are still working according to their own
worldview, their own agenda and their own interests. Until now, there is no evidence of a
growing minimum consensus being built within this group. The result is that the forum is
becoming less known and it receives less attention than most people feel is feasible. Success in fundraising largely depends on the impact, profile and visibility of the WSF. Lack of a good
communication and information strategy is an obstacle in getting more funders on board.
ICT and internet still needs to be elaborated and utilised as a strategic instrument to share
lessons and experiences, using for instance the Wikipedia model. An interactive web-based
platform could be put in place as a tool for analysis, sharing of ideas and consensus building.
There are attempts by the technical WSF tools group to evolve a more intense dialogue on the
web. This needs to be spread - not only in terms of coming to terms with content and the
thematic axis - but also to communicate and analyse the work of other commissions. This should
be used to create an interactive dialogue among people engaged in the WSF-process.
Draft guiding principles for information sharing
Guiding principles need to be drafted regarding: agendas, meeting minutes, reports, proposals,
financial data, lessons learnt, etc. These should become available for all (or a selected audience
through the establishment of a password system). This is only feasible if information is managed
and pro-actively generated and disseminated. The following are a few steps that could be taken:
(1) Draft guiding principles for information sharing. What should be shared and
why?
(2) Develop a strategy and management system for internal communication
(3) Design tasks, calculate time and costs and formulate required output
(4) Set up a mechanism for information sharing – a website and (possibly) one or
more newsgroups or list servers
(5) Use and promote Skype (or any other provider of internet dialling) for
telephone calls, conference calls and virtual meetings
(6) Use translation software, such as Babylon
Some of this is specialised work at the moment undertaken by very few persons who are already
overburdened with their regular work on WSF processes. The group needs to be expanded and
more areas of WSF work needs to done through these methods.
Responsibilities and Ownership
One of the major problems and obstacles towards shared ownership is the lack of transparency in
final decision making. Clear guidelines for governance need to be developed and it is
recommended to establish a governance commission. The IC could benefit very much from advice
on governance and management issues.
Due to the absence of a (central or decentralised) mechanism for resource mobilisation and
distribution of resources, responsibility and liability falls on individuals and individual
organisations. Such individuals and organisations now are liable for decisions made by others.
There is a need for new and innovative mechanisms for resource mobilisation, without
compromising the nature of the WSF (see annex with a number of potential mechanisms for the
future such as a global fund). There is also a need for a clear mechanism for dissemination of
resources, with clearly defined responsibilities and liabilities, based on the notion that those that
take decisions are also responsible for the consequences of the decision. This also entails tight
agreements between decision makers and executors, clear mandates based on clearly defined
budgets, better criteria and control over expenditures and enforcement mechanisms.
Create a governance commission
It is recommended to establish a commission that looks into issues related to governance. There
is a lack of total clarity in the relationship between, IC and RC (financial responsibilities), and
other commissions. There seems to be some unintended overlap among commissions and at the
same time, not enough inter-action and coordination. Responsibilities and modus operandi need
to be redefined and overseen. In the context of expansion (International Council, International
Secretariat) the issue of democracy and decision making have become critical. Work in
commissions was an excellent initiative which needs to be evaluated and strengthened. There
needs to be a continuing struggle with legitimacy, transparency, accountability, monitoring and
control.
Recommendations that Emerge in Longer Term Strategies
Create a Minimum Global Structure
Many respondents indicate that there needs to be a minimum global structure. Everyone
coincides with the fact that in order to optimise resources a minimum global structure is
necessary. This implies a small decision making body, and a small managerial and executive
team. Everyone also coincides in the fact that this structure does not need to be a large
bureaucratic structure. The secret then lays in the ability to define the needs, define the
structure, its location(s) and its concrete functions. What is needed is clarity in the political
project and clarity in the type of structures necessary to sustain it. By “structure” it is also meant
a thinking body to analyse and make decisions not only a “support” structure. It should be a
structure “to the service of” not a power structure. A structure is needed to be alert, attentive to
developments and dynamics, to decide when to consult and when to convene meetings. A
structure that will guarantee to follow up on actions points tasks and assignments, that gathers
and distribute reports, etc. One of the most useful IC meetings was Miami, it was very pragmatic
and many initiatives, including Commissions and ideas about structures came out of it. The
problem is that no one followed them up. People want to be in the IC but they don’t want to
commit to the work and follow up that needs to be done. There is inequality in the WSF,
inequalities in different networks, inequalities in capacity, etc. this needs to be addressed and
kept in mind when deciding any type of structure. The minimum structure already exists. It is
obvious to all that in order to keep abreast reinforcement in certain areas is unquestionable.
However, even the minimum structures that exist today were questioned and some point in time
and were going to be done away with. Pragmatism showed the way. They were kept for very
practical reasons; all of a sudden there was no one to guide, to convene, and to generate
feedback on urgent matters. Pragmatism is sometimes better than the noise it generates.
Consider the creation of a global fund
Many respondents have mentioned the desirability of a global fund that supports the events and
the process in basic financial terms. The time has come for the WSF to be able to guarantee basic
follow up of commitments and responsibilities undertaken, without depending solely from
external funding. Important communications, solidarity initiatives, minimum travel, logistical
support etc. are difficult to fund and need rapid implementation. One final factor to be taken into
account is the fact that not all funding sources have yet clear criteria or consensus for the funding
of evolving social movements. Many still operate with the conception of “Projects”. Regarding the
global fund, the most frequent characteristics for such a fund were: Small, Basic Fund, with
Minimum Structures. There is a prevailing fear that the existence of a very large flexible fund
would bring more problems than benefits. Another condition is the need to have clear preestablished
content and operational guidelines. Funds should be gathered from participants
paying registration fee, half day salary from willing trade unions and mass organisations (tokens),
from NGO workers organisations, etc. Getting half day salaries or voluntary contributions from a
few organisations should set initiative in motion. Criteria for distribution of resources also should be established. The solidarity fund was considered to be a very good initiative, such types of
initiatives need to be re-created and reproduced.
Notes
1. Terms of Reference of the Study and consultants backgrounds, under Footnotes and Bibliography.
2. IC Resolution – Minutes from Nairobi Meeting March 2006. Under Footnotes and Bibliography.
3. Rolando Lopez from Guatemala, Theo van Koolwijk from The Netherlands, and Nandita Shah from India.
4. See Bibliography Annex
5. See Websites Consulted under Bibliography.
6 Glasius Marlies, Kaldor Mary, Anheier Helmut. Global Civil Society 2005/6 London School of Economics. Sage
Publications, London, 2006, page 191.
7 Wallerstein, Immanuel. La Crisis Estructural del Capitalismo. CIDECI, Chiapas, México. 2005. Pág.243
8 See the meaning of the abbreviations on item VII (Footnotes and Bibliography)
9 Charter of Principles (see: http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2)
10 Glasius Et Al.
11 IBASE Research Project 2005 – (www.ibase.br).
12 IBASE Research Project 2005.
VI. Annexes
Annex 1 Costs and sources of income of the WSF
(1) The events
How much does the WSF cost, per participant?
An example: A forum that costs 5 million USD and attracts 100.000 people costs 50 USD for each
individual participant. This refers only to the facilities of the event, not to the expenses for travel,
stay, food, etc. If we include these, it ends up to much more costs per participant in the end (or
voluntary contribution by each participant, if you like). For international participants this is
calculated to amount to an average of 1100 USD for each person (see paragraph 6).
The ideal situation is that the event is fully owned and paid for by the participants. That means
that costs and revenues are fully based on contributions from participants. This means that the
participants each pay – on average – 50 USD. That’s a small amount of money compared to the
other costs for travel and stay.
This is very well feasible by introducing a fee structure for participants:
Recommendation: Make the actual costs per participant transparent. Show how much it costs to
organise the event (5 million USD in this example) and ask participants to share in these costs:
– One third pays the actual amount (in this case 50 USD),
– One third pays twice (or three times) the amount (100 USD that includes the
price of one additional participant that cannot afford the fee) and
– Another third pays a symbolic fee.
Institutional participants should pay more. Exhibitors and convenors pay a separate rate.
A rate structure needs to be developed.
This new rate structure could be implemented in the Africa WSF if it is still possible. If
not, it should be applied in the next WSF.
Since the participants and convenors will only pay at the event itself or shortly before that, this
mechanism is only feasible if there exists a mechanism for financial backing, i.e. a buffer through
loans, guarantees, pre-financing. A guarantee fund or trust fund could be established to ensure
pre-financing.
Note: The events as such became more costly over the years. Entrance fees until now are usually
very low (5 USD in the 2005 WSF Porto Alegre), and not covering the actual costs per participant.
People that are coming to these for a participant or donors that enable their partner to come are
not contributing financially to the forum, but this actually COSTS money! Therefore the costs and
benefits need to be made transparent:
– Make an assessment of the actual value of the forum per participant. Is the WSF “worth”
50 USD per participant, or what is the indicative value of the forum?
(2) Translations
The costs of translations are very high. This is immediately linked to the principle that each
participant should be able to express her or himself in her or his own mother tongue. On the
other hand, costs of translation may have become too high to sustain this principle. This needs to
be addressed, also in line with the choices made to work with Babel’s, to what extent do they
fulfil their role as political actor and – if they do – to what extent can they be demanded to
deliver the professional quality required? One of the central issues at the end of the day is one of
costs and benefits.
(3) The Process
The actual annual costs of IC-meetings and the commissions need to be calculated, specifically
because much is based on in-kind contributions. Donors are willing to support meetings, and a
few of them are keen to engage themselves in the process. On the average annually 2 ICmeetings
are held. Apart from these there are also approximately 2 commission meetings and
regular consultations in cyber space. Including travel, stay, meeting facilities and translations, the
costs of this process are estimated annually at 500.000 US dollars. This is almost entirely built up
of contibutions by participants and hosts. Very few people contribute to the solidarity fund and as
a result people who cannot afford to travel and participate are left out of the process. Costs and
revenues of the commission meetings are currently unclear. For reasons of transparency,
accountability, ownership and commitment, it would be helpful to keep a record of – in kind –
contributions by IC and commission members.
How should the meeting costs in the future be financed? There are three options:
(1) Self-financed: All meetings are self-financed on the basis of contributions
(in kind, in time and/or in money) from all the participants. If annual
meeting costs are 300.000 USD and the IC consists of 150 people, than
each member should pay or generate 2000 USD on the basis of an –
individual – work plan. Those that cannot pay directly need to be
sponsored by those that can pay.
(2) Opportunistic: Meetings are held only if sponsors can be found – based on
applications – or as part of the preparatory process of the next event (and
thus part of the budget of events). Meeting costs can be minimalised
(reduce costs of translations, stay, etc).
(3) Part of the budget: Delegates to the IC-meetings and commissions are
chosen and appointed and they become eligible for financial compensation
through an annual budget of the WSF.
(4) Secretariat
The current secretariat has several tasks: facilitation of the process, communication (newsletter,
website), reporting, documentation, database and relationship management and (some)
assistance in fundraising. These are vital tasks executed with minimal means. The current annual
running costs of the Brazil secretariat is estimated to be 40,000 USD, the running costs of the
Mumbai secretariat is estimated to be 20,000 USD. This also means that both secretariats rely
very much on volunteerism. There is no annual budget or clear job description for the secretariat.
Given the high challenges, demands and tasks ahead, the amount available for support of the
process needs to be increased on the basis of a clear job description and success indicators. A well-equipped secretariat that is able to provide professional services should require some
300.000 USD for annual running costs.
(5) Fundraising and profiling
Fundraising is not a priority now and – in practical terms and apart from the OC – done by a few
IC-members on the side. As discussed elsewhere, therefore several opportunities are missed,
either by ignorance or by lack of time and willingness to really invest in the process of fundraising
and resource mobilisation. It is recommended that some IC-members or other individuals could
(should) invest more and become specifically assigned to create and tap (high-level) networks,
raise funds and raise attention about the existence and opportunities provided by the WSF. This
will amount to a considerable effort in time for the people involved. Therefore, it is likely that
some financial compensation is needed for travel and fees. Annual costs for professional
fundraising are estimated to be 100.000 USD
(6) Contributions to local economies
The average (international) participant to an event spends money that - to a certain extent – contributes to local, national and international economies. These figures can be used to negotiate
financial (or in-kind) contributions or discounts (who benefits from these discounts? The
participants or the forum itself, or both? During the interviews it was stated that international
participants should – in principle – pay full fees, in order to make the forum the main
beneficiary).
An example of the current costs made by a more or less average international participant:
Expenses | Amount in USD | Who Benefits? |
International Airfare | 500 | Airline Company |
Airport Tax | 100 | Airports in home transit and host country |
Visa | 25 | National government in host country |
Taxis and other local transport | 75 | Transport companies |
5 nights hotel @ 30 | 150 | Hotel owners |
5 days meals and drinks @ 30 | 150 | Restaurants, foodstalls at the forum |
Field visit, tourism | 50 | Tourist agencies |
Entrance to the forum | 10 | WSF organising committee |
Merchandise at the forum, souvenirs | 40 | Exhibitors at the forum |
(Goodwill back home and in the media) | . | Local auhtorities, governments |
Total | 1100 USD | . |
In this example, the average international participant pays 1100 USD to be part of the WSF for 5
days. In this example 10 USD is less than 1% of this amount as direct financial benefit for the
WSF organisation (while the costs for each participant amounts to something like 50 USD, in the
example provided earlier.
With 10000 international participants:
Airlines make: 5 million USD
Airports: 1 million USD
Government revenues from visa: 250.000
Local transport companies: 750.000
Local hotels: 1,5 million
Local restaurants: 1,5 million
Tourist agencies: 0,5 million
WSF Organising Committee: 100.000
Merchandise and souvenir sellers: 400.000
Total for 10.000 int’l particip: 11 million USD
Suggestion: Consider the establishment of a ‘goodwill tax’ of say 5% or 10%. This means
for every 10.000 international participants a revenue of 550.000 – 1.1 million USD.
Annex 2: Fundraising and Resource Mobilisation - Steps for WSF.
In WSF financial strategies, there is not enough distinction made between “Fundraising” and
“Resource Mobilisation”. Fundraising relates specifically to getting money from donors (individual
and institutional). Resource mobilisation refers to all kinds of resources from all kinds of sources.
Next to money, these resources also include human resources and facilities, such as voluntary
time, services, in-kind contributions, priority treatment, advice, (borrowed) equipment, etc. Often
those that give money, can also provide other resources as well. Or vice versa. WSF has used
some of the following traditional strategies, some more effectively than others.
Traditional Strategies
Traditionally there are three different lines of fundraising:
(1) Institutional gifts and subsidies from foundations and agencies
(2) Small gift fundraising (memberships)
(3) Large gift fundraising (major donors)
All of these are elaborated in the following
1. Institutional giving from Foundations and NGO-donors
WSF has built a brand name with well-respected people backing the brand. Thus getting grants
from foundations and government agencies have not been difficult with a good proposal. This
also relates to the fact that several foundations and funding organisations have personal
relationships with people within the IC or are themselves part of the IC. Their contribution has
been critical in receiving relatively large sums of money and to create ongoing partnerships. Most
of these partners have treated WSF differently from their usual other projects and not applied the
strict criteria and other restrictions or very clear statements of outcomes and focus on credibility
and accountability. Reporting has been not so cumbersome and priorities too have not changed.
But it is not clear how long this will continue and we need to think beyond this source to have a
more healthy financial situation of future WSF. Many of them have expressed the need for
focussed outcomes and also they are finding it difficult to continue supporting WSF in the same
way as they have done for last 7 years.
Some of them have clearly expressed that they can only finance a specific project or a specific
aspect of the event or its support mechanisms and that they require a separate request. Given a
changing political climate, there is more demand for transparency, accountability and clear insight
in the way the money is allocated and the project monitored and evaluated. Pro-active contacts
and an antenna for opportunities are needed in order to increase the opportunities for
institutional support from foundations and NGO-donors.
2. Institutional support from governments, government agencies and government related companies
Specifically in the case of the World Social Fora that were held in Brazil, the municipal government of Porto Alegre, the state government of Rio Grande do Sul and – in 2005 – the
Federal government of Brazil were huge supporters, specifically in resources and in kind. The
poluycentric forum in Caracas was largely sponored by the Venezuelan government. Many of the
regional, national, local and thematic social forums rely heavily on government support in time,
volunteers, facilities, accomodation, etc.
On the other hand local economies and government agencies benefit from the events in terms of
goodwill and income. In the exaqmple mentioned in annex 1, the economy benefits with 11
million USD with an average of 10.000 international participants staying on average 5 days. In
terms of generating support and sponsorship, it is advisable to presnt a cost-benefit analysis of
economic costs and economic benefits of organising an event, who benefits and whom should be
asked to contribute in terms of goodwill.
In some of the WSF government has been actively supporting the WSF by taking financial
responsibility of the forum expenditure and contributing to the larger pool of required funds. This
has been an issue of contestation within the IC where there are opinions ranging from no
government funds to taking them but everyone agrees that clear terms have to be laid out to
ensure that there is no overt or covert pressure and that it does not seem to become a program
of one specific government.
As in the nature of the WSF, it should obviously not rely too much on money coming from
government sources, large chunks of government involvement – from any government - can
jeopardise its position, image and independence.
3. Small gift fundraising (small donations, memberships, etc)
This is one of the strategies that WSF has not explored adequately. Creating the notion of a
solidarity fund is part of this process of small fund raising through members but it is still very
small compared to the opportunities that exist.
Fund raising through donation of small amounts of money from many people is traditionally the
best way to build constituency, committment and long-term sustainability. It’s also a good way to
mobilise volunteers, participants, etc. But the fear of it being time-consuming in certain cases
and costly. Time and money is needed not only for recruiting small donations, but specifically in
setting up and maintaining a database, mailing lists, renewal systems, to organise relationship
management and - specifically - a system to track and administer gifts. Transfer costs of money
can exceed the actual gifts, so often a new mechanism to accept money is needed through credit
card, Paypal etc. But it’s an excellent way to become sustainable and free, to create networks
and to show your strength. Traditional ways of recruiting small donations are through money
collections (door to door and for instance at airports), direct mail and direct dialogue (face to face
requests on the street, telephone or door to door). ICT and internet have opened up new ways
and opportunities, specifically in relation to youth and young people (see later on) and with
strongly emerging middle classes in developing countries. Emerging opportunities include SMS,
Direct TV, e-mail marketing, web-marketing and call-in numbers.
This needs a relatively elaborate administrative and communication systems and a system to
collect money in an effective and efficient way. But depending on the choices made, it is clearly
worthwhile to further explore this potential, for instance by starting one or more pilot projects.
4. Major donors
This is the way to get large sums of money from a few people. Success depends on personal
trust and the quality of the networks and individual contacts. Credibility is key. Many of these
large individual donors may tend to favour charity kind of cause and may not be inclined towards
more radical agenda of WSF, although others – for instance those that have inherited large
amounts of money from their parents – may be inclined to sponsor “another world” and the goals
of people attending the WSF. This route is something that has as yet not been explored.
Emerging Strategies
As an elaboration of the earlier mentioned three lines of fundraising, the following new strategies
emerge:
5 Corporate Social Responsibility
CSR becomes mainstream for many companies and some actually take this seriously by looking at
their core-business and by providing assitsance, time, in-kind and financial resources. Several
companies solely based on CSR principles - like Bodyshop and Triodos Bank – operate in this
market. We need to have clear discussion within WSF to come up with our understanding about
taking monies from these coroporates and whether we could directly appeal to the corporation’s
social responsibility. There are yet still few examples of actual long-term success. Example of
corporate relationships: Google donates to Unicef (google donates on the basis of clicks on the
(sponsored) Unicef banner). In our specific case we could approach the airlines and request them
to pass on some discounts to the organising committee for the specific wsf event. We could also
approach the Hotel Association and negotiate for a discounted rate for participants and also
certain discounts to the organisers.
6 Workplace giving, solidarity funds, match giving
People give part of their time or salary to social cause. This is often through ‘ondernemingsraden’
or through memberships of unions, political parties, societies or NGOs. Examples include Novib-Nuon, Cordaid-Ahold, CUT-Italian Union. Can we work at campaigns around “Your half day salary
contributes in making another world possible” etc. Asking all working persons to contribute half a
day salary but then this has to be accompanied by repositioning WSF as the most important civil
society space for not only protest but also for alternatives.
During the WSF 2004 fund raising advertisement for donations were put up in Le monde
Diplomatique and attempt was also made to put it in The Guardian in USA for direct individual
donation for WSF. Such campaigns can be looked at closer and could be considered as
possibilities for fundraising.
7. Organising fund raising events:
Organising of concerts and other performing art programs as part of the fund raising strategies
too have not been explored. The organising committee of the WSF event is so caught up that
they can not think of taking such a responsibility but can we explore hiring agencies to do the
whole show and we pay them certain percentage of the funds that is raised.
8. Integrated strategies
Young people want to do something, not only giving. Need to develop mechanism for voluntary
contributions and money, see examples below.
Some examples of new strategies
Music downloads
Amnesty International often makes use of music downloads to raise attention and collect money.
The song “Gimme Some Truth” for instance can be downloaded for 0,99 € and at the same time
it raises attention for the campaign “Make some Noise”, in this case specifically for women’s
rights in Mexico.
Through banners and volunteers
WarChild for instance seeks 10.000 ‘volunteers’ only through banners on sites. They sign a labour
contract for one hour and donate one hour of work. Apart from donating money, volunteers are
invited to join the “Hyves-network”.
Hyves is also known because they invite people to donate a hyve, a chiken or a goat. The
donator becomes the foster parent of that animal. Similarly ‘adopt an apple tree’. This is a
campaign of biological farmers in the NL. Can we think of linking WSF with something people feel
more closer emotionally.. stories of struggle and how each contribution can help people build
alternatives etc..
Other examples based on online fundraising include Habitat for Humanity in the U.S. After
donating 1250 euro, participants receive a virtual house on the internet. Habitat builds the real
house on the Philippines.
A new trend is Video games to raise public awareness (not yet money). MTV and Reebok have
jointly developed a game “Darfur is Dying”
Internet and online fundraising
Connection speeds and the use of internet for buying and selling stuff has increased rapidly.
Payments through internet are relatively safe nowadays. Online fundraising is increasing rapidly.
The America red cross received 22% of gifts related to the tsunami through online funds and
45% of the Katrina money through online gifts.
The Red Cross doesn’t only market for money gifts, but also for airmiles, blood, stock, sparechange
and other in-kind contributions..
ANNEX VII: Footnotes and Bibiliography
Terms of Reference
World Social Forum
International Council – Resources Commission
Fund-Raising Strategy – Consultancy
I. Background Information
The World Social Forum (WSF) is an open meeting space where social movements,
networks, NGOs and other civil society organisations opposed to neo-liberalism and a world
dominated by capital, come together to pursue their thinking, to debate ideas democratically,
share ideas and experiences, formulate proposals and network for effective action. It is a world
process seeking and building alternatives to neo-liberal policies. Its guiding principle is defined in
its Charter of Principles.
The WSF is collectively guided by the International Council. This council is a large
gathering body made up of international and regional entities and organisations, international
networks and global coordinators. It is mainly designed to keep the concertation space open,
agile and operational. This body is also geared to bring together alternatives to neo-liberal
thinking in favour of a new social order. Their objective is also to expand and consolidate the
WSF, to suggest the best strategies to do so, and assume worldwide political and operational
responsibilities when concrete needs arise. The core of its functioning is divided into six
committees, one of which is the Resources Commission. (This commission is responsible for the
implementation of the present consultancy). Overall functioning is aided by a Facilitation Group
which is made up of the original Brazilian Organising Committee.
One of the strategic mandates of the International Council and the Resources
Commission at this stage in the process, is to design, a long term, sustainable Fund Raising
Strategy for the WSF. Until now, each WSF Organising Committee (Brazil, India, Mali, Venezuela),
Regional Forums (European, Mediterranean) National (Colombian, Palestinian, etc.), Thematic
(Democracy, Human Rights, War and Drug Traffic), etc. have basically had to look for their own
funding. In general terms, funds have been sought from governments, non governmental sources
(usually the same sources), and little has been done to explore other sources of funding, or to
share and systematise experiences, principles, and modus operandi. In the absence of a proper
and coherent strategy, the biggest risk being faced in this period is to run the few well known
sources dry, trigger donor fatigue and frustration, exacerbate internal contradictions and fail to
detect and recognise emerging capacities or opportunities. This consultancy is being implemented
in order to overcome present limitations, and enable the WSF to succeed in making a qualitative
leap towards a new life period.
II. Objectives
1. On the basis of professional experience, existing information, face to face and
questionnaire interviews, present a synthesis of internal WSF successful
fundraising principles, strategies, practices, and recommendations that can
strengthen the capacity, operationality (administration), and autonomy of the
forum in the mid term.
2. Draw a synthetic balance on the experience, willingness, projections, and advise
from important external actors (in the non governmental, private and
governmental sectors) who have or could eventually engage in financial or
material support of WSF processes.
3. Based on the above, present a long term financial strategy that can generate and
mobilise more internal and external resources (in more creative and innovative
ways).
III. Criteria for the Consultants – Product Expected
– Experience in successful fund raising activities - including campaigning - in at least
two different sectors (non governmental, governmental, private) and/or sources of
funding.
– Knowledge of pertinent languages and proven professional performance in Northern,
Southern countries.
– Availability & capacity to work and function with diverse teams in different settings
and capacity to deliver products in a coordinated manner.
– Proven capacity in writing executive reports and strategic documents in agreed
timelines.
As far as the product is concerned, individual terms of reference, drawn from the objectives, will
be written and agreed upon with individual consultants on specific issues.
IV. Methodology, Implementation, and Time Frame for the Consultancy
The nature of the consultancy should be understood and guided by the general objectives. In
regards to the methodology, five steps have been envisioned: A) reading and analysis of general
and financial WSF documentation and existing research. B) Design of a master questionnaire that
will be the basis of coherent internal and external questionnaires and interviews. These interviews
will contemplate political, organisational, operational, and financial components. C)
Implementation of interviews, systematisation of questionnaires, at internal and external levels,
and writing of individual reports. D) Workshop to discuss and integrate internal and external
reports, both on socio, political and financial matters. E) Writing of final report, integration of
feedback and delivery of final draft at large stakeholders’ workshop.
V. Calendar
In different periode between May and Septmber 2006, to be discussed with the consultants.
VI. Consultants
The consultants are:
Rolando López – Ibase Río de Janeiro, Brazil – rolandol ibase.br
Nandita Shah – Akshara Centre Mumbai, India – shahnandita rediffmail.com
Theo van Koolwijk – Warner Strategy & Fundraising, Wormer, Holland – koolwijk wsfr.nl
Bibliography
Arkonada, Israel. “Otro Foro es Posible (Y Necesario)”. 6 de Marzo 2006. (Red FSM)
Cariello, Rafael. “Forum acaba rachado e critica Brasil”. Folha de Sao Paulo 30-01-2006
Colecao FSM 2003 Ibase – Secretaria FSM – Editada: Anacris Betancourt e Iracema Dantas 5
Volumenes. Novembro, 2003
Correa, Leite José. Reflexoes Sobre o Futuro do FSM. Mimeo. 2005
Foro Social Americas. Materiales, Informes, Relatorias. Secretaria Consejo Hemisférico. 2005 –
2006
FSM Secretaria – Minutas Reuniones Comisión de Recursos – Relatarías Reuniones Consejo
Internacional – Reportes Narrativos de Proyectos
Glasius Marlies, Kaldor Mary, Anheier Helmut. Global Civil Society – Yearbook – 2005/6 London
School of Economics. Sage Publications London 2006.
Howell, Jude & Pierce, Jenny. Civil Society and Development. April 2001
IBASE. Wsf Accounts and Audits – 2003/5
Jatoba, Janaina. (Coordenadora do Programa de Mobilizacao de Recursos da Oxfam. “Os Desafíos
da Sustentabilidade e da Comunicacao”. 5 October 2005.
León Irene. El Futuro del Foro Social Mundial. ALAI – América Latina en Movimiento 404-405 16
Febrero 2006.
Sader, Emir. “O risco da intranscendencia”. FSP. 31 enero 2006
Sousa, Santos Boaventura de. The World Social Forum: A user’s Manual. University of Coimbra –
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, December 2004.
Wainwrigth, Hilary. Reclaim the State: Experiments in Popular Democracy. London 2003.
(Opening Conference CLACSO – Rio de Janeiro August 2006).
Wallerstein, Immanuel. La Crisis Estructural del Capitalismo. CIDECI, Chiapas, México 2005.
WSF Secretariat – Minutes, Miami, Utrecht, Barcelona, Nairobi International Council Meetings.
Websites
www.babels.org
www.ces.uc.pt
www.forosocialamericas.org
www.forosocialmundial.org.ve
www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/dinamic.php
www.forumsocialafricain.org
www.forumsocialmaroc.org
www.forumsocialmundial.org.br
www.fse-esf.org
www.fsmed.info
www.fsmmali.org
www.fsmt.org.co
www.geocities.com
www.iransocialforum.org
www.socialforum.or.ke
www.wsf.be
www.wsf2006karachi.org
www.wsfindia.org
Abbreviations
ABONG:
Associação Brasileira de Organizações Não Governamentais /
Brazilian Association of NGOs
ATTAC – BR:
Ação pela Tributação das Transações financeiras em Apoio aos Cidadãos - Brasil /
Action for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens – Brazil
CBJP:
Comissão Brasileira Justiça e Paz, da CNBB /
Brazilian Justice and Peace Commission, of the Brazilian National Conference of Bishops
CIVES:
Associação Brasileira de Empresários pela Cidadania /
Brazilian Business Association for Citizenship
CUT:
Central Única dos Trabalhadores /
Central Trade Union Confederation
IBASE:
Instituto Brasileiro de Análises Sociais e Econômicas /
Brazilian Institute for Social and Economic Studies
MST:
Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra /
Movement of Landless Rural Workers
Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos:
Social Network for Justice and Human Rights