Alliance 21: Making Another World Possible
Evaluations, Visions, Proposals, and Projects
Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World
April 2003

The first three parts :

- Evaluation and Vision of the Future
- Proposals and Projects
- Report on the Participatory Process Used for the Evaluation and Future of the Alliance :

• Description of the dialogue process
• Description of the participation
• Interprétations des évaluations :
  - General evaluation of the Alliance
  - Evaluation of the coordination
  - Evaluation of the World Citizens Assembly in Lille
  - On the new organization of the Allianc
  - On financing
  - On communication and participation
  - On the Proposal Papers
  - On the application of the proposals
  - On the Alliance facing global challenges
  - Evaluation and proposals of the Alliance in Africa
  - Consultation
  - Proposal for the collective elaboration of a Charter

- The second stage of the Alliance

Part Three :

Report on the Participatory Process Used for the Evaluation
and Future of the Alliance

EIFE and delibera.info-alliance e-forums, and Porto Alegre Meeting
March 2002 - April 2003

2. EVALUATION OF THE COORDINATION

Interpretation of the 21 appraisals and 19 comments.

Most were in agreement (although there was a variety of opinions) in that the Alliance had had a far too centralized coordination structure and the FPH had assumed too much responsibility and direction. Among those who defended this thesis, there were those who underscored the existence of a “de facto”, although not official, centralization and there were even those who did not criticize the centralization as much as the abuse of power (when what came from "the bottom" didn’t suit "the central power"). Conversely, there were those who considered it a positive thing to have had a clearly identified entity to deal with (the FPH).

In spite of this, the practical majority considered as fundamental the support of the backers in the process.

There was also a measure of agreement (although the appraisals varied) in that there was a true difficulty in understanding the dynamics of the thematic workshops, the socioprofessional networks, and the geocultural groups, but also of the registration method for Lille. These difficulties weakened the process.

There was also disagreement in the appraisals on whether the IFT facilitation team elected to coordinate and to work for the Assembly 2000/2001 event actually ended up playing a central role in the organization of the process, although most believed that it did not. Some made a distinction between the Continental Meetings—which was more dependent on the Internet and was the result of a collective process—and the Lille Assembly—an FPH event directed by the FPH. Another comment pointed out that the breakup of the IFT in Bangalore had been a source of discouragement for some.

Moving in this direction, there was unanimous agreement on the fact that it is important to know what worked and what did not for the IFT and what lessons we can learn from that.

Similarly, many believed (although there were also opposite opinions) that the Alliance was lacking a democratic facilitation body in the past two years.

As for the workgroups, which were not centralized, they was nonetheless criticism of the fact that they were not also decentralized in their articulation. In spite of this, dissenting voices spoke of the need for some articulation through the application of the “active subsidiarity" principle, and there was even someone who considered that there had been no articulation.

Finally, there was tremendous variety in the appraisals of the criticism that the coordinators had never had a free and self-managed forum to debate on the overall process and on these articulations. Among the different opinions, there were those who explained that there was little space to discuss these issues and those who stated that the coordinators could have opened an e-forum to discuss them.