Comments

• After a bit more than a month after the GFMD in Athens, and with a bit of distance from the hustle and bustle of the event, I would like to highlight some issues, which might be relevant for the next GFMD.
  
  Starting with the positive aspects of this years’ Forum, generally speaking there was a greater presence from the governmental side at the CSD, not least because of the interface sessions, which allowed for a dialogue, besides the official presentation of the CS outcomes at the opening of the Governmental Days. Without overestimating it, the fact that apart from a delegation of observers three people from different backgrounds could represent CS at the opening of the Governmental Days. This was a step forward towards a more open exchange between governmental and CS representatives.
  
  Even if from an NGO perspective you could be critical about the prominent role businesses got in the agenda of CSD with almost their own round table, the topic on building alliances was another opening and possibly next time it would not only focus on building alliances with business, but with stakeholders in general. Possibly there is still a need to build alliances with the development sector, which was still underrepresented this time.
  
  Finally – but the signs are hopeful – the preparation of the new Forum has to start now, hopefully with joint exchanges on possible themes and items on the agenda, as was already suggested during the interface session on the Future of the Forum.
  
  What was irritating for many was the fact that the venues of both events, CSD’s and governmental meeting were so distant from each other.Heavy rain made some governmental representatives decide not to come to the interface session and even informal meetings with some governmental delegations were a challenge to the financial means and to the available time, as it took about 45 minutes to get from one place to the other. Who is afraid of whom?
  It would definitely help to have an open and trustful atmosphere by having one venue for both events.
  
  There were critical voices on the process of selection of the delegates, who were invited to attend the CSD’s. If we do not have an Open Forum where everybody is allowed to join at their own cost and with challenges for the organisers and we keep the format of chosen delegates, then certainly more could be done on informing about the selection procedure and on still improving the selection procedure. However, it will always be a question how much we trust in each other’s capacity (delegates in the capacity of the International Advisory Committee (IAC)) to do the right thing.
  
  There are a few solutions to consider to improve this:
  
  a) Give a more prominent role to national and regional consultations and propose delegates from these (delegates proposed from regional or national meetings could be prioritised with regard to those who applied on their own). In this case building national or regional alliances within CS could also be encouraged, and they would hopefully be focusing on issues beyond “banners”. This was already highlighted at the CSD’s. Possibly in that way the International Advisory Committee could be freed from the task to select delegates and rather devote its time to shape the agenda.
  b)As money is limited for a certain number of participants (and their funding), the Forum could be opened to those who participate at their own cost. This was an idea flagged by some colleagues at an informal meeting a couple of days ago.
  At the end of CSD’s there was consensus that they also need a kind of institutional memory and resources.
  c) A body or structure led by civil society members (and proposed by them). Various models were discussed and might be further discussed. If the model of the IAC is kept it would be good to extend the mandate of the IAC (e.g. to two years) and ask for proposals for members already at the end of the CSD’s (to be then decided based on context, geographical balance, gender, sector etc.). By the time the current IAC got to know each other and started to work together the event was over. It is a waste of energy and resource if this process starts every year. Out of the IAC and the organising foundation a steering group could be built to represent CSD’s at governmental meetings and dialogue with them. This of course implies a strong commitment by the IAC members as well as a willingness by the governments to start a dialogue at the beginning of the process leading to the GFMD.
  d)Another model could be a CS liaison unit, which stays in touch with actors from CS, encourages online dialogue, maintains a database of all the involved actors (also from previous CSD’s) and also keeps a virtual library on what has been discussed at previous fora. The unit would ensure continuity, encourage and facilitate networking and identify key actors and speakers.
  e) A combination of the two could be an option as well.
  
  As for the impact of CS on governmental thinking/dialogue this will only become clear if three conditions are met:
  
  a)Reporting is reciprocal: CS to governments and vice versa. Governments should take up the outcome of CSD’s as well as their own results and report on progress made.
  b)If a proper space for dialogue between CS and governments is reserved. To listen to a 10 minute statement on the outcomes of CSD’s is rather a compulsory act than a dialogue where options and ideas can be discussed.
  c) When more resources (see above) and more time is devoted to the process of preparation of the CSD’s
  
  Certainly CS has to make its own homework too. CS should be able to come up with its own fresh ideas and projects to emulate, but also with a clear advocacy messages. To that end a space were to collect and hone their own ideas would be definitely helpful. The idea of a price for projects, as the one initiated by the Onassis foundation is certainly interesting to dig deeper into the experience available in the field.
  
  I would not end without mentioning that there are a few themes which emerged during this forum as possible themes for the next one:
  1) Focus on the health care sector as a “model” sector where the link between migration and development becomes evident. Practices to increase that link could be looked at: specific contracts allowing transfer of know-how, ethical recruitment etc.
  2) Look and explore further the existing schemes on promoting the use of remittances for development projects (e.g. the Mexican 3+1)
  3) Further explore the obstacles concerning the ratification of the Migrant Workers Convention
  4) Further explore the impact of female migration on development, on communities and families
  5) Look at “models” of Global migration governance
  6) Finally provide a space of good/inspiring practices
  
  To end with I would like to highlight that not everything I put together here comes from myself, but it’s rather the outflow of my participation in the GFMD and of discussions with others, as participant in the sessions, as IAC member and rapporteur and it is also a way to keep the “global thinking” of these issues as a priority. We learn by walking and discussing with each other and the CSD’s is a good example for that!
  
  Martina Liebsch
  Caritas Internationalis
  

  
  
  
  by liebsch - 10/12/2009 22:48:40
  
  

  ---