Pinoy delegates to global migration gab want less talk

QUEZON CITY — It was originally a gabfest, but three delegates from the Philippines may have had enough of the talks and are itching for something more solid action from government delegates in the annual Global Forum for Migration and Development.

“GFMD was just talk show among the delegates where space is given for them to talk about migration issues [and nothing more],” remittance-for-development expert Ildefonso F. Bagasao told the OFW Journalism Consortium after arriving from the four-day GFMD in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.

But don’t get me wrong, Bagasao said, adding that many lessons were culled from participants in the GFMD who represented labor-sending and –receiving countries.

“Still, they [government representatives to the GFMD] should make an inventory of what have been accomplished in the GFMD.”

This year’s GFMD held November 8-11 is the fourth since the government of Brussels hosted the first in 2007. According to the GFMD website, the Mexico round was attended by 131 countries and 38 international organizations.

The annual forum is a “voluntary and non-binding initiative of United Nations member-states” where delegates from these member-states discuss how they can best handle circular and temporary migration and suggest ways to channel remittances toward the development of sending countries. Likewise, delegates discuss how best to ensure the protection of migrant workers when they are deployed in receiving countries.

Representatives from civil society groups, non-government organizations and migrants’ rights groups attend the Civil Society Days (CSD) where they offer alternative views and opinions on migration issues. The CSD is being organized by a foundation appointed by the host government and is held separately from the government side of the forum. The CSD portion of this year’s GFMD was also held at Puerto Vallarta on November 8 and 9.

The Forum had already dwelled enough on the theoretical aspects of managing migration, said Aurora de Dios, executive director of Miriam College’s Women and Gender Institute (WAGI), who also participated in the Mexico CSD.

De Dios believes there is a growing sentiment among delegates that countries should now implement laws and measures to protect migrant workers from abuse and integrate them into their respective country’s development paths.

“[An] issue regarding GFMD is that there is no monitoring or impact assessment yet. With so many recommendations made during the GFMD, [there is the question of] who is reporting or following up the recommendations made,” said De Dios, who also teaches in the college’s post-graduate course on migration.

Gratuities

Still, another delegate, Ellene Sana, said she was grateful for having participated in this year’s GFMD.

Sana, executive director of Center for Migrant Advocacy (CMA), recognizes the fact that the GFMD allowed migrant workers’ groups and advocates like her to push these issues at the forefront of international discussion.

For one, CSOs and migrant rights advocates have longer time –two days– to air their opinions and make suggestions as compared to the first GFMD, she said.

“At Brussels, civil society and NGOs only had six minutes to present [their opinions on the issues]. This year, it was a lot longer.”

She cited her presentation of CMA’s program to help distressed overseas Filipino workers via the short-message or “texting” service in handheld telephones.

Still, Sana believes more could still be done on how the forums are being conducted.
She cited as example how the organizing committee selects representatives from civil society groups.

To note, the organizing committee provides financial assistance to cover a delegate’s travel and accommodation during the GFMD. The forum’s website said the money comes from donors and the budget of the host country.

But De Dios said the costs of housing and feeding the delegates which host countries have to shoulder could be avoided.

In lieu of the yearly meetings, she recommends the GFMD be held only every two or three years.

Doing so would also allow monitoring respective country’s implementation of the recommendations set forth each forum.

The GFMD said that it “does not implement the concrete action proposals and recommendations it produces.”

“Most outcomes are addressed directly to participating States, which may take these forward on their own, at the national, regional and international levels.

The Forum also can only “encourage” delegates “to inform the GFMD Support Unit (based in Geneva, Switzerland) about actions they are undertaking as a follow-up to GFMD discussions.”

In Puerto Vallarta, the Philippine government’s contingent was led by Labor Undersecretary Danilo Cruz, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) Administrator Carmelita Dimzon, and Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations Amb. Libran Cabactulan.

Bagasao, who has attended all four GFMD sessions for its Civil Society days since 2007, suggests that government delegates collate all the recommendations made during the discussions and then formulate mechanisms to see whether these are being implemented.

Pending that, he said the annual gatherings of representatives would amount only to mere sharing of insights and discussions but without actually implementing concrete solutions.

Action

Nonetheless, de Dios believes civil society groups should not give up “the space allotted for the discussion” of migrant workers’ issues. In fact, these groups should continue in their engagements so that they can continue to promote the protection of migrant workers.

Both she and Bagasao think the GFMD had encouraged the sharing of new information as to how nations can best manage migration.

For instance, Bagasao said he was interested to learn about how a Mexican government agency works to facilitate the transfer of donations, worth US$3- US$34 million a year, from Mexicans working abroad toward the development of their communities.

“The official who heads this agency coordinates and collaborates between the Mexicans working overseas and the federal government.”

For her part, De Dios describes the GFMD event as a venue where academics like her and representatives of CSOs and migrants rights advocates learn more about each other’s work.

But, then why still countries, especially European nations, are still participating in the GFMD? Bagasao believes that it is a matter of pragmatism and self interest.

“The European countries are becoming restrictive in their policies, but since we are living in a globalized environment, without borders, they need migrant workers who are willing to take on menial jobs. They don’t like migrant workers but still they need them to do menial chores.” Bagasao says.

Despite these criticisms, the GFMD considered the Mexico round as successful.

“It was, by all accounts, a successful meeting of minds of government and civil society on a range of problems –both old and new– relating to migration and development.”

It noted that some recommendations “require multilateral follow-up action [on] governments, which may decide to implement in cooperation with operational international agencies –in particular the members of the Global Migration Group (GMG), or with non-governmental experts.”

Likewise, the GFMD said that it was able to organize working groups, “endorsed in 2008 in Manila and approved during the Greek presidency in 2009,” as an “informal mechanism for interested governments to keep abreast of GFMD outcomes, discuss follow-up actions and agree on how and by whom these could be taken forward for implementation.”

Still, Bagasao, president of nonprofit Economic Resource Center for Overseas Filipinos, thinks it’s time for less talk and more action.

Something that he may expect as Ambassador Eduard Gnesa, Special Ambassador of Switzerland for International Migration, announced that his country, which will be hosting the next Forum, “intends to carry on and further develop the gains of the past four GFMD meetings by making the 2011 GFMD a year dedicated to action.” – OFW Journalism Consortium