CAE   Paving the way towards ICAE World Assembly in Nairobi, 2007

Virtual Seminar

March 6 - 24, 2006




 

Summary of GCAP Review

 Dr. Eva Friedlander
PAC
Planning Alternatives for Change

  

This evaluation constitutes part of an overall external review of the accomplishments and challenges of The Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP) during 2005. GCAP commissioned this study as one component of a broader review to be used for deliberations regarding whether and how best to move ahead in 2006 and beyond.

The report includes the history and organizational arrangements, a brief overview of achievements with regard to the Johannesburg Statement; GCAP’s effectiveness in international policy fora; the relationship to other campaigns, coalitions and networks; women, indigenous peoples, youth and disabled persons; decision making and operational issues, including working arrangements, and a final addendum of media considerations.   While the frames and perspectives of North and global South are contrasted broadly, each region and country has its own historical, political, social context that needs to be considered.  Nevertheless, the contrasting perspectives emerge from the interviews with significance for decisions about GCAP’s future.

GCAP was initiated as an international alliance of organizations, networks and national campaigns to pressure world leaders to act on poverty and hold them accountable for commitments they have made regarding debt, trade and aid.  It was conceived as a direct response to the opportunity (and challenge) presented by the congruence of three major international events to take place in one year, 2005: the G8 in Gleneagles (July), the UN Millennium +5 Summit in New York (September) and the WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong (December).  In addition the Beijing +10 and the Cairo +5 were scheduled for the same year. The founding call focused on these three major events to be marked  by three White Band Days, with subsidiary activities for other events taking place throughout the year.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted by world leaders in 2000 provided an initial framework for action, setting forth limited and time bound targets in 8 areas to be achieved by 2015.  In particular the organizers wanted to spur action on Goals 1 and 8, goal 1 to eliminate extreme poverty and hunger, establishing a more equitable set of trade and economic relationships, and goal 28, to develop global partnerships for development.[1]

GCAP’s goals set forth in the Johannesburg Statement, adopted by consensus of 60-70 diverse organizations (NGOs, trade unions, faith based organizations, INGOs, including funders, etc.), went far beyond the MDG’s minimalist targets, calling broadly for eradication of poverty,  trade justice, debt cancellation, significant increase in the quantity and quality of aid, and national efforts to eliminate poverty, with achievement of the MDGs as a first step.  GCAP’s goals are by necessity broad, to accommodate the very wide spectrum of viewpoints expressed by those present. Given accountability of representatives to their own organizational constituencies, the construction of a statement broad enough to encompass the whole, yet sharp enough to present an effective policy and lobbying platform meant that the consensus was a fragile one, its maintenance a key challenge.

The major international NGOs, - OXFAM Action Aid, NOVIB, and the Millennium Campaign - agreed to contribute often substantial resources, not just financial, to the effort  (see the financial report).  The work of GCAP over the past year has been based primarily on the considerable volunteer efforts and resources offered by these and other organizations and individuals at the national level joining together for this one year call.

GCAP was conceived as a loose alliance of organizations, addressing government leaders around the world.  At the Johannesburg Meeting, Kumi Naidoo, Secretary General of CIVICUS, was made Chair of the new network. The formation of autonomous national platforms was part of the plan, building at the national level on existing organizations and networks, based on their own national concerns and contexts.

The Johannesburg Statement: Where We Are

An assessment of achievements reached in the course of the year in relationship to the goals of the Johannesburg Statement suggests that these were limited at best. Multilateral debt write off, commitment to the largest ODA ever, reduction of export subsidies by 1 billion/euros/year  by 2013, and other gains made at the three international for  are more than offset by the conditions attached to them.  Above all these include forced expansion of liberalization and privatization, leading to erosion of public services and greater impoverishment. Furthermore, similar  commitments were made but not kept in the past, notably a target of  0.7% of GDP in aid, made by the developed country 35 years ago. At the same time issues of Southern governance were brought to the fore and some  respondents from the South  mentioned the importance of dealing with governance in their countries before tackling issues of debt, trade and aid. 

Some gains were made in the area of gender equality through extensive collaboration among women’s groups at the UN Millennium +5 Summit, with success in making significant changes in the final document.[1]  Perhaps most important was the contribution the Feminist Task Force made to a growing recognition of the interrelationship of issues, significant in the light of ways to reconsider the Johannesburg Statement, making stronger connections between issues of debt, aid and trades and the complex web of other human rights and social development issues.

Effectiveness in International Policy Fora

While it is impossible to measure the impact of GPAC directly on international fora, there were some notable achievements.  Interviewees concurred that GCAPs greatest success was White Band Day I in connection with the G8, then White and Day II in connection with the UN Millennium +5 Summit, and last was White Band Day III in connection with the WTO Ministerial Meeting.  The value of the various planned activities, concerts, stunts, demonstrations, lobbying, etc. was thought to be in their combination, rather than one or another singled out.  Some of the achievements were:

• Increased mobilization with synergy created by the combination of high profile activities: concerts, stunts, demonstrations, marches, etc. leading to increased mobilization

• Achievement of notable visibility and coverage in the Northern press, and apparently in some of the global South media as well,
• Unprecedented awareness of issues of poverty resulting from the variety and creativity of activities  around the three White Band Days, primarily  in  the North, but also the South. 
• Extensive global recognition of the white band, to symbolize a growing global social movement around issues of poverty
• Political influence with elected political officials and leaders made possible by the mass mobilization
• Recognition and respect for GCAP in international fora, with space created for civil society input, e.g. the GA Informal Interactive Hearings
• Production of useful tool kits and information materials
• The writing of valuable shadow reports
• Establishment of  new and productive working relationships
  
  Shortcomings that were raised concerning effectiveness of GCAP at International fora and the White Band Days include:
  • The absence of adequate Southern representation and participation
  • The absence of adequate representation of social issues, especially those relating to women and children, but also disabled and indigenous peoples, and those with HIV/AIDS
  • The lack of focus on people living in poverty in the North
  • Inadequate preparation for people who attended international for a and White Band Day events
  • Inadequate interpretation and translation of materials for some of the Southern representatives to international fora and White Band Days
  • The “campaign approach” was said by some in the South not to be appropriate to their environments, and therefore ineffective
  • Too great an emphasis on high visibility and high profile events and people, such as concerts,
  • Some lack of coordination between working groups
  • Tension between requirements for media and PR messaging and more in depth substantive policy messages, slowing down response or diluting positions
  • Inability to agree on policy positions making GCAP statements difficult and in some cases impossible to issue.

   The Relationship to Other Campaigns, Coalitions and Networks

   GCAP’s strength has been its partnerships and work with other networks, coalitions and campaigns.  The broad basis and diverse organizations that constitute the network  was most  frequently mentioned as GCAP’s major strength and value added, constituting the basis for mobilization, participation and mutual support.  Each partner juggles competing commitments and responsibilities to still other organizations and coalitions.  This partly accounts for the very different degrees of connectedness to the GCAP network, from total commitment and involvement to ambivalence or distancing from GCAP.  Competing allegiances and the need to negotiate and accommodate the complex and carefully constructed policy packages of different organizations, while at the same time maintaining distinct identities and brands presents a challenge for GCAP as well as its constituent organizations.

  Some associations and partnerships have influenced the way in which GCAP is perceived, both to its benefit and its detriment. In particular, both the Millennium campaign and Make Poverty History strengthened GCAP, but also kept  some potential partners/participants away. Some associated the goals of the Millennium Campaign with  GCAP; viewing them as excessively minimal,  they considered that they would dilute their own organizational policies.  Others saw GCAP as duplicating and/or complicating the work of already existing and ongoing Millennium Campaign efforts in their organizations. In either case, GCAP has suffered the results, suggesting that greater clarification regarding the nature of GCAP, its goals and how it differs from other networks would bring in constituencies that have presently opted out.   

  At the same time, building on existing coalitions  is central to GCAP’s strategy.  Respondents from the South indicated the need to dovetail with existing mobilizations and movements in order to gain support and achieve widespread mobilization. As of now GCAP has for the most part not been able to build from the bottom up.  The need to create effective ties to national entities of such international bodies as the ICFTU, and faith -based organizations operating at the local level was mentioned by several respondents.  This process has begun, with emphasis shifting from global fora and events to the regions and national platforms.  Although general and somewhat ambiguous policy messages were necessary to create broad based coalitions at the global level, these may be inadequate at the regional, national and local levels, where more clearly focused and detailed policy constructions and messages  could be more effective.  

  Women, Indigenous Peoples, Youth and Disabled Persons

  Considerable agreement exists that inadequate attention was paid to inclusion of women and such other under represented groups as youth, disabled persons, indigenous peoples, and persons with HIV/AIDS. It points to the need not only for greater participation,  but also for analyses that would more fully incorporate gender issues, and those of other under represented constituencies. It also draws attention to the gains made at major international meetings such as the Beijing  and Vienna Conferences. By bringing gender and human rights issues to the fore, .t he Feminist Task Force  brought a holistic perspective that can help bridge the gap between the multifaceted reality  of people’s lives and the often separate and esoterically framed subjects of aid, debt and trade. 

  Although women appear to be as active as men on the International Facilitation Group, that they were predominantly from the Northern INGOs. Discussions with persons from the South highlighted the need to include more women’s groups and frame  policy platforms confronting issues close to the daily needs of people on the ground including women – issues such as health and, education These Southern participants emphasized the need to incorporate and address specific andvery different conditions and histories of coalition building around women’s issues in various regions and countries.

  Considering that women constitute over half the world’s population and carry the major burden of economically disruptive policies,
  their mobilization can only strengthen GCAP’s effectiveness.  Inclusion of other disadvantaged constituencies is equally  important.

  Decision Making and Operational Issues

  Decision making and operational issues are closely intertwined.  As a loose alliance, consistent effort was made not to create structures, procedures and rules, and to enable decentralization and autonomy.  Decision  making took place either at the level of the International Facilitation Group (IFG) consisting of Co-chairs of Working Groups or in the Working Groups themselves.  It also took place at the Regional and National levels.   The IFG was set up with the specific mandate that it not play a leadership role, but rather a facilitation role. Initially open to whoever wanted to join, it now consists of Working Group Co-chairs, with Working Groups remaining open. Furthermore there are Regional Focal Points and National platforms with National Coordinators. 

  While such a loose network perhaps inevitably creates ambiguity about who and how decisions are made, as borne out by the consultations, this is at least partly the unintended consequence of structural constraints that serve to disadvantage some to the advantage of others. The following factors have operated to constrain the full expression of  GCAP's democratic and inclusive ideals

  Working Groups

  Generally members of the IFG and Working Groups said that efforts were made to ensure participation of the global South.  Ways of working, however, made it difficult to work with Southern partners or those half way around the world.  The weekly teleconference calls of the  IFG and Working Groups met with the following obstacles:

   

  • Scheduling difficulties given different time zones
  • Technical problems, including poor phone lines due, for example, to satellite interference
  • Language and dialect differences (lack of adequate interpretation)
  • Cost of teleconference calls if asked to call in (rectified by calling out to people in the South.)
  • Teleconference procedures and etiquette influenced by gender and culture, favoring more aggressive manners. 

   Considerable unhappiness was expressed about the teleconference calls. The numbers of people participating on a call declined precipitously as people dropped off for the reasons above, as well as competing responsibilities.  Continuity between calls also suffered, with some dropping out as others joined

  Omission of information in conference minutes was mentioned, There was near unanimity that teleconferences were problematic and that communication methods needed to be reconsidered.

  The alternative of e-mail was also considered problematic given the difficulty of handling too much information, leaving much information unread.

  The result favored Northern participants, in closer touch with each other than with those at greater distance.  Other issues that emerged from discussions with Working Group Co-chairs were: 

  • Communication with Regional Focal Points and National Coordinators was little to non existent., limiting information flow from the regions and national platforms
  • Unclear mandates and unclear roles and responsibilities led to what were sometimes overlapping roles and responsibilities
  • Lack of accountability led to problems with follow-up

  ·         Differences of opinion between Working Groups regarding substance of communiqués and media messages, leading to friction

   In spite of these difficulties, people reported that their Working Groups functioned well and that they found satisfaction in, and enjoyed working together this way.

  The question was raised as to whether there are too many Working Groups and if they might not better be organized around events rather than functions. This would seem to be consistent with the idea presently on the table that GCAP organize for one international major event in 2007

  The UN Working Group presents an example of an event based Working Group that through its work with/on the UN Civil Society Task Force, enabled interventions at the General Assembly Informal Interactive Hearings, and at the UN Department of Public Information Annual Meeting prior to the Millennium+5 Summit It facilitated representation from Latin American at White Band Day II and the Millennium +5 Summit.  Its strong working relationship with the Media Working Group as well was critical in the wide visibility GCAP attained at the UN.  

  The way in which Working Groups  could best function vis-a-vis national platforms is unclear, except the need in any case for fuller representation and participation of organizations, and especially local, grass roots organizations from the global South. Until such time as GCAP’s goals and objectives for the future are determined, it is premature to discuss with any specificity the ways in which the IFG and Working Groups should be structured

  National Platforms, Coordinators and Regional Focal Points

  National platforms have increased from only 15 in January 2005 to approximately 105 in February 2006, although their exact nature is unclear in many cases.  The process of building a network based on national coalitions and networks is very much in process, a process in the making. The potential for building on existing coalitions, networks and organizations, of mobilization, varies by region and country depending on the political environment, the existence or strength of NGOs and existing coalitions and networks. Just how a national coalition is led and organized is variable.  Some have strong paid national coordinators, others volunteer conveners.  For some coordinators it is part of a job within associated organizations, others are independent; some also coordinate the Millennium Campaign. While relying heavily on voluntary efforts, the ability to support a coordinator makes a difference in the extent to which a national coalition can be built. Furthermore, there is variation in the articulation of written mission statements and objectives.

  Although the authenticity of some activities around the White Band Days has been questioned, descriptions of activities given both in discussions and documents in different regions suggests that in many activities did take place.  How deep the mobilizations were, whether grass roots people - not just NGOs - were mobilized is unclear. There are, of course, areas where no activities took place. In some places, where demonstrations and public relations activities could not be organized, other activities, such as workshops, lectures, seminars were held in partnership with institutions in the region. . 

  While each region, sub region and country is different, some perceptions and problems articulated by the South recurred and require special consideration in planning for the future:

  ·         GCAP is coming as an outsider, has no name recognition and is an imposition, rather than home grown;

  ·         GCAP duplicates the work of existing coalitions and networks and has no added value

  ·         Limited numbers of people work on the same few most pressing issues in the country and the addition of other areas of work serves as a distraction, taking precious time, effort and dilutes their efforts.

  ·         Priorities, such as health and education are already clear and it is necessary to work in a holistic, rather, than piecemeal fashion.

  ·         More women’s groups need to be involved

  ·          The question of how to deal with the above issues is paramount.

  Regional focal points were established to enable more effective communication within and between regions and with the International Facilitation Group.  Reports of  regional planning meetings (Africa and Latin America) that convened at the beginning of 2006 take stock of what happened during 2005 and indicate that a thorough planning process has begun for the coming year.  In Europe there was consensus on continuing to work together in 2006, and very useful criteria were articulated for when it is advisable to act as GCAP rather than through existing networks and platforms. A series of key political issues were articulated, as were priorities and ways of working.  Discussions included needs for the future and three working groups wee established to take proposals forward.  Priorities included bringing in new coalitions and planning for 2007, including the German G8, 07.07.07.

  In Africa the Harare consultation pointed to GCAP Africa as being  “very visible, active and organized” compared to other regions and reviewed its considerable achievements.  It pointed to issues raised, with areas for corrective action in the future.  Opportunities for future North -South collaboration are noted (Monterrey +5 process, march 2007, MDG mid review 2007), World Social Forum 2007, Nairobi in April; IMF and World Bank meetings, September, G8 meetings in Russia, 2006 and German (June 2007).

  The issue of funding was raised by several people, with one person saying that no funding had been provided in his sub-region.  More often problems arose from the way funding took place.  While the validity of the claims cannot be verified the following issues are put forward for consideration.

  ·         Multiple funding from different donors to the same organizations

  ·         Organizations being formed in order to capture funds

  ·         Long established organizations in a country not receiving financial support

  ·         The detrimental effect of funding on existing relations between organizations as a result of competition for funds

  ·         Lack of understanding as to how funding decisions are made, suggesting lack of transparency;

  At a meeting in London in October, a small group of funders coming together to discuss the financial picture, recognized that better coordination was necessary in the future.  The question of how Regional Focal Points and Natinal Coodinators should be involved  in funding decisions is central to the shape  GCAP will take.

  The Secretariat

  The global Secretariat, presently hosted by CIVICUS in Johannesburg, South Africa has expanded beyond its original mandate to provide support for Kumi Naidoo and facilitate communications. Set up originally to service a one year campaign that took off beyond people hopes and expectations it has taken on a broad range of other functions including, for example, political, such as mobilization, promotion and outreach, support of Working Groups, National Coalitions, and leading the GCAP global consultation process on the future of GCAP.   It also issued bi-weekly GCAP newsletters and daily updates, responds to public enquiries and facilitates the compilation of relevant research,.  It has functioned with minimum staff and uncertain budget.  The question of how the Secretariat might be structured to meet new, yet-to-be-decided objectives and functions is as yet unclear.  Whether and how much functions should be centralized, and the role of possible regional secretariats . . . these questions must be decided once GCAP’s objectives for the future are determined.

  Conclusion

  The question of how effective and efficient GCAP has been over the past year depends largely on the question of what the purpose of the alliance was, whether it was organized to be a one year call or a long term campaign and coalition building effort, whether its focus was to be primarily on pushing Northern governments to meet commitments or the accountability of Southern governments. 

  Bearing in mind the very short period of time in which GCAP has grown and become known, the results are impressive, mobilizing masses of people and creating awareness among various new sectors of society. With visibility it also gained a strategic platform for lobbying and making interventions at critical international fora that appear to have had some consequence in outcome documents and policies. Whether it has moved the world closer to the objectives of the Johannesburg Statement is, I believe, doubtful, but this would be a tall order in the space of one short, politically very difficult year.

  As to building long-term coalitions, GCAP has brought together an unlikely combination of organizations and people under one umbrella, a most significant achievement, on which future alliances and coalitions for poverty eradication can hopefully be developed.  But, it has further to go.  Grass roots organizations, trade unions, faith groups, and others are yet to be fully engaged.

  Whether or not GCAP national coalitions/platforms can mobilize civil society at the local level is not clear, but attempts to do so need to consider the particularities of each region and country and the brief, but telling, experiences of the past year. Thus far it appears that international activities and events have not been nourished by what happens in the global South so much as the reverse, although the potential exists. Issues of duplication, competition, and conflict among existing coalitions and networks need to be considered and dealt with if GCAP is to take root.

  Broad based mobilization requires inclusion of populations not yet fully integrated into GCAP’s  activities through more targeted analysis and mobilization.  It requires connecting with other movements and mobilizations e.g., women’s, disability, indigenous rights, human rights, etc.  And, poverty exists in the North as well as the South.  The ways in which they are related and interwoven need to be addressed.

  Structural issues loom large posing questions of how barriers to full partnership between the North and global South can be achieved. The issues raised relate partly to differences in space and time, but reflect broader global inequalities that take special efforts to overcome. How to build a democratic and transparent network over time, flexible enough to be highly diverse, enable autonomy of thought and action, and still be bound by common purpose remains the central challenge.  “Light” structures have been proposed, but the question of where and how necessary decisions are made and actions taken is a necessary concern.

  Finally, there can be no doubt that the results of GCAP's very short one year history has yielded results, contributing substantially to the growing awareness of trade, debt, aid and governance issues at all levels. The strategic questions of whether and how GCAP is to proceed needs to be based on the combined experiences and lessons of the last year.

   ******

   GCAP Media Considerations:  A Critical Addendum

  Media activities were a major focus of GCAP last year and in December it received the 2005 International Achievement Award for Excellence in Communication from IPS. The review is based on publicity reports for the White Band Days, covering what is probably only a small fraction of all media coverage generated. IPS closely covered all GCAP activities and issues and these were picked up by the Southern media.  Coverage from the “rich” countries and those from the South contrasted, with Southern media less optimistic and substantive. Media goals of visibility, mobilization and engagement of hearts and minds were achieved. 

  This review points to the need for additional 1) “think pieces” detailing the inequitable economic situation and why it must be addressed.  Such pieces should include the contextual history of “underdevelopment” of large parts of the world, essential to grasping the essential justice of debt relief and aid.; 2) focus on human interest stories that illustrate GCAP’s arguments on a human level; 3)coverage of the poor in the “rich countries, or the South in the North in trade union media and media outlets that speak directly to African, Asian, Latin American diasporas and why the worsening conditions of the South, directly affects the majority of people in the North as well.  In spite of these shortcomings the media efforts have been remarkable.

  Dr. Eva Friedlander
  PAC
  Planning Alternatives for Change
   

•  RECOMMENDATIONS

  The following recommendations are offered as an external evaluator, based on the information reviewed. The review is partial and should be augmented with further interviews and discussions.  Until a decision is reached about GCAP’s future and GCAP’s objectives articulated, it is premature to give recommendations.  Policy and operational issues are closely interrelated, as effectiveness and efficiency can only be determined in relationship to goals and objectives.  For this reason the following suggestions are tentative recommendations.  On a provisional basis, therefore, some recommendations are as follows:

  The Johannesburg Statement needs to be reconsidered in the light of political, economic and social developments over the past year, informed by gender analysis and other considerations of how debt, trade and aid issues affect the full realities of peoples lives.

  Should consensus be reached regarding GCAP’s policy objectives for the future, then,

  1.  Planning and Participation

  ·         Full participation of civil society from the global South, not only for regional, but international planning is essential and should be made a priority in agenda setting for the coming year. 

  ·         Participation of disadvantaged and poverty stricken areas of the North also need to be included in agenda setting. 

  ·         Women’s groups, youth, disabled persons and indigenous peoples need to be fully involved.

  ·         Engaging civil society at the grass roots level should be a priority, working through existing national coalitions and networks in all areas.  This includes efforts to strengthen participation of local and national trade union membership as well as other organizational networks with strong local membership and leadership.

  ·         Considering the very different historical and sociological circumstances of the continents and regions and countries, it is recommended that most planning take place at a regional and country levels, as has apparently already begun. 

  ·         Only one international planning meeting would seem to be needed in the year, where full consideration would be given to regional updates.

  ·         Planning for only one international mobilization in 2007 seems reasonable.

  2.  National Platforms

  Among the most serious issues facing GCAP’s attention on building national coalitions are duplication, competition and conflict among organizations and pulling necessary resources away from other ongoing efforts.  To try to avoid this from happening, an assessment/feasibility study could be carried out in each country where a platform is proposed to determine what added value GCAP’s presence might have.  It would look at what and how it might further the goals and objectives set forth internationally in Beirut adapted to the country context. Roughly the following questions should be asked, on the basis of which decisions can be taken within the country itself.           

  ·         What national organizations, coalitions, networks exist in the country working on very broadly related issues?

  ·         What might the impact be of GCAP on existing country networks and coalitions?

  ·         What capacity (financial and otherwise) exists within the country for supporting a GCAP coalition?

  ·         What potential grass roots support is it likely to be able to garner and how?

  ·         Can funding be provided without its disruptive consequences?

  ·         What are the political risks and how will they be dealt with?

  3.  Funding

  ·         Funding at the national level should only be after careful research (see above) of the local situation, in open consultation with multiple organizations, and with extreme precautions to avoid disrupting existing in country arrangements, creating competition and conflict between existing organizations, networks, coalitions and individuals.

  ·         Regional Focal Points and National Coordinators should be fully involved in funding deliberations, decisions and use of funds.

  ·         Donors should work on coordinating their funding more effectively.

  4.  Decision Making and Operational Matters

  ·         Every effort should be made ensure that decision-making is transparent.  Clear procedures for bookkeeping, information flow through e-mails or biweekly updates (with rules for how e-mail is used), including restrictions on document size and frequency should improve the situation.

   ·         To avoid monolithic bureaucracy building, regional bureaux should take on the maximum responsibility, but still remain “light”.

   ·         Depending on the functions of an international secretariat, the possibility of an autonomous, but very “light” secretariat should be entertained, unattached to any particular NGO, with the particular division of labor between it and the regions to be decided.

   ·         Consideration should be given to the possibility of a Co-chair, preferably a woman.

   ·         In general the face of GCAP should be multifaceted with multiple spokespeople from all regions.

   ·         Possibly work groups could be event specific, with an effort made that they not proliferate.

   ·         A UN liaison office in New York would be desirable to ensure communication and information flow regarding international meetings and developments of substantive relevance, to enable effective links to be forged among organizations in the UN arena, and strategic input from civil society and effective lobbying.

  ·         For international events there should be constant communication between international and regional media bureaux

  ·         Alternatives to teleconference calls need to be brainstormed for communication across regions. When they are used they need very careful planning with regard to rules of engagement and interpretation for those not speaking the primary language of the call.

  ·         Careful consideration should be given to how GCAP operates in the pressured atmosphere of international negotiations, with the aim of ensuring coherence and unity while at the same time preserving a democratic and consultative decision-making process.

  5.  Media and Publicity

  ·         Regional media bureaux should be established and supported to be functional when needed for local national and regional events.

  ·         Relationships should be maintained with existing regional news bureaux to ensure that they cover relevant news in a manner that promotes GCAP’s objectives.

  ·         Efforts should be made to foster more in-depth coverage of GCAP's analysis of issues, and of the effects of decisions on debt, aid and trade on the everyday lives of people around the world.

  ·         An archive of worldwide media coverage around the world should be started.