Accessibility and meaningful civil society participation challenges

Mexican feminists could not contribute significantly to the design of the conference as they were not included in the methodology selection, panel topics, or civil society participation. Weeks before the conference it was uncertain whether interested members of Mexican civil society would be allowed to attend. Access to the event was restricted to those who received an invitation and there was no financial support for transportation. In the case of some Mexican organizations, they received an invitation five days before the conference, which gave them very little time to be available to attend, seek funding for travel, and consult with the people they accompany or provide services to develop positions or proposals. This resulted in most of the civil society attendees being from the Global North.

For local activists, the conference was not accessible because it was held far away from peripheral areas and followed a formal methodology where states read statements and do not interact with the audience. It is worth noting that due to the length of the conference, it was difficult for organizations working directly with historically discriminated populations to neglect their humanitarian work and take time to attend discussions. In addition, the civil society panel “Civil Society Contributions to the Implementation of Feminist Foreign Policies for a Better Tomorrow” was held at the same time as the development cooperation panel called “From Forums and Agreements to Territory: Feminist Foreign Policy through International Development Cooperation with a Feminist Perspective”. This resulted in the decision-making audience opting for the second panel and missing out on the substantive interventions at the civil society panel.

Despite this, some panels were broadcasted live, and each one was multi-stakeholder, meaning that it included a member of civil society or academia. It was also symbolic that members of civil society were invited to take a seat at the table during the civil society panel, since during the rest of the program we had to sit in the back as spectators.

The politics of the conference

In general, delegates from governments, companies, and international organizations took the opportunity to brag about their good practices and successes in gender equality. Civil society delegates issued specific demands regarding FFP and recommendations, such as the need for domestic congruence. In short, this third FFP ministerial conference continued to be used to establish leadership and achieve international recognition, but not for concrete actions.

Even so, I acknowledge that the Mexican presidency did well to link the context of the Summit of the Future with the FFP conference. In that way the event had a broader global advocacy objective. The major outcome was the declaration and policy brief on the Pact for the Future. An analysis of the declaration shows that it had very little adherence. Only 19 of the 40 countries at the conference signed it, even though the language of the text was not very critical because issues like sexual and reproductive rights and militarization were left out. This shows that the FFP agenda keeps being promoted by the same countries and there is an increasing danger that fewer counties will endorse it. I believe that our role as civil society should be to continue monitoring these commitments so they do not remain on paper only.

The conference was useful to meet and join forces

National and international feminist organizations attended the conference. We had the opportunity to meet in person and exchange views on FPP during the different panels but also in the breaks and networking spaces. We talked about the different areas in which we work, which are not commonly associated with FFP (e.g. sexual and reproductive rights, sexual diversity rights, access to justice, human mobility, etc.). We also had the opportunity to interact with like-minded decision-makers with whom we will be able to forge alliances. For organizations from Mexico and Latin America, this was particularly significant as we have had little presence in the discussions and decision-making of this agenda since the first FPP was adopted ten years ago.

Critical activists of FFP, including myself, launched the Mexican Feminist Foreign Policy Network during the conference. This is a group of academics and activists who seek to analyze and influence the formulation, design, and implementation of the FFP in Mexico. We wanted to demonstrate to the conference attendees that knowledge production and practice of FFP resides not only in the Global North and its governments. So we organized a side event by and for feminist civil society with the support of Walking the Talk, Oxfam, and others. The event called “Towards a Feminist Foreign Policy in Latin America and the Caribbean” brought together experts from different countries who concluded that for FFP to be successful in the region it must be anti-colonial, which implies abandoning the vertical logic of international relations. It was also agreed that due to the conditions of inequality in Latin America, the countries that have adopted FFP should actively promote a feminist financial architecture, sexual and reproductive rights, and access to justice.

Joining forces is an important way to remove borders and bridge territorial distances by creating a supportive community. Organizations around the world interested in and working in FFP are now more connected, and I am sure that soon there will be a common front to promote a more incusive FFP for everyone.

Ahead of the FFP conference in France

Much remains to be done to make the FFP conferences useful to ordinary women. FFP ministerial conferences must be the means, not the end, to achieve substantive equality. With or without a FFP conference, our engagement as civil society in FFP must remain strong. I can only hope that the French presidency will choose to work closely with civil society because it seems that some countries are losing that spirit.