Meeting of MAPID Trainees on 30-31 October 2010

Upon the explicit request of the Filipino migrants who attended the training sessions in Spain, the University of Valencia, in cooperation with ISMU Foundation and the Scalabrini Migration Center, organized a joint meeting of the participants in the training programs in Spain and Italy. The first objective of the meeting was to share experiences among participants aiming at analyzing the strengths and the weaknesses of their associations in both countries. Moreover, the meeting intended to strengthen the existing links of Filipino migrants’ associations in Spain and Italy with the Philippines so that they could start networking internationally and actively contribute to the advocacy for the rights of migrants and their families in Europe. Thirdly, the meeting aimed at assisting the participants in the elaboration of one or more joint project proposals on migration and development for actions both in Europe and in the Philippines. The three objectives were achieved through the different activities undertaken in the meeting.

The meeting, organized as a live-in setting, was held at the San Servando Hostel in Toledo, Spain, on 30-31 October 2010. On 30 October 2010, the meeting had thirty-nine participants: twelve Italy-based Filipino migrants (four from Rome and eight from Milan), twenty-one Spain-based Filipino migrants (sixteen from Madrid and five from Barcelona) and six organizers (one project director, three country coordinators, and two project assistants). On 31 October, four Spain-based Filipinos (three from Madrid and one from Barcelona) had to leave due to different commitments and the number of participants on the second day was thirty-five. The program of the meeting entailed an introductory session with a personal introduction of the participants. During the one and half-day period, three workshops and three plenary sessions were held. For the workshops, the participants were divided into groups, according to their area of origin or interest. The organizers acted as facilitators in the different groups. In the evening of 30 October 2010, social activities (singing contest, skits, dances, etc.) were organized aiming at fellowship. The meeting concluded with lunch on 31 October 2010.

The main objectives of the first workshop were the following:

• to assess Filipino migrants’ associations in Italy and Spain using a specific methodology;

• to look for feasible solutions to identified problems. In the first part of the group discussion, participants were requested to analyze the Filipino Associations Overseas (FAOs) in Spain and Italy identifying the following: a) strengths; b) weaknesses; c) opportunities; and c) threats. In the second part of the workshop, participants were asked to identify solutions to each of the problems.

Each group was asked to appoint 1 moderator, 1 time keeper, and 1 secretary. The moderator would assure that everybody will have time to share their opinion. The timekeeper would remind each speaker that her/his maximum time (3 minutes) has expired. The secretary would take notes during the discussion and report in English in the plenary. The final report during the plenary was not supposed to exceed 10 minutes.

The participants were divided into 3 groups. Two groups were composed of Spain-based Filipinos and one group of Italy-based Filipinos. They discussed for one hour. A secretary summarized the discussion and reported in the plenary.

• Group One identified the FAOs’ strengths as follows: faith, family, lessons from bad experiences (failures in life, poverty), interaction (different opinions and ideas), and respect for others’ ideas. The  following  weaknesses were identified: lack of communication, lack of interest, jealousy, envy (inggit), lack of flexibility and patience, difficulty in accepting others’ opinions,  difficulty or incapacity to express his ideas, limitations in sharing with others, selfishness, and egoism. The FAOs’ opportunities were identified as follows: networking, communication, bonding among members, opportunities to update knowledge common and social interest, brain storming and capacity building, and chances to develop technically, mentally and spiritually. Group One identified the following threats: negativity, pessimism, unwillingness to cooperate, and lack of adaptability. The following solutions were suggested: unity, knowledge or capacity, financial goal mindset, acceptance, discipline, hardworking spirit or eagerness, patience, sacrifice, consciousness or awareness. The group concluded with the following statement: “Therefore we will become the eagle for change. Aim high. Yes we can! Amen!”.

• Group Two identified the following strengths of FAOs were identified: awareness of the problems, active members, and quality trainings. The weaknesses of FAOs included the following: lack of unity, lack of information, limited contacts and networks, lack of interests and initiative among members, time constraints, and limited collaborations with Philippine and Italian institutions. The opportunities of FAOs were identified as follows: MAPID training sessions, exchange of ideas and experiences, widening of contacts (networks), tapping individuals’ potentials, and looking for socio cultural and economic benefits. Group Two identified the following threats: failure in communication, lack unity and cooperation, lack of funding, and unfeasibility of the projects. The following solutions were suggested: more training opportunities, correct and updated information, proper communications, widening of networks, definition of common and specific objectives of the organizations, and establishing closer contacts and deeper collaboration with institutions. The group concluded with the following statement: “Summary: POWER = Plan, Organize, Work, Evaluate, Results = Success.”

• Group Three identified the following  strengths  of FAOs: number of members, bonding of members, activities and meetings make  members more active, registration of the association with local institutions to have its own  identity, gaining collaborations from institutions and government and different associations, focus on attending to the  needs of members, cooperation, participation in common projects and common objectives, strengthening programs through volunteers’ cooperation, co-development projects for economic development, promotion and support of training and formation of FAOs’ leaders, and financial assistance from institutions and other funding agencies. The  weaknesses of FAOs were identified as follows: lack of concrete goals to accomplish projects and objectives; limited learning activities and projects; internal divisions; lack of capacity in project identification and implementation;  personal interest versus the common good;  limited time;  ghettoism and regionalism;  lack of interest, education and awareness;  incapacity to identify, implement and plan activities; no financial assistance; lack of fulltime personnel;  crab mentality, and bad cultural habits. The opportunities of FAOs were identified as follows: common goals, more support for co-development, help to returning migrants and families of migrants, socio-economic development and livelihood programs to provide job generating and sustainable projects, migrants going back  to the Philippines being main actors and promoters of co-development, and networking with other associations, NGOs, faith based organizations and government institutions. Group Three identified the following threats: political interests, self interests, corruption, lack of institutional strengthening and lack of awareness of local government and institutions. As a solution, the group proposed the following statement: “Each of us by himself/herself has very little, but when we put the little we have together we all have much more.”

The main objectives of the second workshop were the following:

• to assess the synergy among FAOs in Italy and Spain; and

• to identify the model of synergy that is more effective. In the first part of the group discussion, participants were requested to analyze the synergy among Filipino Associations Overseas (FAOs) in Spain and Italy using the following methodology: a) strengths; b) weaknesses; c) opportunities; and d) threats. In the second part of the workshop, participants were asked to discuss the different models of synergy (network, federation or umbrella organization) and identify the most effective for them.

Each group was asked to appoint 1 moderator, 1 time keeper, and 1 secretary. The moderator would assure that everybody will have time to share their opinion. The timekeeper would remind each speaker that her/his maximum time (3 minutes) has expired. The secretary would take notes during the discussion and report in English in the plenary. The final report was not supposed to exceed 10 minutes. The participants were divided into 5 groups, mixing Spain-based and Italy-based Filipinos. They discussed for one hour. A secretary summarized the discussion and reported in the plenary.

• Group One identified the following strengths for synergy among FAOs: strong foundations as associations, recognition and stability of the associations for easier integration, willingness to give support and assistances to those who are in need, usage of modern technology to make communication much easier. The FAOs’ synergy weaknesses were identified as follows: professional/social status in the Philippines carried over abroad, lack of interest of some government institutions, lack of communication and lack of time. The FAOs’ synergy opportunities were identified as follows: strengthening of unity among Filipino migrants in Spain and Italy towards the realizations of common projects for the development of the Philippines, establishing a common project of cooperation among Filipino migrants in Italy and Spain, obtaining access to government agencies for social services, continuous formation program of the MAPID group, and possibility of expansion to other European countries in the future. Group One identified the following threats: lack of interest of some of the members of the different associations, lack of communications and follow up, failure to collaborate with other associations, and “KKS” meaning the “kanya kanya” (each one by his/her own) system. The group suggested adopting the model of the umbrella organization, an association with a particular structure and proper by-laws. Members has right to vote. It should be registered, so that it might easily apply for aid and support from any government and private funding agencies. It might easily implement development projects in the Philippines.

• Group Two identified the following strengths for the synergy among FAOs: number of Filipino migrants in Madrid, Barcelona, Roma and Milan; institutions’ recognition and collaboration; networking; ability to define socio-economic problems; use of modern technology; and availability of time. The FAOs’ synergy weaknesses were identified as follows: lack of unity, lack of effective projects and programs, lack of funding, disorganization, lack of evaluation and mentorship, limited knowledge of s do’s and don’ts, and lack of compromise. The FAOs’ synergy opportunities were identified as follows: conventions, trainings, and seminars by different institutions; capacity building opportunities; talents and skills for progress, sharing of projects among associations, expansion of network, equality and mutual recognition among associations, upgrading of the role of Filipinos in the migrant community. Group Two identified the following threats: lack of time organization, lack of unity and synchronization, overlapping and competitions among associations, lack of funds, lack of transparency, and lack of motivation. The group suggested adopting for the time being the model of the network. It will foster the collaboration among associations in the same projects. Later it might develop in a federation, where all the FAOs may be involved in one project. Finally it may become an umbrella organization. The group ended with the following statement: “We are not only ENERGETIC but also SYNEGERTIC”.

• Group Three identified the following strengths for the synergy among FAOs were identified: communication, central formation for leaders and members of the FAOs in Spain and Italy, faster dissemination of information, the same structure to reach one objective or common goal, building of foundation for positive results, maximizing resources (time, place and energy), collective results and benefit. The FAOs’ synergy’s weaknesses were identified as follows: it is at its initial phase, time availability to build and establish structures, logistics (venue), training of group leaders, tight schedule, and capability of the members to mediate between the two countries. The FAOs’ synergy’s opportunities were identified as follows: Filipino community’s upgrading, continuous training and communication, development and implementation of new projects, addressing the development of the Philippines, learning and sharing new technologies, and development of income and job generating projects. Group Three identified the following threats: lack of cooperation, unexpected situations like natural calamities and disasters, failure to anticipate the events, financial discrepancy in the projects, and lack of socio-economic development sensitivity, skepticism, and negative political intervention. The group suggested adopting the model of networking. There is a need to increase the awareness and formation of the beneficiaries to increase the effectiveness of the projects. It is also necessary to expand the projects.

• Group Four identified the following strengths for the synergy among FAOs: common ideas, interests and objectives, common language, and discipline (strict compliance of schedules). The FAOs’ synergy’s weaknesses were identified as follows: lack of commitment, limited identification of priorities, limited participation among leaders and members, lack of time, competition among FAOs, lack of sense of responsibility (“ningas cogon”), limited notion of time (“Filipino time),  One-man show (center of attention and attraction). The FAOs’ synergy’s opportunities were identified as follows: comparison of projects’ results, application of what was learned from training session (like MAPID), seminars, meetings, etc., exchange of ideas and experiences, opportunity for growth and expansion, and self-enrichment and improvement. Group Four identified the following threats: failure of FAOs in reaching their goals, dissipation of members due to stagnancy of FAO, lack of interest and growth. The group suggested adopting the model of networking, at least initially, the seed that is to be nurtured. Eventually it can develop into a federation with limited interrelation among FAOs. Finally an umbrella organization can be established with a national and international scope.

• Group Five identified the following strengths for the synergy among FAOs were identified: willingness to interact and interconnect among associations, establishment of stronger relationships between organizations in Spain and Italy, effective sharing of ideas, problems and experiences and motivation and initiative from the leaders of the associations. The FAOs’ synergy’s weaknesses were identified as follows: lack of funding and insufficient budget, lack of official recognition in the receiving country, lack of visibility, lack of execution or inefficient implementation, and lack of unity for a stronger identity or representation for common interest and welfare. The FAOs’ synergy’s opportunities were identified as follows: stronger recognition and representation, better and wider relationships, linkages and communication, accessibility for funding and financing credibility. Group Five identified the following threats: leadership and management disputes, sustainability of the federation, taking over responsibilities which are supposed to be done by other entities and authorities, and the present economic situation in Europe. The group suggested adopting the model of the federation, establishing relationships with the other associations and at the same time maintaining individual identities as single associations.

The main objectives of the third workshop were the following:

• a) to discuss further the model of synergy that is deemed more effective;

• b) to develop an idea of transnational cooperation project. In the group discussion, participants were asked to discuss further the model of synergy (network, federation or umbrella organization) they would propose and develop an idea for a transnational development project.

Each group was asked to appoint 1 moderator, 1 time keeper, and 1 secretary. The moderator would ensure that everybody will have time to share their opinion. The timekeeper would remind each speaker that her/his maximum time (3 minutes) has expired. The secretary would take notes during the discussion and report in English in the plenary. The final report was not supposed to exceed 10 minutes. The participants were divided into the same 5 groups of the second workshop. They discussed for one hour. A secretary summarized the discussion and reported in the plenary.

• Group One suggested adopting the model of the federation, by which each association would keep its own objectives and autonomy, sharing principles, ideas and work with other associations considered as partners. Even though the day before the group was more inclined to adopt the umbrella organization model, after a deeper discussion it was considered more opportune to start with the federation model and later on proceed to create an umbrella organization. As a federation, all the associations can support each other and be partners in certain projects, especially for development of the Philippines. The group developed a project idea titled, “Center for Returning Migrants” (Cultural and economic gains of Filipino migrants in Italy and Spain towards co-development in the Philippines). The proposed site for initial implementation was Cavite, Philippines, with the idea of creating more centers in other places where they are needed in the future. The FAOs in Rome, Milan, Madrid and Barcelona would be the proponents and implementers. The beneficiaries would be returning and retired migrants, and people of some marginal sectors (out of school youth, unemployed women, and fishermen). The project wanted to respond to a special situation in the Philippines. The number of retired Filipino migrants from Spain and Italy is growing in the Philippines and most of them do not know what to do and where to go upon their return. After many years abroad, there is a feeling of insecurity and loss of identity. There is uncertainty and difficulty to readjust back home. The action would create a space for returning and retired Filipino migrants where they can reintegrate themselves in Philippine society after being away for many years. The Center for Returning Migrants would give them the possibility to initiate projects and programs of cooperation with the needy and marginalized sectors, making use of the skills, abilities, knowledge and capacities they gained while working abroad. Returning migrants would be invited to facilitate training sessions, short courses, and seminars for the out-of-school youth, unemployed women, farmers and fishermen, assisting them to generate sustainable economic activities. Though their action, returning migrants would contribute to provide employment in the Philippines, reduce outmigration, and improve the overall economic situation of local communities.

• Group Two suggested creating an umbrella organization called PUSO, meaning Philippine United Social Organization. They also suggested names for the board of directors of the new organization (president: Anabel Mayo, vice president: Nellie Ponferracia, secretary: Macrina Macol Dado; treasurers: Luzvilla Malines for Italy and Claire Taladro Arradaza for Spain). The group did not propose any specific project. However, after further discussion of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, Group Two suggested adopting the following strategies: targeting of problems, brain storming, fund raising, more visibility, availing of services provided by local and national institutions, sharing of skills among members, more communication, more evaluation and transparency. The group ended with the motto “One Heart One Goal.”

• Group Three suggested adopting the network model. Moreover, the group proposed a project titled, “Barangay Development Outreach Program.” The general objective of the project was to improve the living conditions of the community in a barangay. The specific objective was to promote socio-economic development of the town of Achasol in Sibugay province, Mindanao. The beneficiaries of project would be the women of Barangay Poblacion, Achasol Town. The implementers of the projects would be the Achasol Workers Women’s Association, the local government, 1500 families of Barangay Poblacion and an international association. The funds would be sourced from FAOs’ fundraising activities, the local government, a local counterpart by beneficiaries and other funding from different foundations and institutions.

• Group Four suggested adopting the umbrella organization model, an association of Filipinos by Filipinos. To reach such an objective it was deemed necessary to strengthen all the existing associations and imparting the knowledge they have acquired to people in the Philippines. In order to respond to the dire needs of many people in the Philippines in the fields of education and health, Group Four proposed several actions. In the field of education, the group proposed to train educators involving migrants who are teachers, psychologists, sociologists, either returning or on vacation. In the field of health, the group suggested establishing health centers with their corresponding personnel and with the resources to distribute basic medicines that will meet the basic medical needs of local communities. The group ended the presentation with one question addressed to the organizers: after this meeting, what will come next? Group Five suggested adopting the federation model, establishing an entity which unites but at the same time respects the identity of each association. This should be an initial stage aiming at reaching the umbrella organization model. The group also suggested using the title FeFAIS (Federation of Filipino Associations in Italy and Spain). In order to establish the FeFAIS, the group proposed to create an ad hoc committee with representatives of FAOs in Italy and Spain. The committee would have the task to organize and oversee the establishment of the federation. For the recruitment of the members of the federation, a membership committee, which would set the requirements, should be established. The federation should be a legally recognized association, with at least 5 members from Spain and 5 from Italy. The annual membership fee per association should be 100 EUR. For the creation of the federation, elected officers, a venue, and Memoranda of Agreement with each associations would be needed.

• Group Five proposed the following ideas for projects: social integration of migrants through information campaigns and seminars, fund-raising projects for the federation and for OFW families, and establishing database and linkages with financial institutions. The project ideas were not developed further.

Given the fact that there was no consensus on the model of synergy, it was proposed to organize another meeting with the same representatives either in Rome or in Valencia within the first semester of 2011. The organizers committed to prepare the proceedings of the joint meeting in Toledo and send the material to all the participants. It was clarified that MAPID funding will end on 21 December 2010 and for the forthcoming activities other sources of funding should be identified. It was suggested that for the meeting in the first semester of 2011 each FAO would search for funds to send its representatives. The suggestion was taken.

The organizers requested the different FAOs to develop their project proposals taking advantage of the MAPID network that was officially established in Spain and Italy following the joint meeting. The organizers renewed their availability to assist the FAOs in the development of their proposal, eventually suggesting funding opportunities in Europe. All the project proposals would be presented and evaluated by all the participants in the next joint meeting.

At the end of the session, it was suggested for the next joint meeting to organize a fund-raising campaign among the Filipino communities in Rome, Milan, Madrid and Barcelona. The idea is to invite Filipinos in the four cities to purchase “MAPID Transnational Development Shares” at 1 EUR each. The money raised would serve to constitute a trust fund for MAPID transnational development projects to be implemented by the FAOs in Italy and Spain. The fund would be managed by the federation or umbrella organization to be constituted in the next joint meeting.