The Foro Global has finished tonight - time for some information and reflection on what has happened at the NGO level and how we now go politically into the week of the conference.

To start with the most general observations on contents and results. It is quite striking that the long FfD process has let to a very solid backbone of unity within the NGO community. Throughout the different thematic tents, the issues discussed pretty much reflected the 7-8 central points which are also the base of our European consensus paper. Though with different accents, we can say that we have a basic agreement on the key political demands put forward to the conference, and they provide a solid base for continuation of broad networking after Monterrey in forms which have yet to emerge. The Monterrey Consensus of civil society is a document that could, without long discussions, substitute for our European Consensus. I guess that by tomorrrow the paper will be available in electronic version and mailed around. It is more difficult to evaluate in detail, whether the Foro Global has added new aspects. In my perception, human rights aspects have emerged more clearly as also a more precise reference to the rejection of the actual economic model and the international institutions that are responsible for its forced implementation. Trade and investment issues have received more attention then before though maybe not sufficiently concrete in order to bridge to the networks working on the WTO.

This result has not been for granted. The Foro has been attended by approx. 1200 people, maybe half of them coming from Nuevo Leon and Mexico, that is groups and people unexposed to the FfD process, which could have let to diverse opinions and political rifts. There were also a couple of hundred people joining from other contexts, with limited experience of the character and history of the FfD process which could have let to the reinventing of wheels. Instead, unity has been strengthened considerably.

It is also striking that the differences in perception regarding the FfD process have been narrowed down. From the opening to the final conclusions, it has been consistently stressed that we are not part of the Monterrey Consensus of the governments and that the Monterrey agenda is nothing else then the slightly adjourned reaffirmation of the Washington Consensus. Hence, we are going into the conference as a force which has not been co-opted through the FfD process' inclusive dialog structure. Differences between global NGOs in judging the usefulness of the Monterrey Consensus for pushing a UN-led follow-up and advocacy with national governments though remain, and it is to be seen next week whether this constrains the voicing of our dissent.

On the other hand, we need to be clear that our unity is a result of a past process and it is untested how it might stand up in next weeks political dynamics. A negative indication is that we did not engage in finding a common language regarding a rejection of the recent ODA offers by the USA and the EU as unsufficient and partial in relation to the conference topics, though we can be quite sure that these offers will dominate the headlines. Our caucus remains quite united in the rejection, but the US caucus is deeply split, with a tendency to happily congratulate Bush for a perceived policy change. Rumours tell that the Mexican Chair of the conference might go for an addendum to the consensus, and it is not that sure if this could be celebrated by NGOs as our success relieving us from the pains of dissociation. It hence remains a task for our caucus to look out for allies and to be prepared for a renewed upgrading of advocacy activity next week, though this had been put to the sidelines in our strategizing meeting in Brussels in February. We are in a process and have to adapt to circumstances which I hope people who remained in Europe will understand, as we here in Monterrey should remind us that we act also on behalf of the majority participating in the coordination which is not present.

I realize that this is a rather dry analysis of events which does not do justice to the many colorful impressions of the Foro Global. I was struck by the liveliness of discussions, the moving testimonies of people voicing their experience with deprivation of rights, the colossal industrial monument of the steel-mills in which the Foro took place telling the sad story of the people of this city as loosers in a seemingly unvincible battle, carved in steel, rust and stone. And like the Roman emperors twothousand years ago erected the marmour altar of Pergamon to remind people by the depiction of their defeat that resistance is meaningless, the Heads of State will look over this melancholic "park" praising the new era of export processing zones to which there is no alternative. How dare they know that it is the defeat that breads resistance.

Martin Koehler