comments on NMC.
I am now back in Nairobi with a bit of time to reflect on the 1st NMC World Youth Meeting for Sustainable Development. Generally, I would not be one to write a critique of a conference (usually I just enjoy them and move on), but considering that at least $2,500,000 was poured into this event, I hope the NMC committee will actually consider the following thoughts as they continue their work.
First of all, a conference like this is an excellent time to network. Those who know me understand how much I dislike that word. However, for once, this conference made networking a fun activity where interesting people were given a chance to meet on an equal level. While little time was spent speaking about sustainable development or suggested policy changes, we did have a great time in the evenings simply getting to know each other. This type of networking I always value.
However, aside from the networking component, the NMC meeting offered considerably less than I expected. Major concerns that emerged (echoed by several fellow delegates) dealt with the following. If you are organizing a youth conference where you want youth to influence policy and develop and engage a large network to debate within, bear these points in mind:
1. Repetitive: Of course, it’s great to be invited to Bari for free and spend a few days in Southern Italy. It was also fantastic to meet more and more people. However, several of these conferences already exist on an international scale. I am not sure we need new ones. World Youth Congress, UNESCO’s World Youth Forum, Asian Youth Forum and so on offer the same valuable opportunity to network.
2. NMC’s Objective: During a meeting with the members who started the NMC concept, it soon became clear that their vision was still blurry. By hosting a conference while still not sure of their own mandate, they are wasting the valuable energy and time of youth participants. As a colleague said, when we have no goal to work towards – i.e. NMC’s blurry objective of engaging youth in policy-decision making (how?) – the desired motivation after is limited.
3. Format: Basically, the three days split up into several components. We had on and off plenaries with one or two interesting speakers. The others seemed to be offering a resume of their own work or their organization’s mandates. We then had capacity-building workshops. Not all were well attended and the facilitators seemed disappointed. These workshops covered a variety of things from entrepreneurship to combating organized youth crime. A third component was the “Bar Camp.” I did not attend any events here, but I also heard that some delegate presenters did not show up and attendance was low. Lastly, we had about 8-hours of workshops. In theory, we were allowed to move between different workshops and get a sampling of all things happening at the conference. However, within the workshops we were supposed to put together “action plans” (basically, policy papers with concrete solutions). In eight hours, putting together quality material that would have a real impact on international policy-making was impossible. Instead, I would say that most of what we all produced was a joke, populated by the very vacant words that we constantly complain about. The difficulty of this situation was compounded by irregular attendance on the behalf of delegates.
4. Dissemination of Action Plans: I was told just after the presentation of the action plan that the press attended this part of the event. What the groups produced was seriously flawed and unprofessional (not by our own fault but through a lack of guidance, concrete objectives, inspiration and time). I can only hope that the press understood these circumstances. I do not see how NMC will be able to submit these documents to their sponsors and get the finances to continue with this project.
5. Politicized: To a few people’s disappointment, we realized that the two top speakers were local politicians. One was coming up for re-election and used the conference to grand-stand in front of the press. The other was this politician’s opposition, injecting a further dose of political intrigue into the whole mix. We could not help but draw a link between funding for the Italian Government and the choice of speakers.
6. Disorganized details: A conference planned over two years should come off almost flawless. Well, at least that is what we expect in Canada. The first day, lunch took over 4 hours to get through (this, at least was fixed quickly), wasting many people’s time. The Internet had a limited connection of 250 people (while Bergamo, one of the main founders, was spouting a need for a social network…). People received their plane tickets only hours before their suggested departures. Only a handful of people were able to pre-register for workshops. There were no concrete instructions on how the event would proceed until we arrived. These were not explained in full, but only printed on paper and included in our kit. On the last day, we were asked by our facilitators to present our action plans to the NMC founding committee. Instead, NMC asked us (or at least this is what I understood) to comment on our experience thus far. When we did speak up (and I was not shy in offering criticism), we were berated and ignored.
7. The Organization’s Future: Just as NMC’s objective was limited, we still have no clear idea of what this organization will look like in the future. Will it be a series of conferences? An interactive website (they really need to fix the current website in this case)? Without having a clear idea of where this is going, it’s impossible to contribute. Moreover, I am surprised that donors agreed to funding such an expensive conference with a limited idea of what NMC would be after. A kick-off conference does not make an organization!
8. Lastly, I realize that my interest in the NMC concept was overblown. I wanted to assist with the webzine and the social network (I tweeted the conference quite vigorously, despite off and on internet connection, raising their profile considerably). However, when my suggestions to the conference founding committee were seen as an imposition, I had to re-evaluate my belief that these conferences are for youth, by youth.
To be fair, conferences are valuable. The network component in particular. However, $2,500,000 should deliver more than an informal network. If anything, they should have harnessed social media to formalize this “network” and began connecting us with each other’s ambitions and organizations through lists of participating members, biographies and so on. I would suggest the following measures:
1. Explaining how the action plans are being used to influence policy-making to all delegates who participated in workshops. Offer concrete examples or “proof.”
2. Should the action plans be insufficient to satisfy sponsors, honestly explain the situation to delegates so we understand where this component of our work went. This also shows that founding members understood the limitations of the workshop component.
3. Hire a team to develop, strategize and formalize this “network.” Through tools like Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook, out sourced from the main website, there is a chance to get a great conversation going.
4. Compile a list of all participants with detailed information on their fields of interest, experience and current work or study. Include email addresses and social networking contact information.
5. Send out an evaluation form to all delegates. Ensure that 60% answer. Compile and reflect on their advice publically on the website.
6. Give a detailed and transparent break-down of the conference budget.
7. Give a detailed plan on what the founding committee intends on doing within the next year.
