WUNRN
Development Alternatives
with Women for a New Era (DAWN) is a network of feminist scholars,
researchers and activists from the economic South working for economic and
gender justice and sustainable and democratic development.
A South Feminist Critique
of
The HLP Report on Post
2015 Development Agenda
Development
Alternatives with Women for a New Era [DAWN]
The High Level Panel of Eminent Persons Report on the
Post 2015 Development Agenda conveys a questionable sense of optimism for
women. The report at first appears to have positively responded to the
world-wide call from women to have a stand-alone and expanded gender equality
goal. There are targets for gender, children and young people across several of
the goals, as well as possibilities for indicators on gender, children and
young people to be later developed at country level. Sexual and reproductive
health and rights is also explicit.
Yet, are any of these really new development commitments?
We don’t’ think so. Instead of building on previous international agreements
that could move the agenda towards an integrated set of human rights for women,
the HLP has chosen to privilege only certain rights. Worse, they have
incorporated these rights within a text that strongly legitimizes new corporate
privileges. The role of the State is also downplayed and its primary role is
limited to providing an environment for business to prosper. DAWN laments the
fact that the framers of this report have ignored calls for economic models and
approaches that more effectively combine human development, human rights, and
environmental sustainability, as well as addressing inequalities between
peoples and states.
In many places in the economic south, rural areas are being opened for export
oriented ‘extractivist’ industries. However the report does not recognize the
collective rights of indigenous and other rural and remote communities where
women, children and young people often bear the brunt of the effects of
dispossession and mal-development. Rural people are framed as workers and
consumers, and not as full rights holders.
What ought to be central to the post 2015 development
agenda is attention to the kind of growth generated, and its overall
contributions toward wellbeing and sustainability for all. This requires
addressing the structural conditions that make economic inequality prevalent
among and within countries and social groups. There is no automatic link
between economic growth and poverty reduction. Several southern countries are
in fact experiencing high “jobless” economic growth due to high prices of
commodity exports. Studies have revealed that in some cases gender-based wage
inequality had even been a stimulus to economic growth (Seguino 2000). The
discussion should therefore be reoriented to identifying specific sources of
economic growth, and then evaluating carefully the re-distributional effects of
economic policy, as well as ensuring there is respect for human rights and
ecological limits.
DAWN questions the marketized, siloized and corporatized approach
to development reflected in the High Level Panel report on the Post 2015
Development agenda, and instead advances the following specific proposals:
Development must occur within ecological limits
To promote ecologically, socially and economically sound development
alternatives in the scale and form that addresses our current ecological crisis
will require a biosphere wide approach informed by meaningful recognition of,
and investment into diverse local, indigenous, feminist and other heterodox
systems of knowledge; and building on the evidence-based approach of the IPCC
and other scientific bodies.
As such, environmental degradation can no longer be
dismissed as an externality in economic, social development and human rights.
There are boundaries to the biosphere which socio-economic-ecological
development paradigms must not violate if we are to avoid danger zones with
large-scale and critical biosphere thresholds or 'tipping points'.
The HLP report does not advance such an interlinked
agenda, merely proposing a single climate-change related target to hold the
increase in global average temperature below '2 degrees C above pre-industrial
levels'. This does not however, provide a mechanism or process for how States
will connect measure and simultaneously address complex issues of ecological
loss and damage, community sustainability and economic viability.
‘Siloed’ approaches to development will never be sufficient
to solve the complex problems created layer upon layer by orthodox economic policies.
Toward a development paradigm aimed at economic and socio-ecological wellbeing,
we need to be guided by at least the following as concerns ecological agendas:
(1) a set of goals on ecological sustainability and climate change that builds
on Agenda 21 concerns as reaffirmed in Rio+20, 'The Future We Want'; (b) a
'loss and damage' approach to climate justice; and (3) placing particular attention
to land use change, freshwater use, aerosol loading, chemical pollution,
biodiversity loss and species extinction, ocean acidification, global sea level
rise, deforestation, drought, desertification, floods, extreme climate events,
and more.
Further, targets must track quantifiable progress in
changing the structural conditions that advance large-scale land, water and
ocean appropriation by private interests; regulating mining, gas and oil
projects; balancing subsistence and local oriented agricultural production vis
a vis export-oriented agriculture; and shifting from export of raw materials
such as minerals, fossil fuels and agricultural commodities to productive
capacities in value-added products, etc. Targets must also measure the extent
to which any economic policies are damaging to local communities including
migrants, fisher, forest and indigenous peoples, pastoralists, and many other
marginalized communities, where women are at the forefront of both production
and ‘care’ work. Quantitative as well as qualitative sex disaggregated data
must monitor progress in advancing socially-responsive sustainable
alternatives.
Systemic issues and inequalities need to be addressed
from a rights perspective
Women’s poverty needs to be understood as the consequence
of multiple violations of rights and it should be tackled as a
multi-dimensional concern. It is intrinsically linked to work, education,
unpaid ‘care’ work, access to resources, and political decision-making. It
should not be narrowly defined and measured only as a matter of income.
Instead, poverty measures need to move beyond income towards the
multi-dimensional approaches that are now well recognized as essential and that
pay attention to the exercise of rights and access to services, among other
factors. Although the HLP report does seem to sympathize with a vision that
contemplates more dimensions to poverty beyond income, the indicators fall
short of clearly articulating this.
The report over-emphasizes the importance of economic
growth as a driver of development, and places its hopes on spillover effects of
growth to benefit the poorest. It states the following: “By 2030, most
developing countries should have experienced fast enough economic growth,
averaging 5 per cent per year, to bring extreme poverty down below five per cent.
Specific policy measures must do the rest of the job to ensure that no one is
left behind.” (2013. p18) 'Specific policies' cannot compensate for the unsustainability
of orthodox economic policies that still rely entirely on largely unregulated
markets. Rather, distributive issues need to be firmly addressed by innovative
policy. We know that unsustainable patterns of production and consumption are
already bringing about a rapid deterioration of the planet and the livelihoods
of very large numbers of people.
The need to thoroughly overhaul the system of global
economic governance is not reflected by the Report that states timidly that,
“following the financial crisis, there is more concern that the international
financial architecture must be reformed, and agreed regulatory reforms
implemented consistently, to ensure global financial stability”. It adds
vaguely that “recommendations and actions are being implemented, both in major
individual financial centers and internationally” (2013, p 55). We believe with
many others that this is hardly the case today as witnessed by the continuing
and deep crisis in Europe. Serious political and technical work is essential
now to move global governance beyond failed economic theories such as those of
the Harvard economists Reinhart and Rogoff. Furthermore, monetary, trade,
investment and financial policies should be in compliance with globally agreed
human rights obligations and environmental standards. Compliance with HR needs
to be clearly stated throughout any development agenda. Its effective
implementation requires the considered and thorough reform of financial,
monetary and, trade systems. This also requires finance, technology transfer,
capacity building, the implementation of progressive and fair tax regimes,
together with the effective implementation of transparency and accountability
mechanisms in the international financial institutions.
Without tackling these systemic issues it will be hard to
promote effective and people-centered economic transformation, combat the flexibility
and informality of labor markets that deny decent working conditions and
incomes to workers, or expand public expenditure for social protection systems
that includes ‘care’ services and social infrastructure. It is vital that the
financing of the new development agenda be publicly discussed, and be centered
on public resources. Further, it requires the protection of the commons, moving
away from the commodification of nature, ‘care’ and the public sector via
outright privatization, private-public partnerships and other market-based
mechanisms that make accountability difficult to achieve.
Business must be in the service of the larger development
agenda
We call attention to the consistent foregrounding of the business
sector as a fundamental driver of development throughout the HLP Report. The
business sector is mentioned (also through terms such as “corporations” and
“companies”) heavily throughout the document compared to far fewer mentions of
governments, and civil society organizations (or CSOs).
This business-oriented language clearly defines the
meaning of 'accountability' in the report, where “accountability must be
exercised at the right level: governments to their own citizens, local
governments to their communities, corporations to their shareholders, civil
society to the constituencies they represent” (2013, p23, italics added).
However, corporate shareholders’ interests are not the same as citizen’s
interests, as profit is their primary declarative interest. Indeed, the reality
is that business has been busily creating more and more access, leverage and
lobbying capacity into national, regional and global political systems. The
narrow definition of corporation accountability by the HLP report flies in the
face of much work in business schools and management institutions in the last
two decades towards recognizing the need for genuine corporate accountability
including attention to the ‘triple bottom line’.
It is not enough to simply promote transparency in
extractive industry revenue management as the Report states (2013, 13). Rather,
it is necessary to step back and seriously examine the real costs of these
industries to the planet’s biospheres and ecosystems and people’s livelihoods,
and adopt corrective regulatory policies.
The private sector must be accountable to governments and
citizens on human rights obligations and environmental standards, including extraterritorial
obligations. This is especially the case today, where state and non-state
military-industrial investments have major powerful vested interest in international
development. Instead, the weaker targets suggested in the HLP report focus on
ensuring 'stable and peaceful societies'. While important, these do not even
mention accountability of the private sector and extraterritorial obligations
of state interests in other sovereign territories, instead referring only to
'organized crime' as though this was the 'only external stressor leading to
conflict' - and not MNCs behaving very badly.
If development is not to be defined by corporate sector interests,
then multilateralism and especially the United Nations should also be reinforced
in a Post 2015 Development Agenda. It is certainly necessary, for instance, to
build more concrete links between United Nations headquarters work in New York,
and the Geneva Human Rights processes. The UN must lead rights-based
pro-development economic and financial reforms, and must respond to issues of
global and regional macroeconomic policy including its social and ecological
dimensions. Also, a multilateral mechanism should be adopted in order to hold
governments, IFIs, private philanthropy organizations, investors and transnational
corporations to account for human rights and environmental sustainability norms
and standards.
Reject instrumentalizing women’s human rights
There is a deliberate utilitarian approach to women’s
human rights in the HLP Report. This perspective is evident as women's rights
are seen as primarily relevant insofar as as they increase economic growth, for
example, “Women with equal rights are an irreplaceable asset for every society
and economy” (2013, p34). The Report also shows excessive dependence on
connecting “people in rural and urban areas to the modern economy” as a step
towards development, while asserting that progress will allow them to “follow
their dreams and start a business” (2013, 7).
Besides, the Report seems to be homogenizing cultures and
threatening sustainable livelihoods while asserting that all persons are inclined
to start a business as an ideal way of living. Such language invisibilizes the
clear majority role of women in sustainable small-scale agriculture and in the
preservation of livelihoods. Effective recognition must go beyond palliative
measures in disaster management, climate change adaptation and such, and move
forward in guaranteeing inheritance rights, access to credit and land
ownership, recognition of intellectual, cultural and social rights, and property
rights among others.
It is unacceptable that the unpaid ‘care’ work of women
is absent in the Report. The document ignores the unpaid contributions to development
made by women at all levels, which in many cases represent the fundamental
pillar of rural livelihoods and community well-being. Social protection,
whether of the formal or informal types, cannot be discussed as an issue of
'bare minimums' but rather as a set of systems that facilitate the full realization
of human rights and the sustainability of life, and where poor women are
recognized as being at the center of the analysis. This must also include recognition
of the ways in which the ‘care’ economy includes chains and labor supply lines
that cross national boundaries and where poor, undocumented women migrants are
often at the center.
Gender discrimination in the labor market also needs to
be effectively addressed. The new development framework requires effective
measures to eliminate the gender pay gap in every country as well as to ensure
universal and affordable access to social protection and public services to
all, recognizing the informal and precarious nature of most labor markets as
well as the unpaid work that sustains our everyday lives.
The continued use of the term “good job” as an
alternative to “decent job” in the Report represents a clear threat to the
advancement of labor conditions worldwide (2013, 46-47). This differentiation
seems to institutionalize a double set of labor standards, one for the Global
North and another for the Global South. This distinction is highly problematic
and opens the space for further distinction between rights of diverse citizens,
for instance, according to the place where they were born, and where they work.
Even more problematic is the privileging of business over
the rights of women. This is reflected in Target 1b of the 'Ending Poverty'
goal which states, “Increase by x% the share of women and men, communities, and
businesses with secure rights to land, property, and other assets”. It presupposes
a false equivalence of land and property rights to people and businesses.
Moreover, it does not take into account the unfair distribution of assets among
social actors, and can promote further inequalities since securing 'rights of
business' can exacerbate violations of women's and community right to land,
food, water, etc.
The instrumental use of women’s human rights in the
report is reminiscent of the old “add women and stir” forms of gender
mainstreaming that have had meagre effects on attaining real equality amongst
all gender identities, sexual orientations, and various other intersectional
identity status. For example, if gender equality and social justice are to be
achieved in any effective and universal way, the rights of intersex people and
people with non-heteronormative sexual orientation and gender identity need to
be fulfilled. States must ensure that all forms of discrimination and violence
based on misogynist, homophobic, lesbian phobic, and trans-phobic ideas must
end. Specific attention is also needed to address the violence and discrimination
faced by sex workers, women working in conflict and militarized contexts, and women
human rights defenders, among others, none of which is addressed in the Report.
States must also ratify, continuously implement and progressively realize the
provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD),
and domesticate the CRPD through the development of legislation and policies
with allocation of maximum available resources.
Finally, we are deeply concerned about the assertion in
the High Level Panel Report that, “Women should be able to live in safety and
enjoy their basic human rights” (2013,p 34). As DAWN has asserted throughout
the Post 2015 Development Agenda Thematic Consultations and reiterated in the
HLP meetings and OWG sessions, any development agenda must be firmly based on principles
of non-regression and recognition of universal human rights, not some vague
notion of 'basic rights' and 'safety' that is hard to define, and even harder
to measure. Rather, women's rights and gender equality advancements must be
firmly rooted in human rights obligations and commitments as agreed by States from
the UN conferences of the 1990s, and gains made through their follow up processes
at national, regional and global levels.
The High Level Panel of Eminent Persons Report on the
Post 2015 Development Agenda falls significantly short of providing substantive
direction and support to Member states. The framework it promotes downgrades
the importance of human rights and environmental sustainability in favor of a
model of corporate driven economic growth. But as responsible global and
national citizens, we cannot allow the Post 2015 Development Agenda to be a
corporate or donor driven agenda. Therefore, DAWN will continue to work with
our partners and allies to advance an agenda that truly leads to sustainable
and fair development.