WUNRN
The
three-page recommendations by African Women is the synthesis of the discussions
in Addis, policy recommendations from the May 2015 meeting convened by the
African Women’s Development and Communication Network (FEMNET), Post2015
Coalition, and the key messages from Young African feminists at the Addis Ababa
convening organised by DAWN.
A MISSED
OPPORTUNITY FOR AFRICA WOMEN?
Why are
African women not satisfied with FfD3’s outcome document? We need to understand
how Africa stands currently in relation to development policies by looking more
closely at patterns of women’s employment, and the social and gendered
challenges they face in relation to the ‘Africa Rising’ narrative and the
African Union’s Agenda 2063.
By Rama Salla Dieng
The presentation by the African Women’s Groups in Addis Ababa made
specific recommendations1 based on their regional priorities and critical analysis on
systemic issues to be addressed under the FfD – Financing for Development
process.
The rationale of such an initiative is that despite being the
backbone of economic development in the region, most African women are still
employed in the informal sector, subjected to precarious and low-skilled employment,
overburdened by unpaid care work, and are often marginalised in decision making
particularly in the collection, control and redistribution of resources for
sustainable development.
The prevailing ‘Africa Rising’ narrative based on the current growth
performance of African countries is challenged by the realities of African
peoples in general and African women and youth in particular. They still
confront, inter alia, growing unemployment, increasing illegal immigration,
conflict escalation, inequalities and poverty, de-industrialisation, lack of
economic diversification, unmet Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and the
inability to mobilise sustainable funding. Moreover, Africa cannot ‘rise’ when
the linkage between women’s ability to participate in the labor market and
their control over their bodies and their sexual and reproductive rights are
neither recognised nor addressed.
Moreover, while Africa is seeking to shape its future through the
African Union’s Agenda 2063, development programmes experimented on the
continent aiming at ‘reducing poverty’ need to be assessed for their gendered
outcomes especially for women. Additionally, women’s human rights need to be
included in the ‘shaping and making’ of new development policy initiatives and
not just as a residual category. This is a step to avoiding the danger of ‘ventriloquizing
women’s voices’ and promoting sloganism with vague concepts such as “smart
economics” or “womenomics”.
Last but not least, the terms of the global partnership between
Africa and the rest of the world need to be revisited to be more equitable and
grounded in the Rio principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities.
Furthermore, “development” needs to be country-led and people-centered, with
governments playing their rights-bearer role. Hence, development finance cannot
be privatised. To ensure this, transformative leadership and political will
should be de rigueur alongside sustainable financing for development resources through
progressive fiscal policies, limitations to tax evasion and exoneration,
repatriation of illicit financial flows, transparency and accountability
mechanisms, and ending of corruption at all levels.
Despite these concerns and the strong mobilisation of CSOs and the
Women’s Working Group on Financing for Development (WWG on FfD), the outcome
document adopted on 16 July is disappointing and there is little to be
optimistic about, since African governments were pushed by developed countries
to reach an agreement that does not benefit their people. In addition, there
are further reasons for African women to not be content with the outcome
document:
• On Trade: It does not take specific measures and deliverables to
measures to protect women’s businesses and share of markets, as well as
infant-industries, female-job intensive sectors and small women producers and
traditional knowledge nor does it specifically recommend public disclosure as
well as ex ante and periodic human rights impact assessments of trade and
investment policies.
• On ODA: Where the Monterrey Declaration
called upon developed states to commit to 0.7% of GNI as ODA, the AAAA seems to
be a retrogression since it strongly relies on other sources than ODA such as
blended financing, the private sector and regressive taxation to mobilize the
resources needed for financing development. This is done without stating how
the above would be done without harming the needs of women and adolescent
girls, especially access to public services such as sexual and reproductive
health services.
• As for the domestic resource
mobilisation (DRM) sources identified, too much emphasis is placed on taxation,
especially through value added tax (VAT) on essential commodities such as food
products to ensure tax regimes, which place an undue burden on women and girls.
Transformative tax reforms would have targeted progressive taxation, removal of
indirect taxation on essential goods, whilst a more comprehensive definition of
DRM would target other channels such as domestic philanthropy, natural
resources (with better governance, transparency and accountability),
remittances, etc.
• Financial inclusion is still falsely
equated with ‘more access to microcredit’ for African women whereas there is a
need to recognise the adverse effects of such programs and instead encourage
alternative gender responsive financial facilities to complement grassroots
financial mechanisms to enable access of interest-free credit facilities to
strengthen women’s autonomy.
• African states have made progress in
formulating continental policies to promote investor accountability on issues
such as land acquisition. However; more binding instruments are needed in
addition to the current voluntary guidelines. States should also commit to
additional measures such as better, transparent and accountable contract
negotiation, the elimination of the secrecy of beneficial ownership and public
registration.
• Regarding extractive industries, energy,
and water: emphasis should be on addressing structural issues including
funding. Sustainable funding must prioritise local, decentralised and clean
energy, which Africa has huge resources to tap into in order to challenge
current energy systems that rely heavily on fossil fuels like coal and oil,
which disproportionately impact communities particularly women and children.
Water and sanitation should be accessible to everyone. All of this is a matter
of both ecological and gender justice.
• States and not just the private sector
must remain accountable for the respect of rights, including ending all sexual
and gender based violence and discrimination, and the provision of social
services, infrastructure and programmes including social protection, education
and sexual and reproductive health services for women.
• The space for CSOs
must be safeguarded and not jeopardised, to allow for all voices to be heard,
including women and girls.
Footnote:
1 The three-page recommendations by African Women is the synthesis
of the discussions in Addis, policy recommendations from the May 2015 meeting
convened by the African Women’s Development and Communication Network (FEMNET),
Post2015 Coalition, and the key messages from Young African feminists at the Addis
Ababa convening organised by DAWN.