WUNRN
http://arrow.org.my/statement-how-sustainable-is-the-financing-for-development-agenda/
How “Sustainable” Is the Financing for Development Agenda – For GENDER and the Post-2015 Development Goals?
Analysing the Addis Ababa Action Agenda of
the 3rd International Conference on Financing and Development
July 11, 2015 - The Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the 3rd
International Conference on Financing and Development claims to lay down the
ground for a sound global financing framework for post 2015 which is fair, just
and equitable and takes care of the most vulnerable and the most marginalized.
At a time when the environment is at its most vulnerable
and financial crises are escalating, the Asian-Pacific Resource & Research
Centre for Women (ARROW) calls for a development agenda that is substantive,
binding, and based on principles of human rights. The Addis Action Agenda must
recognise people as equal beings irrespective of the regions, race, class, and
other categories they represent, but must roll out measures that are equitable
thus recognising their differential needs, concerns, marginalisations and
vulnerabilities.
This agreement discusses the historical context in which
this is placed, highlighting the 2002 Monterrey Consensus and the 2008 Doha Declaration. While these declarations are vital
and outline the principles that guide our work on financing, agreements must
also take into consideration the 2005 Paris Declaration,and the 2001 Busan Partnership Agreement of the Fourth High Level Forum on
Aid Effectiveness (HLF-4) (also see).
While the action agenda makes a number of relevant and
sound points regarding financing for sustainable development, the political
will of states would be insignificant if the language does not ensure actual
commitments from governments to their constituencies. In order that Sustainable
Development Goals moves from being on the wish list to becoming a reality, the
Addis Action Agenda has to be framed in a language that upholds the rights of
people especially the poor and the marginalized.. Governments must therefore
commit to upholding principles of human rights and work in solidarity with each
other to remove barriers of inequalities between and within countries. Language
without actual commitments and concrete timelines for achievements are
insufficient.
Discussions on financing must take into consideration
that the world has been and still is in a state of financial crises. We need to
distinguish between ‘financing’ and ‘financing for sustainable development’,
which should include policies and programmes that are socially and
environmentally sustainable. While the action agenda talks about tackling
poverty, it is of utmost importance that it also highlights tackling
inequalities – based on economic resources, geographical location, race,
gender, war and conflict, disasters and natural calamities, migrant status,
undocumented people, (dis)ability, sexual minorities amongst others. All of
these people count. While it is commendable that the action agenda mentions
LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS must receive particular attention within the development
framework, it is also important to pay attention to the needs and concerns of
Middle Income Countries (MICs) who may suffer from premature withdrawal of aid.
Although MICs show certain economic indicators of progress and development, it
is important to measure and compare their social indicators to truly assess
whether the fruits of development are being equally shared by all especially
the most marginalized.
A large part of the financial crises have and continue to
occur because of the thoughtless spending of governments,, reckless use of
non-renewable resources, and a disregard for environmental and climate
sustainability. Additionally, state investment in commercial ventures,
corporate subsidies and incentives have been made at the cost of people’s
welfare.
Many governments have not been able to provide universal
access to quality education, life-long employment, food and nutritional
security, universal access to health including for sexual and reproductive
health, sustainable, well-connected transport for their citizens.
Health is a critical component in addressing
inequalities, and should be key in the Addis action agenda. In the global
south, a substantial part of health expenses are out of pocket, and this
jeopardises the lives and the health of people, especially the poor and the
lower-income groups. Above all, it is important that any discussions on health
are comprehensive and do not have a silo-ed approach. This should then reflect
on comprehensive and not vertical funding. Most importantly, the public health
agenda should not become the domain of businesses, which will compromise the
goal of universal access to health. Additionally, the 2001 Doha Declaration on
the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health adopted by the WTO Ministerial Conference
of 2001 in Doha is of significance here as it reaffirmed the flexibility of
TRIPS member states in circumventing patent rights for better access to
essential medicines. In health, incentive schemes formalised by governments,
are not nuanced in their approach and are not effective. For example, although
there has been an increase in institutional deliveries in India since the
implementation of its national incentive programme, Janani Suraksha Yojana,
with no attention to increase the capacity of the institutions in terms of
human resource and infrastructure, the quality and care given to women who seek
delivery services was heavily compromised. The incentive programme has therefore
failed in reaching the most disadvantaged women who are most vulnerable to
maternal deaths.
Incentives for the corporate sector is therefore not a
viable option for sustainable development. If we truly aim for sustainable
development that cares for and prioritises people and their needs and concerns,
project based investments and corporate investments need to be carefully
assessed against corruption, misuse and their impact on environment. For
example, the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) program initiated by Asian Development
Bank (ADB) for closer economic integration amongst countries of
lower Mekong Basin together with Yunnan and Guangxi Province in China has
increasingly become a threat to the ecological integrity of the Mekong river
system, undermining the well-being of the millions that depend upon the river
and its natural wealth.
Similarly, the role of the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs)
being part of the FfD process and their subsequent role needs to be
interrogated. A difficult question we must ask is why the world is still
reeling under a global financial crises despite the role of such powerful
financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank? If the BWIs are to play a significant role in the follow-up of the Addis
action agenda, these institutions must be reformed: there needs be transparency
and accountability, open space for consensus-building within these
institutions. The policies rolled out by the BWIs is often unquestioned and
also partly adopted by other development banks at regional and national levels.
Will financing for sustainable development be geared to short term,
profit-driven goals or the long-term Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? We
need to ensure that development is a people-owned process and not a bank-driven
process. We need to ensure that plans and programmes rolled out in the name of
development by these international financial institutions and development banks
have social and financial protection of the poor and marginalised at the
centre.
We therefore recommend:
• Promoting Foreign Direct Investment must also not be
done at the cost of people. Systems must be in place to ensure fair wages, fair
taxation, and decent work conditions according to international standards such
as the ILO. Tax breaks for the private sector must be removed as health cannot
be compromised for profits. Laws including labour laws and anti-pollutant laws
must also be effectively practised to ensure labour protection and prevent
environmental damage. Commitments must be made to adhere to international
conventions on climate change issues. Workers’ rights in formal, non-formal,
paid and unpaid care work must also be recognised and upheld.
• Capital is socially produced but individually owned. In
order to prevent this, mechanisms of taxation must be based on just and fair
principles to ensure that the larger burden of taxation is not on the poor and
the marginalised. Governments must ensure progressive taxation, broadening the
tax base to include the rich, less indirect taxes, efficient tax collection
systems. Subsidies and incentives for the corporates must be reduced so as to
ensure fair taxation for all and commit to lessen the inequalities between the
rich and the poor. Further, we must look into issues of double taxation of
migrant labour who are required to pay at their source country as well as the
country of destination.
• Above all, we need good accountability and monitoring
and regulatory mechanisms for all sectors but particularly for the corporate
and private sector that is focused on profits at the cost of people’s welfare.
Risk mitigation schemes and mechanisms must be upscaled to bring under its net
private and corporate enterprises, transnational corporations, banks, and the
government sector. To truly be able to contribute to sustainable development,
governments need to be able to increase their stake and be mindful of interests
involved. While they may rely on private actors and philanthropic donors (as
the action agenda points out), governments need to take central responsibility
in raising and spending money towards people’s wellbeing. Governments must
therefore be held accountable for responsible spending.
• While the action agenda discusses the need for clear
commitments to Official Development Assistance (ODA), there must be concrete
timelines mentioned to meet these commitments.
• We also call for an increase in the share of aid
dedicated towards gender equality, adolescents, young people and women’s health
and education. Additionally, aid commitments must be made to support the
essential work done by women’s organizations to improve the status of women and
young people.
• Participatory budgeting and gender responsive budgeting
mechanisms need to be incorporated at all levels of public budgets. Care must
be taken so that women’s role and participation in the economy does not take an
instrumental role with them being viewed as contributors to the economy but not
as beneficiaries and as equal and active participants in the process.
• Governments must prioritise its people above economic
progress and wealth. In this context, it is important to reiterate the need for
a Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) approach that on the one
hand universalises the development agenda but calls for a sharing of
responsibilities that are commensurate with the country’s status as a developed
and a resource-rich one, owning up to past responsibilities of colonisation and
are therefore supportive of countries that are vulnerable due to a variety of
factors.
• Financing must also not be limited to Goal 17 on Means
of Implementation but must be included in all the targets mentioned in the
SDGs.
• We recommend financial literacy for all people especially for CSOs, NGOs, activists and advocates to demand for transparent and accountable budgets, transparent and accountable auditing mechanisms, national allocations for development and assessments on expenditures made. In order to have strengthened accountability in place there is a need for active participation of civil society in all these processes related to financing. Further, having effective whistle blower mechanisms, active social media campaigns with adequate protection for the activists and advocates can ensure better accountability.