Embedding
Last week’s column concluded discussion of the hypothesis, which states, there is an ongoing paradigm shift in international mechanisms generating financing for development. This shift favours embedding recovery of stolen public assets as integral to global anti-corruption measures, dedicated to providing means for implementing the financing of the post-2015 development agenda and its related sustainable development goals, SDGs. This paradigm shift is of special significance to Guyana, given the estimated size of its stolen public assets.
Readers have however, requested an assessment of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA), which is the Outcome Document of the recently concluded Third International Financing Conference (2015), where the paradigm shift is fully revealed. This week’s column provides that assessment.
Acclaim
Readers would be aware the United Nations has enthusiastically acclaimed the AAAA as a massive international achievement. Ban Ki-moon has heralded it to the General Assembly, claiming humanity has been put “on the path to a more prosperous, just, and sustainable world for this and future generations”. The vast majority of governments and inter-governmental organisations have also applauded the AAAA for its ambition. There is, however, disagreement between developed and developing countries.
The debate between them “pits the means of implementation (MOI) of the post-2015 development agenda and the SDGs (2015-2030) against the Financing for Development Addis Ababa Outcome Document (AAAA)”. The developed countries believe the AAAA includes all the MoI in the present SDGs text; and therefore it should be annexed/endorsed/ referenced in the Outcome Document of the post-2015 development agenda and the SDGs. Indeed, the United States has openly called for the AAAA to replace Chapter 3 of the MoI, in its entirety. The developing countries argue otherwise. They claim the AAAA should not be annexed, because the AAAA itself states that the post-2015 development agenda and the SDGs are to be “supported”, and therefore by inference, not replaced by the AAAA.
In the end, the main consideration is that countries do not risk putting up for re-negotiation either the AAAA as it presently stands, or the MoI text of the SDGs already agreed back in 2014. That would be a catastrophe.
Civil society responses
Hundreds of civil society organisations (CSOs) and networks participated in the Addis Ababa Conference and the framing of its AAAA. Generally, they argue that, the AAAA does not offer enough substance, to adequately operationalize the MoI of the post-2015 development agenda and its related SDGs. I have identified 11 major areas where these concerns are most emphatic. These are referenced below, in no order of ranking.
First, CSOs support small countries claim (Guyana, Caricom, and the wider Small Island Developing States, SIDS), that their concerns are not satisfactorily addressed in the AAAA; in particular their vulnerability; openness, and limited range of resources.
Second, CSOs believe the AAAA is overly optimistic in its expectation that private finance will deliver sustainable development. The AAAA provides no binding commitments to ensure minimal business accountability, based on internationally recognised human, labour, and environmental standards.
Third, by the same token, CSOs argue the AAAA does not recognise that, realistically, tax policy worldwide remains the domain of the rich and powerful. Further, it fails to guarantee countries’ obligations: to cooperate with each other; prevent money laundering; halt illicit flows; recover stolen assets; and, tackle corporate tax dodgers and cheats.
Fourth, as a result of such deficiencies, neither justice nor fairness is assured in the global taxation system. The AAAA cannot therefore, protect the poor and the powerless.
Fifth, although I had previously heralded the second re-commitment by the international community to the official development assistance target set at the First Financing Conference, held at Monterrey, Mexico, the CSOs are skeptical. They have interpreted this decision as another expression of “the tendency of traditional donors to elude their responsibilities by putting emphasis on South-South cooperation, Domestic Resource Mobilization and the Private Sector”. Additionally, they claim: 1) “fulfilling the 0.7 per cent commitment made more than four decades ago remains pivotal” ; and 2) the AAAA does not satisfactorily address “the necessary additionality of climate and biodiversity finance”.
Sixth, the CSO’s focus on specific sectoral concerns, one of which is trade policy. They argue that the AAAA does not address global trade regimes, in order to 1) safeguard and promote policy space for developing countries; 2) provide alternative paths to commodity dependence; 3) eliminate investor-state disputes; 4) guarantee universal acceptance of human rights impact and environmental sustainability assessments.
Seventh, debt is another sectoral concern. CSO’s claim the AAAA ignores the promotion of sovereign debt-restructuring; operationalizing guidelines for responsible lending and borrowing; and embedding moral, legal, and human rights concerns in the treatment of national indebtedness.
Eight, CSOs stress the “limited progress on technology”. Despite the AAAA’s commitment to establish a Technology Facilitation Mechanism, which recognizes its potential to support technology transfer and enable innovation in developing countries, they warn that technology is not a panacea for all development challenges. In this regard CSOs link technology to a ninth concern, which is the promotion of gender equality. They see gender equality, (and more broadly women’s empowerment), as “smart economics”, which instrumentalizes women as an essential element for enhancing growth, productivity and development.
CSOs emphasize two final overarching concerns! Tenth, the AAAA does not provide nor strengthen, the global political leadership required “to promote human rights-based, pro-development reforms of global economic and financial systems.” Because of the IMF’s failures, revealed by the ongoing Great Recession, there is a desperate need for systemic change and greater organisational coherence in the international system.
Finally, CSOs note that the AAAA’s “positive and consistent references to the importance of transparency and accountability are not adequately matched by concrete commitments from governments and all actors to publish timely, comprehensive, and accessible … information”.
