DECLARATION FROM THE ADDIS ABABA CIVIL SOCIETY FORUM ON FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT

We, members of more than 600  civil society organizations and networks from around the world that have been
engaged  in  the  process  leading  up  to  and  including  the  Third  International  Conference  on  Financing  for
Development (Addis Ababa, July 13-16 2015), convened a CSO Forum in advance of the conference.  We have the
following  reflections  and  recommendations  to  convey  to  the  Member  States  of  the  United  Nations  and  the
international  community.  We  want  to  express  appreciation  for  the  participation  and  access  civil  society  was
accorded in the preparatory process so far.

As the first in three important UN Summits on sustainable development this year, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda
(“Addis Agenda”) has the opportunity to set the tone for an ambitious and transformative agenda that will tackle
the structural injustices in the current  global  economic system, as well as ensuring that all development finance
is  people-centred  and  protects  the  environment.  The  world  faces  challenges  in  the  form  of  historic  levels  of
inequality within and among countries, the confluence of  financial,  food and  environmental crises, the underprovision of essential services and pronounced employment deficits. However, the draft outcome document does
not  yet  rise to the challenges that the world currently faces, nor does it contain the  leadership,  ambition and
practical actions that are necessary.

In what follows, we highlight  our overarching concerns about the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (“Addis Agenda”),
followed by our reflections and suggestions on its different aspects.
The  Addis  Agenda  as  it  stands  undermines  agreements  in  the  Monterrey  Consensus  of  2002  and  the  Doha
Declaration of 2008. It is also hardly suited to function as the operational Means of Implementation (MoI) for the
post-2015 development agenda, which is one of the goals of this conference, and to inspire the hope of reaching
a successful agreement towards COP 21 in Paris.

The Third Financing for  Development (FFD)  conference  must  unequivocally assert that development processes
should  be  led  by  countries  under  the  ultimate  responsibility  of  the  States  through  participatory  processes  to
include  all  right-holders.  The  principles  of  democratic  ownership  and  leadership  have  been  affirmed  in  many
global forums since Monterrey and it is now time to place  it at the heart of  the whole  financing framework as a
fundamental  qualification  of  countries’  policy  space,  which  the  draft  Addis  Agenda  itself  recalls.  An  enabling
environment for civil society agency is essential.

Likewise,  if  the  Third  FFD  conference  is  to  contribute  to  the  means  of  implementation  for  the  Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), the Rio principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) should be
taken into account. This principle is, above all other Rio Principles, indispensable for the political legitimacy and
real  world  impact  of  the  FFD  agenda.  If  appropriately  applied  CBDR  can  also  serve  to  reinforce  all  countries'
abilities to fulfill commitments in areas of human rights, labor and environment. 

We regret that the negotiations, rather than gearing towards a meaningful outcome, have been bogged down by
political  disputes which have diminished the FFD mandate to progressively address international systemic issues
in  macroeconomic,  financial,  trade,  tax,  and  monetary  policies.  We  strongly  believe  that  the  FFD  process,
underpinned by the normative function and ethos of the United Nations, enjoys the participation of its universal
membership and, therefore, a legitimacy to address those issues that no other forum can boast.
2
It is hard to look upon the next decade and a half with great optimism based upon the  Addis Agenda. Rather we
fear adverse consequences across the sustainable development agenda. The FFD text has incrementally shed any
ambition over the course of negotiations and international solidarity seems to have become a distant concept.
Those countries that historically, and with good reason, have taken on a large part of the responsibility to lead in
delivering  MoI,  have  gone  to  great  lengths  to  shed  this  responsibility.  At  the  same  time,  the  text  neglects
normative  and  systemic  reforms  that  would  enable  developing  countries  to  mobilize  their  own  available
resources. This combination makes it impossible for countries to generate the requisite resources to deliver a
sustainable agenda.

We express disappointment that the Addis Agenda is almost entirely devoid of actionable deliverables. While not
a pledging conference it is deplorable that a conference on financing has so far failed to scale up existing sources
and commit new financial resources. This calls into question governments’ commitment to realize a development
agenda as expansive and multi-dimensional as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We note in particular
the  opposition seen so far to  a  global  tax body  under the auspices of the UN,  which would create significant
sustainable  financing  for  development  through,  for  example,  combating  corporate  tax  dodging  in  developing
countries. 

We note with deep preoccupation the lack of ambition in undertaking responsibilities and firm commitments to
foster  sustainable  industrialization  paths  based  on  decent  work  and  employment  opportunities.  We  strongly
regret that the role of social dialogue is neglected when it is actually a key element to address inequalities and to
contribute to overall  developmental  processes.  Special  measures  are  needed  to  address  caste  and  analogous
systems of inherited status  that  perpetuate  exclusion and  inequalities  in the access to economic resources and
the benefits of growth.

Concrete commitments to integrated social protection systems, including floors, which would establish universal
access to public services, granting redistribution, are completely missing when addressing domestic resource
mobilization. We strongly reaffirm the need for the implementation of national social protection schemes and
decent work, as enshrined in the provisions of the ILO Convention 102 and Recommendation 202.
The additional steps  we see in terms of addressing gender equality and women’s empowerment  seem to  speak
more to “Gender Equality as Smart Economics" than to women and girls’  entitlement to social and economic
rights.  The  Addis  Agenda  “reiterates  the  need  for  gender  mainstreaming,  including  targeted  actions  and
investments in the formulation and implementation of all financial, economic, environmental and social policies.”
Yet,  the  document  shows  a  strong  tendency  towards  the  instrumentalization  of  women  when  it  states  that
women’s empowerment, and women  and girls’ full and equal participation and leadership in the economy are
vital to significantly enhance economic growth and productivity.

Controversial  initiatives  in  micro-fields  such  as  financial  inclusion  or  women’s  entrepreneurship  should  not
displace attention from structural barriers for women´s economic rights and full and equal access to and control
over economic resources that are not present in the  Addis Agenda: i.e. the unequal distribution  of unpaid care
work, the lack of  access to care services, the persistent gender discrimination in the labor market (through vertical
and horizontal segregation, over-representation of women in precarious and low-paid jobs, and inadequate and
insufficient social protection).
3

We caution that the optimism towards private finance to deliver a broad sustainable development agenda, which
is about the social and environmental dimensions as  much as it is about the  economic, is misplaced. Civil society
along with a number of Member States have consistently raised serious concern on the unconditional support for
Public  Private  Partnerships  and  blended  financing  instruments.  Without  a  parallel  recognition  of  the
developmental role of the state and commitments which safeguard the ability of the state to regulate in the public
interest, there is a great risk that the private sector undermines rather than supports sustainable development.
The very same risk persists, without the recognition of social partners (workers and employers organizations) as
players on an equal stand. The right of social partners to freely negotiate and conclude collective agreements is
essential to strengthen democracy, as well as,  to enhance  transparency  and realize sustainable development.
States have an obligation to enforce universal standards in the areas of human rights, gender equality, labor and
environment, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Yet the Addis Agenda  fails to demand compliance by the private sector with
these standards. Financial, social and environmental accountability of the private sector is non-negotiable.
Inclusive  development requires access for persons with disabilities to social  and disability support services and
micro finance. Investments should have safeguards to prevent the creation or perpetuation of legal, institutional,
attitudinal,  physical  and  ICT  barriers  to  the  inclusion  and  participation  of  persons  with  disabilities  and  other
marginalized groups. 

The following are our reflections and suggestions on the different aspects of the Addis Agenda.
Mobilization of domestic resources
Domestic resource mobilization (DRM) is not a development panacea. But it is a development priority in the post-2015 era and it represents the foundation of financing for states. We regret that the Addis Agenda reduced DRM
to  only  public finance, deciding to address the domestic business sector alongside international financial flows.
This  unjustifiable  retrogression  from  the  Monterrey  and  Doha  agreements  unduly  conflates  national  and
international business to the detriment of strategies to harness the former.

Tax is the most reliable source of financing for public services and strengthens the social contract between the
government  and  the  people.  However,  one  of  its  key  functions  is  redistribution.  We  therefore  welcome  the
commitment to progressive tax systems, while reminding that the stronger Doha FFD Review commitment to
make tax systems “pro-poor” remains valid. Decent work, including job creation, and fair taxation of multinational
corporations are key elements of providing a stable tax base. The Third FFD Conference takes place at a point in
time when it has become clear to everyone that the international tax system is painfully outdated and broken.
From Amazon in UK to SAB Miller in Ghana; from “Luxembourg Leaks” to the Mbeki Panel report and the work of
the Independent Commission on the Reform of Corporate Taxation, there is enough evidence that profit-shifting
for tax dodging purposes by corporations and rich individuals harms developing and developed countries alike .
However, costs are not symmetrical, as  the majority of resources are transferred out of developing countries,
depriving them of their fair share of revenue. This imposes significant costs on their development  opportunities
and erodes the dignity of the common person. And, yet, while  OECD members are working to protect  their own
tax bases through OECD processes, it is the developing countries that are left out of exclusive agenda-setting and
decision-making so crucial to their sovereignty and development.

4
In order to tackle the global tax haven economy, a significant increase in transparency is needed. Unfortunately,
the Addis Agenda proposal to introduce public country by country reporting for multinational enterprises and
public  beneficial ownership registries were rejected. Therefore, citizens will remain unable to know how much
multinational corporations pay in taxes or where they make their profits. 

A key reason why the global tax system has failed is that more than half of the world’s countries are currently
excluded from the decision making processes on global tax standards. To begin to address these problems we
need a forum where every country has the right to participate, not just the richest. We need to fundamentally
change the tax rules, and not having every country represented in writing those rules to make sure they work for
everyone is not only undemocratic but also unfair. Developing countries have underlined that the establishment
of an intergovernmental UN tax body is a red line issue for them. We strongly support this call.
We reiterate the need and strongly recommend the establishment of an intergovernmental, transparent,
accountable, adequately resourced tax body with universal membership, that leads global deliberations on
international tax cooperation. Such a body will strengthen the ability of developing countries to generate
significant sustainable financing for development through, for example, combating corporate tax dodging in
developing countries and balancing the allocation of taxing rights between source and residence countries. It
should also support the efforts of peoples in developing countries to develop their own progressive, rights
based, equitable tax systems and laws, free of such pressures imposed by lenders and developed country
governments. 

In addition, it is key that Member States up their action by committing to “promote equity, including gender
equality as an objective in all tax and revenue policies”, as stated in previous drafts of the Addis Agenda. Tax
policy is not gender or class neutral. Regressive tax policies such as indirect taxes disproportionately harm
people living in poverty, women, minorities, people with disabilities, children, and other marginalized groups.
Women living in poverty are increasingly affected because of their socially constructed roles as primary care
givers. Thus, domestic resource mobilization policies need to be reviewed to take into account their impact on
women’s income and work, including unpaid labor and unpaid care, and property and assets ownership. The
disproportionate burden of taxation on women and people living in poverty must instead be reversed, as part of
a broader shift in fiscal policy at the national level to address inequalities. Taxation reform should mobilize
additional and sufficient resources to comply with States’ obligations to commit the maximum available
resources to fulfilling human rights, including women’s rights, and ensure that tax systems are pro-civil society
and pro-environment. We also call on governments to end harmful tax incentives nationally, regionally and
globally. Multinational corporations are receiving unduly extensive tax exemptions and are able to misuse them.
Member states should also agree to conduct independent, participatory and periodic impact assessments to
monitor the spillover effects of their tax policies and agreements on the achievement of sustainable
development and human rights in other countries.

Private finance
We are deeply concerned over the central role that private finance has taken over the course of FFD negotiations.
Evidence  on  its  sustainable  development  impact  remains  weak  and,  in  some  sectors  –for  instance,  the
privatization  and  commercialization  of  education,  health  and  other  essential  services,  substantial  available
5
evidence  shows  their  negative  impacts  on  inequality  and  marginalization.  Instead,  inclusive  and  sustainable
industrial  development  is  of  critical  importance  for  developing  countries  in  order  to  support  economic
diversification,  add  value  to  raw  materials,  improve  economic  productivity  and  develop  and  use  modern  and
appropriate technologies. Indeed, being here in Addis Ababa we should remind ourselves of the African Union’s
Agenda 2063 based on shared prosperity through social and economic transformation.

Equally concerning is the unquestioned confidence on the private sector to achieve women’s empowerment.  The
need to provide an enabling environment for business is repeatedly emphasized, which evidence shows primarily
serves  big businesses  rather than micro, small and medium enterprises.  Evidence  also  shows that  this deregulation
and privatization agenda in  the private sector often contradicts and undermines the possibility to respect, protect
and fulfil  all  human rights.  There should be ex-ante and periodic human rights impact assessments of private
sector investments and activities. Only this will safeguard public interest. 

While private finance and business activities have increased in scope and volume, foreign investments often leave
behind the poorest people and poorest countries. The few investments that do reach low-income countries tend
to be  concentrated  in extractive industries  or are agricultural investments that lead  to  adverse activities such as
landgrabbing.  To  ensure  large  private  sector  enterprises’  compliance  with  internationally  agreed  social  and
environmental standards, ILO Conventions, and all human rights  we call for mandatory rules and  an  accountability
mechanism  that  can help ensure delivering positive development outcomes.  Unfortunately,  the Addis Agenda
does not agree on having them.  There should be a clear move towards promoting mandatory standards rather
than  voluntary standards, such as the UN Global Compact principles  that,  in the particular case of  gender equality,
have proven to be wholly inadequate and inappropriate to respond to women’s human right abuses, especially
from transnational corporations.  We demand the adoption of financial, environmental, social and governance
reporting guidelines on a country by country basis for all large companies.

Private sector companies are also increasingly benefiting from development cooperation funds without adequate
impact analysis. Indeed, a whole new category of development finance instruments has emerged such as blended
and leveraged  finance,  including  a  robust  promotion of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). However, there is a
lack  of  proof  that  PPPs  are  actually  delivering  positive  economic,  social  and  environmental  outcomes.  We
encourage holding inclusive, open and transparent discussion on principles and criteria for publicly-backed private
finance at the United Nations. National regulatory bodies need to protect public interest concerning PPPs. To be
coherent with other forms of international public finance, these regulations should be based on internationally
agreed  commitments  and  principles,  such  as  the  labor  standards  enshrined  in  ILO  Conventions  and  the  ILO
Declaration on Multinational Enterprises, Rio Principles on Environment and Development, OECD Guidelines and
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and Development Effectiveness Principles.  Essential public
services that implicate States’ duties to guarantee the human rights to water and sanitation, education, and health
should be excluded from private sector  partnerships. Traditional public procurement, that meets administrative
efficiency and public accountability criteria, should remain the preferred route for involving the private sector in
infrastructure financing. Where promoted, Public-Private Partnerships should be conditional on feasibility and
auditing criteria and should include safeguards to ensure transparency; the affordability, accessibility and quality
of the services and sustainable infrastructure that they are expected to deliver  and prevention  of unsustainable
debt burdens.

Business  enterprises should  also  align  their  business  models  with  the  aim  of  achieving  progressive  economic,
social,  environmental  impacts  to  ensure  sustainable  development.  In  this  context,  we  stress  that  corporate
6
accountability begins with private companies contributing their fair share in taxes to public resource mobilization,
providing  decent  work  and  living  wages.   We  urge  both  governments  and  private  enterprises  to  effectively
implement  the  UN  Guiding  Principles on Business  and  Human  Rights,  and  to set  up  effective mechanisms  for
resolving disputes between corporations and communities or individuals that can provide genuine remedy for
parties  that  have  been  negatively  impacted  by  business  activities,  especially  indigenous  peoples.  However,
recognizing  that  voluntary  principles  are  insufficient,  we  call  on  governments  to  engage  constructively  in  the
ongoing development in the Human Rights Council  in Geneva of an  international legally binding instrument on
Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises.

We should prioritize policies and development funds supporting a social and solidarity economy and finance that
enhances democratic ownership and supports domestic micro, small and medium-sized enterprises that  have a
greater sustainable development impact. Migrants and the diaspora are active partners in development through
their transboundary entrepreneurship, skills transfer, and innovative finance. We note that for some corridors the
cost of remittances is already less than 3%. We urge  Member states to reflect the ambition expected of FFD by
committing to facilitate the reduction of remittance transaction costs to a target of 1% by 2025, and to fund
transboundary and diaspora investment schemes.

International Development Cooperation
We note with great concern the tendency of traditional donors to elude their responsibilities on cooperation and
putting  the  emphasis  on  South–South  cooperation,  Domestic  Resource  Mobilization  or  the  Private  Sector.
International Development Cooperation and Official Development Assistance (ODA) in particular, remain critical
for development financing and  fulfilling the commitments made more than four decades  ago to  reach the 0.7%
ODA/Gross National Income (GNI) target  remains the cornerstone  of success... We call on governments to meet
existing commitments and provide additional resources to close the gap toward poverty reduction and meet new
development  challenges,  in  a  framework  in  where  human  rights  should  be  at  the  center.  The  outcomes  on
international public finance and development cooperation should maintain and build upon the gains made in both
Monterrey and Doha conferences respectively. 

The Third FFD deliberations so far have  not  offered  leadership on how  the 0.7%  target will be reached  by the
economically advanced countries. We urge all development partners to commit to the  timeline  of 2020  to provide
timetables  and  accountability  frameworks,  including  enacting  legislation  at  national  level.  We  also  urge
development partners to redirect aid to where it is most needed with clear actions and timelines, by backing the
target to provide 50 % of ODA to Least Developed Countries (LDCs). We welcome specific mentions to the needs
of Middle Income Countries, but without a clear commitment on an Action plan to MICs, these remain rhetoric.
We must note that the current World Bank or UN classifications of countries are incomplete and do not reflect
other structural gaps that are increasing poverty and inequality among countries. 

The  Addis  Agenda’s  outcome  on  development  effectiveness  is  not  encouraging.  The  references  to  the
effectiveness  agenda should be  placed in the opening of the section on international development cooperation.
Governments now need to implement stronger steps at both the global and local level, on both quantity and
quality targets. International public finance must embrace the principles of effective development cooperation

Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/26/L.22, adopted in June 2014.
7
where  democratic  ownership,  inclusive  partnership,  transparency  and  accountability  and  outcomes  towards
eradicating poverty and reducing inequality form the core of all cooperation. 
Commitments on untying aid have lost momentum through the negotiations as now there is just a perfunctory
call for accelerating current efforts. ODA must catalyze people’s empowerment, ownership of their development
strategies and promote their participation and inclusion in  the  development agenda,  while at the same being
environmentally sound and climate-proof. It must not be used to exercise power over recipient countries, for
example through the imposition of policy conditionality or links to trade negotiations, or contribute to leaving
countries  indebted. Instead, ODA must be used to develop the capacity of the recipient country’s economy to
generate  and mobilize  its own  resources  while  reducing  structural  inequalities,  including  gender  inequality.  It
should also prioritize social sectors and agriculture over infrastructure and other non-social sectors. Furthermore,
ODA should be provided in a way that effectively supports longer-term structural change for example through
sustained support to civil society organizations. The major increase in ODA should be felt in the grant component
of assistance rather than in the loan component. 

The Addis Agenda urges countries “to track and report resource allocations for gender equality and women's
empowerment.” However, tracking and reporting is not enough.  It is unacceptable that developed countries do
not commit to scaling up the share of ODA for achieving gender equality, women’s empowerment and women
and  girls’  human  rights  and  to  fulfill  longtime  agreed  financing  commitments  to  accelerate  full  and  effective
implementation of internationally agreed development agendas, including the Beijing Platform for Action, the
Cairo Programme of Action, among others without resorting to impositions and conditionalities within the narrow
framework of aid giving. 

Importantly,  the  Addis  Agenda  does  not  address  the  additionality  of  the  commitments  related  to  implement
development, climate change mitigation and adaptation and biodiversity agendas. We call for better integration
and mainstreaming of climate change in overall aid. But this is not enough. New and additional climate finance is
equally  necessary  to  meet  the  commitments  made  in  the  UNFCCC  process.  ODA  is  already  spread  too  thin,
endangering  the  efforts  to  eradicate  poverty  and  tackle  climate  change.  Governments  need  to  provide  clear,
separate and transparent measures of both ODA and climate finance in order to ensure commitments in both
areas are fully kept.

We call for caution on endorsing multi-stakeholder partnerships that do not establish open, accessible, inclusive,
and transparent space for oversight, monitoring and review, with full and meaningful participation of civil society
organizations. Global Partnerships with the private sector should be discussed and approved by governments in
an  intergovernmental  space  at  the UN.  Partnerships that  rely on vertical  approaches, with  unpredictable and
volatile  funding  and  lack  of  a  clear  link  to  human  rights  obligations  such  as  the  “Every  Women,  Every  Child”
initiative,  will  adversely  affect  implementation  of  the  broader  development  agenda  for  the  next  decade.
Conversely,  we  encourage  multi-stakeholder  platforms  and  partnerships  such  as  the  United  Nations  World
Committee  on  Food  Security  (CFS)  and  the  public  sector window  of the  Global  Agriculture  and  Food  Security
Programme. 

To mobilize and deliver predictable, reliable and efficient resources to  diversify the financial tools dedicated to
development  we call for an  international Financial Transactions Tax (FTT). The international community should
continue to  explore  the  use  of  innovative  sources  to  supplement  ODA  generating  additional  finance,  through
8
levies and taxes  derived  from globalization gains such as in finance, air transportation and maritime, for poverty
eradication and sustainable development, including climate action.
International trade 

The lack of meaningful progress in the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Doha Development Round, together
with  the  continuing  proliferation  of  “WTO-plus”  preferential  trade  and  investment  agreements,  calls  for  a
renewed and critical examination of the contribution of the multilateral trading system to sustainable, equitable
development. We call on governments to critically evaluate these agreements and the  multilateral trading system,
to eliminate  investor-state dispute settlement clauses and to undertake  human rights impact  and sustainability
assessments  of  all  trade  agreements  to  ensure  that  they  are  aligned  with  the  national  and  extraterritorial
obligations of governments. We call for economic modeling that can credibly assess the impact of trade opening
and regulatory  harmonization. Furthermore,  we call on governments to strengthen the role of UNCTAD in ensuring
a  human  rights-based  and  integrated  treatment  of  trade  and  interrelated  issues  in  finance,  technology,
investment and sustainable development 

We regret that the Addis Agenda was a missed opportunity. It endorses international trade without qualification
as “an engine of inclusive economic growth and poverty reduction”. This is despite profound imbalances in the
global  trading  system,  exemplified  by  the  dispute  over  public  stockholding  for  food  security  in  developing
countries and the unfair and inequitable WTO rules on agricultural subsidies; evidence of de-industrialization in
some regions; and the  exploitation of women’s labour and precarious employment as a source of competitive
advantage  to  attract  foreign  investment.  The confinement of  developing countries to  low  value-added  niches
within global value chains constrains  skills transfers and technology spill-overs, and power imbalances in supply
chains  between corporations and SMEs  condemn small producers and workers to poverty. Recent increases in
exports from developing countries have been driven by rising commodity prices, which are now in decline  and
subject to continued volatility largely as a result of financial deregulation. Further, trade liberalization leads to the
consolidation  of  market  shares  of  corporations  through  the  workings  of  competition,  and  mergers  and
acquisitions.

We also note the broader gendered impacts of the current model of trade liberalization, including privatization
that makes public services such as water and healthcare less accessible, thereby increasing women’s burden of
unpaid care work.

The  Action  Agenda  misses  an  opportunity  to  strengthen  implementation  of  international  standards  in  trade
agreements,  including  ILO  Conventions  on  Discrimination  and  Equal  Remuneration  and  OECD  Guidelines  on
Multinational Enterprises so as to ensure that global supply chains contribute to decent work.
While international trade may have the potential to support decent work, equitable and sustainable development
and the realization of human rights and gender equality, this has not been evident in practice. Such potential
cannot be realized without adequate national policy space to implement development-oriented industrial, social
and environmental policies, including intellectual property rights regimes that guarantee affordable medicines.
These policies are necessary to support sustainable economic  diversification,  boost productive capacity,  protect
indigenous and traditional knowledge, ensure the rights of women as workers, producers,  and traders as well as
ensure  environmental sustainability.  As the Doha FFD Review recognized, “the optimum pace and sequence of
trade liberalization depends on the specific circumstances of each country.” 

9
Instead  of  safeguarding  policy  space,  the  Addis  Agenda  fails  to  critically  evaluate  international  trade   policy;
harmful domestic agricultural subsidies given by Western countries; and,  the investor-state dispute settlement
clauses that empower foreign investors to sue governments for implementing domestic regulation relating to
wage policy, environmental protection, public health, affirmative action and macro-prudential policy. Moreover,
it fails to challenge the closed and secretive nature of the negotiation of these agreements, which undermine the
right of all citizens to participate in public affairs. 

Debt
In the Millennium Declaration governments committed to a “lasting solution to the debt problem.” However, the
persistent failures in avoiding or at least quickly resolving debt crises with minimal cost to human rights since then
show  that  solution  is  still  elusive.  Despite  the  HIPC  and  some  other  isolated  initiatives,  too  many  countries
throughout the South are still suffering from huge debt burdens. The expected interest rate increases in the U.S.
threatens  to  further  exacerbate  such  trends.  Sadly,  no  clear  commitment  to  any  further  debt  cancellation  is
promised in the Addis Agenda.

We call on governments to uphold the important normative developments in the direction of improving sovereign
debt  restructuring  that  have  taken  place  in  the  UN  over  the  last  few  years.  We  also  demand  a  constructive
engagement by all governments on attempts to create a new debt restructuring institution and  a multilateral legal
framework on sovereign debt at the UN as have been initiated by UN General Assembly Resolution 68/304. These
should be used to deliver a comprehensive international mechanism, independent from creditors and debtors,
available to any indebted country to have their debts reviewed for legitimacy and debt sustainability parameters
with full participation of the population of the country concerned.

We regret such efforts are only implicitly recognized in the Addis Agenda. Governments also missed the chance
to reduce the risk of future debt crises by adopting the UNCTAD Principles on Responsible Sovereign Lending and
Borrowing. Such principles, launched by UNCTAD in 2012 after broad-based consultations, are a mere restatement
of already existing best practices and international law on the matter. Adhering to them  costs no money but could
save billions in unwarranted debt contracts and payments.

It is time that debt sustainability calculations stop being the “purely technical” exercise that the Bretton Woods
Institutions claim it to be, and embed the moral and legal dimensions that their impacts on human rights call for.
The Monterrey Consensus offered a good start with its commitment to link debt sustainability to the financing
needs  of  countries  to  achieve  the  Millennium  Development  Goals.  We  regret  to  not  see  the  Addis  Agenda
renewing  such commitment  or a commitment  to  implement  the Guiding Principles on Foreign Debt and Human
Rights. Indeed, if the Addis Ababa outcome is to play a role as a significant part of the means of implementation
for the SDGs, it must concretely address both the impact of debt servicing on a state’s realization of the SDGs and
the  incorporation of public financial resources needed to implement the SDGs into national debt sustainability
analyses.

Inextricably linked to the debt problem are illegitimate and odious debts and decisive actions to address them
toward the objective of putting an end to  their re-accumulation,  including through independent debt audits.    Such
an action-oriented step is urgently needed.

10

Technology
The  Addis Ababa Accord has put Technology in a distinct place in the financing for development discourse,  and
this is a deviation from previous declarations. 
We welcome the specific reference to “accessible technology for persons with disabilities” and we also expect
facilitation of access to technology for other marginalized sectors. It must be explicitly recognized that technology
is not gender-neutral and that the specific needs and circumstances of women must be integrated in technology
design and development. Human rights, including the right to privacy, must be protected in ICT.
It is crucial to emphasize that technology development is not a monopoly of the formal sector, nor is technology
only  transferred  and  diffused  by  the  private  sector  and  industrialized  countries.    Adoption  of  technological
solutions to  attain  development goals must not be based on  an  uncritical  acceptance of the promises of new
technologies  and  their  potentials  to  bridge  development  divides,  but  in  recognizing  their  risks  to  deepen
inequalities and in understanding available technology options to suit specific needs, conditions and capacities of
countries and communities.

The invaluable role of indigenous and traditional knowledge in enabling communities to address development
challenges  for  generations  must  be  strongly  recognized  and  promoted,  and  community  innovations  must  be
supported  on  par  with  those  in  the  formal  sector.  Innovation  funds  must  be  established  to  support  local
technology  development  and  diffusion,  promote  traditional  knowledge  and  harness  community  innovation
capacities. Traditional knowledge must be protected from misappropriation.
The role of public finance to support local innovations and traditional knowledge systems is crucial. Technologies
developed  with  the  use  of  public  finance  must  remain  in  the  public  domain  and  must  be  made  available  to
developing  countries.  Governance  of  research,  science,  technology  and  innovations  must  be  inclusive  and
transparent. 

We welcome the establishment of a Technology Facilitation Mechanism (TFM) under the UN and we recognize its
potentials to address the obstacles to technology transfer and to enable  developing countries to  harness their
innovation capacities to respond to development challenges.  We expect that the open, transparent and inclusive
processes that comprise the TFM will foster critical consideration of technology issues and options instead of just
a mere platform to market technologies.  To be responsive and anticipatory, the TFM must enable countries to
monitor and assess the potential impacts of technologies on the economy, jobs and livelihoods, society and the
environment  with  direct  participation  of  communities  and  civil  society.    Systemic  issues  in  technology
development  and  transfer  such  as  restrictive  intellectual  property  rights,  trade  issues  and  financing  must  be
addressed head-on by the TFM as it provides guidance on science, technology and innovations for the attainment
of the SDGs.

Systemic issues
Governments that met for the Doha FFD Review seven years ago faced the greatest financial crisis since the Great
Depression. This should have been a wake-up call to reformulate the very foundations  of  an international financial
and monetary system that fails to serve sustainable development and  rights. Seven years later, the impacts and
repercussions of the financial crisis are still being felt in unrecovered employment and social services, inequality
and  continuing  environmental  degradation.  People  facing  structural  inequalities,  including  women  and  youth,
11
were disproportionately affected.  Yet, we see the financial sector settling comfortably back into its pre-crisis ways
and in some cases accruing even greater profits than before  while we continue to transgress  planetary boundaries.
The  process  of  financialization  of  the  economies  marches  onward  and  is  creating  greater  global  inequality,
instability  and diverting finance from sustainable and equitable development sectors. Calls for restructuring the
very  foundations  of  the  international  financial  and  monetary  system,  including  those  made  in  the  World
Conference on the Financial and Economic Crisis, have gone unheeded. If another crisis were to strike today, the
world would be just as unprepared as it was in 2008 to reduce its costs and ensure that these costs are borne by
those that with their reckless and greedy behavior caused it.

The Third FFD Conference offered an opportunity to provide a solid institutional foundation needed all the more
with  the  new  paradigm of  sustainable  development the  international  community  plans  to  adopt  for 30 years
starting in September 2015. Reaffirming the primacy of human rights and environmental protection over finance,
trade and monetary  rules and policies, and coherence,  is greatly needed.  But governments are  as yet failing to
provide sufficient political leadership to strengthen the role of the United Nations to lead the necessary human
rights-based,  pro-development  reforms  of  global  economic  and  financial  systems  and  institutionalize  greater
coherence. 

Instead of the profound reflection on the IMF’s failures pre- and post-crisis and its unwarranted austerity advice
as a response, the Addis Agenda calls for strengthening it. It validates the insufficient governance reform process
that  is  already  going  on.  The  extension  of  the  use  of  double  majority  voting  at  the  IMF  –  requiring  relevant
majorities of both votes and countries for all decisions – would be a simple but effective way of giving developing
countries a fair voice. At the same time, we reiterate our support for the emergence of new development finance
institutions that can represent a better alternative to the paradigm of finance  the Bretton Woods Institutions
currently represent. 

The need for coordinating policies of leading industrialized countries for their impacts beyond borders and on
developing countries, acknowledged in Monterrey, is replaced by text giving the impression that any policy by any
country has the same impact at the global level. 

There is no call for reform of the Special Drawing Rights regime towards its full potential to serve as a development
finance tool and as the center of the international monetary system.  The IMF should issue  $250 billion in new
SDRs annually, with the allocation based on economic need and the majority going  to developing countries.  Capital
controls, a tool that served many countries well in response to the crisis, are barely acknowledged  in the draft
outcome document as a last resort after adjustment measures are applied. 

Credit Rating Agencies should improve the quality of their risk assessment criteria so they support sustainable
development, including by incorporating an environmental sustainability dimension. We call on Member States
to initiate a UN process to develop guidelines towards this purpose. 

Follow up
We believe that references to the importance of transparency and  accountability in the follow-up of the Addis
Ababa  Action  Agenda  are  not  matched  by  strong  commitments  from  governments  to  publish  timely,
comprehensive, accessible and forward-looking information about all development activities and resource flows,
public and private, domestic and international, including about revenues, allocations, spending, contracting and
results. We call upon Member States to commit to the  implementation of existing open data standards on the
12
above such as the International Aid Transparency Initiative. New information technologies, capacity strengthening
and the availability of open data from state and non-state actors are vital. Governments should create an enabling
environment,  including  through  adopting  and  implementing  right  to  information  legislation  and  policies,  and
allocate resources,  that facilitates the public to contribute and participate in decision making and monitoring of
sustainable development activities at all levels.

It is critical to guarantee that time-bound and actionable commitments made in the FFD agreements so far have
continuity in a dedicated Commission for follow-up and review. The lack of commitment to establish a strong FFD
follow up mechanism has had dire consequences in the ability of countries, especially developing countries, to
implement not only the SDG but the international agreed development agendas including  Copenhagen,  Beijing
and Cairo.

We recognize the Addis Agenda’s establishment of an intergovernmental and universal Forum on Financing for
Development with agreed outcomes is indeed a step in the right direction.  However, because the same space is
tasked to follow-up on the Means of Implementation of the post-2015 development agenda, there is a risk it will
lead to fragmented consideration of development financing in terms of each specific goal and target of SDGs, and
to a loss of focus on systemic issues. This would not be in line with the holistic focus of FFD, which used to  facilitate
bridges  and  inter-connections  among  development,  trade,  finance,  debt,  systemic  issues  and  human  rights
commitments,  including  women’s  rights.  Additionally,  the  FFD  framework  goes  well  beyond  the  SDG  specific
financing and its fifteen-year time-frame, it has an autonomous role, and a unique focus on international systemic
issues, without a set duration. This is why we demand a strong commitment to strengthen an institutionalized
process to guarantee a robust implementation of the FFD Monterrey, Doha and Addis agreements in the years to
come.  The mandate of the  Financing for Development platform represents the potential of a tectonic shift towards
the structural transformation urgently needed in this unequal world, and thus it is an imperative to  preserve its
integrity and strength

Among CSOs and social movements there is a strong commitment to financing for a development approach that
meets the basic needs of all people while preserving the planet for future generations. This is not the way that
present financing or development are going, and we are strongly dissatisfied with that.

We reaffirm our intent to continue working with all countries, groups of countries,  institutions, and sub-national
authorities, towards aligning financing with the  model of development we support, rather than the  needs of  a
non-accountable transnational corporate sector, including its financial companies. For this purpose, we will work
in strengthening the CSO community involved in FFD, at the global regional and country level.