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.