Dear colleagues

Progress of the World’s Women 2015-2016, Transforming Economies, Realizing Rights, UN Women’s flagship publication, released on Monday April 27th, in seven locations globally, brings together human rights and economic policymaking to call for far-reaching changes to the global policy agenda that will transform economies and make women’s rights, and equality, a reality. It takes an in-depth look at what the economy would look like if it truly worked for women, for the benefit of all.

Seven years after the global financial crisis, the world continues to struggle with low growth and high unemployment. Policy makers in rich and poor countries alike face huge challenges in creating enough decent jobs for all those who need them. And austerity policies in both developed and developing countries are shifting the burden of coping and caring back to families and onto the shoulders of women and girls. See UN Women’s position paper on the global economic crisis and gender equality.

Among those who are employed, women constitute nearly two thirds of ‘contributing family workers’, who work in family businesses without any direct pay. Occupational segregation remains a universal fact, with women over-represented in clerical and support positions and service and sales work, but under-represented in managerial occupations. Globally, on average, women’s earnings are 24 per cent less than men’s.  Women also undertake almost two and a half times as much unpaid care and domestic work as men, and if paid and unpaid work are combined, women in almost all countries work longer hours than men each day. In most countries women are less likely than men to receive a pension in their old age. These economic disadvantages accumulate to produce large lifetime income gaps: In France and Sweden, for example, women can expect to earn 31 percent less than men; in Germany 49 percent less; and in Turkey an average woman can expect to earn just 25 per cent of what an average man will earn over her life time. 

Changes in the global economy have not been beneficial for the majority of men either. At the global level, the narrowing of gender gaps in labour force participation from 28 to 26 percentage points has occurred primarily because men’s participation rates have declined faster than those of women. Similarly, the gender pay gap has narrowed over the past decade in most countries with available data, but this is not always a sign of progress: for example in some countries where gender pay gaps have narrowed this has been in the context of falling real wages for both women and men, and the gaps have narrowed only because men’s wages have fallen more dramatically than women’s. This can hardly be considered ‘progress’: instead of women catching up with men, there is a levelling down for all.

If economic and social policies are to expand women’s and men’s rights and opportunities, then things will need to change.  To support substantive equality, economic and social policies need to work in tandem (see chapter 1 of Progress 2015-2016).

Typically, the role of economic policies is seen primarily in terms of promoting economic growth, while social policies are supposed to address its ‘casualties’ by redressing poverty and disadvantage and reducing inequality. But macroeconomic policies can, and should, pursue a broader set of goals, including gender equality and social justice. Conversely, well-designed social policies can enhance macroeconomic growth and post-crisis recovery through redistributive measures that increase employment, productivity and aggregate demand.

The specific policy package to achieve substantive equality will differ from context to context. Ultimately, the aim is to create a virtuous cycle through the generation of decent work, gender-responsive social protection and social services, alongside enabling macroeconomic policies that prioritize investment in human beings and the fulfilment of social objectives. Action is needed in three priority areas.

Decent work for women

Paid work that is compatible with women’s and men’s shared responsibility for unpaid care work as well as leisure and learning, where earnings are sufficient to maintain an adequate standard of living and women are treated with respect and dignity, is crucial to advancing gender equality. Yet, this type of work remains scarce and policies in all regions are failing to generate enough decent jobs for those who need them. Alongside economic policies that can create decent employment, extending labour rights and social protection to those in informal employment, such as domestic workers and home-based workers, is essential to increase the viability and security of their livelihoods. 

Women’s continued heavy responsibilities for unpaid care and domestic work limit the types of work they can undertake, which further reinforces their socio-economic disadvantage.  Measures are needed to reduce the drudgery of unpaid work through investment in time-saving infrastructure such as safe water sources within easy reach. There is also a need to redistribute some of the work, between women and men, as well as between families and society more broadly, through changes in social norms and accessible and quality social services.

Gender-responsive social policies

Social transfers—including family allowances, unemployment benefits and pensions—protect women and men in the face of contingencies such as unemployment or old age. They also help families shoulder some of the costs involved in raising children or caring for other dependents—challenges that have become more pressing in the face of population ageing and changing family structures. Social services that directly address women’s rights, including housing, health, education, training and childcare, are just as important and often have an even greater impact than social transfers in reducing poverty and gender inequality.

Rights-based macroeconomic policies

Because macroeconomic policy is treated as ‘gender-neutral’ it has, to date, failed to support the achievement of substantive equality for women. From a human rights perspective, macroeconomic policy needs to pursue a broad set of objectives that include the reduction of poverty and gender inequality. Integrating these social objectives would mean: expanding the targets of monetary policy to include creating decent work; mobilizing resources to enable investments in social services and transfers; and creating channels for meaningful participation by civil society organizations, including women’s movements, in macroeconomic decision-making.

Global policy coordination is essential to create a macroeconomic environment that is conducive to the realization of women’s rights. The growing integration of the world’s economies means that actions taken by one government affect the realization of rights elsewhere. Moreover, the proliferation of agreements to liberalize trade and financial flows between countries limits the policy space of individual governments. The lack of global coordination also affects the ability of governments to mobilize resources. Multinational corporations, for example, use a variety of accounting techniques to lower their tax obligations, thereby diminishing their overall contribution to the economies where they operate.

The current system of global governance exacerbates, rather than mitigates, the gender bias in macroeconomic policy. In most existing institutions, including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the G20 and the World Trade Organization, power relations are such that governments of the poorest countries do not have an equal say in the decisions that affect them the most, let alone women in those countries. Global cooperation for the realization of economic and social rights can only be achieved if these institutions are democratized and powerful global players, from national governments to transnational corporations, accept that the obligation to respect, protect and fulfil human rights extends beyond borders.

With best wishes

Shahra Razavi
Chief, Research & Data, UN Women, and research director of the report

Dear friends:

 Living Nepal’s worst crisis indeed makes the heart aching for the great people of this nation. Gabriele message below described the situation. Now time for us to meet this challenge as concerned global citizens and build a true sense of community to provide solutions.

 As someone working on social policy issues, I see the importance of remittances and what it can do in the recovery.

To give abackground on remittance and why I strongly believe it is the most important mechanism for Nepal at this stage to rebuild and allow households to restore their livelihood, please note these facts on Nepal:

-          Large number of Nepalis work outside the nation: 2.2 million Nepalis, which is about 7-8 % of Nepal population, live abroad

-          They are bringing in about 7 billion USD  (almost 30 percent of GDP) in the country in normal years. To put in context, this is about 10 times more than all total grants from foreign governments and international organization according to the national budget speech 2015.

-          The country went through a 10 year civil war. While that was certainly a constraint on economic activities, It did not collapse in terms of the economic growth. We can argue on many reasons, but I believe it was largely due to remittances

Against this background, what will pick up the country is its hard working people bringing in such large remittances. The main challenge is how we can facilitate movement of transfer in the country with close-to-zero-cost, effortless, and timely. This is my top priority now and initial results are showing off.

Second important mechanism for us to mobilize support for is social protection. We need to push more than ever for the global community to mobilize resources for social protection floor. There is no better country to start with than Nepal. Nepal has done a great deal in this area already, let me highlight few:

-          Allocation to social protection is high in Nepal: its projected to reach to 2.67 percent of GDP this fiscal year. This is higher than regional average of 2.4 percent of GDP. 

-          Its system of social protection is mostly based on universality and social inclusion.

-          It is tax financed. The tax base is comfortable (tax/GDP ratio is 17.2 % compared with only 9 % for South Asia average). National debt is also low standing at 29.7 % of GDP.

-          There is political commitment showed at all levels.

I am writing under difficult conditions. We are working hard to respond to this.  Let us show support and sense of community in this difficult situation. Let us show the nation of Nepal that we do care and we will do what we can or even what we cannot.

Amjad Rabi |  Chief Social Policy and Economic Analysis |  UNICEF Nepal Country Office | Cell: 977-9851107906

Dear friends,

 It was always going to happen – Nepal has been expecting and preparing for an earthquake for at least a decade, raising public awareness, adopting building codes and reinforcing buildings, training up disaster rescue services. But no one imagined this order of magnitude, 7.9 on the Richter scale, and no one anticipated so many, additionally devastating aftershocks.

As of day 4, more than 4300 persons have perished, over 8000 are injured. The number of homeless has not been registered yet. As always in such disasters, the youngest, the poorest, and those living in remote areas, are the worst affected:  children who were running about in narrow alleyways, poor people who were living in the musty, low-ceilinged brick housing of ancient towns, people in far-away mountain villages – some of which now completely obliterated. Of the 3 million children under 5, at least 1 million are directly affected - hurt, displaced, traumatised.

For foreigners who spent a period of their life living in Kathmandu, the horror is very close. It is close emotionally, because one anxiously awaits news of friends and colleagues. It is close at the very egotistical level, because one thinks ‘it could have happened while I lived there’ – there were monthly earthquake preparedness practices, obligatory stocks of drinking water and food staples kept at home, designated gathering points in town which one would be able to find even if one had to make one’s way through mountains of debris. No one ever mentioned corpses when we did those exercises. Now, body bags are on the list of items requested most urgently by the Nepal crisis centre.

The horror is also close intellectually: one is aware how poor Nepal is. It is one of the least developed countries in the world, and the poorest in terms of per capita income in all of Asia. More than half the population struggle to survive on less than $2 per day, which is why every year one quarter of the young men migrate to exploitative jobs in India or the Gulf States.  Forty per cent of children under 5 are chronically undernourished, and women in rural villages, in the informal economy, or with have ethnic or religious minority backgrounds remain illiterate. Social exclusion and gender discrimination are intrinsic to the social fabric, based on a racist caste system. Governance is weak. 18 000 people died in a civil war not so long ago.

 But Nepal is also a country which despite its fate of recurrent tragedies works hard to create a “new Nepal” with an inclusive society, a democratic secular polity, vocal media and civil society, and bold innovative social policies. A country that is polyglot, religiously tolerant, and welcomes all who come to visit or stay.

The personal, subjective horror of the outside observer, the sadness over yet another tremendous setback to this proud and beautiful and determined nation, is nothing compared to the trauma and pain and shock of our friends in Nepal. For the moment, we outside can cry. Those in the country cannot as they must cope and start rebuilding their lives.   

Gabriele Köhler, Munich
Development economist
Lived and worked  with UNICEF in Nepal from 2005-2009

We have decided to publish this paper with the objective of disseminating the academic presentations made by two group of CEFID-AR’s researchers at the meetings of the Think 20 held in Turkey on the 10th and 11th of February 2015, and in Russia on the 11th of December 2012. The Think 20 is a debate forum composed of academic institutions that interacts with the G20, since Los Cabos (Mexico, 2011) meetings. The CEFID-AR was invited to the meetings held by the T20 in Istanbul and Moscow. The texts included in this document reflect the analysis, opinions and policy proposals on the issues that shaped pre-set agenda in each call. CEFID-AR’s researchers have developed these writings with a heterodox approach that characterizes the centre and therefore pose critical views regarding the still prevailing hegemonic thinking. Below are the links to access the web-pages of these two events, for those readers who wish to internalize on the debates and access the presentations of research centres from other countries.

Guillermo Wierzba
Director CEFID AR

Links
http://t20turkey.org/
http://g20russia.ru/docs/think_20/summary_report.html
http://www.cefid-ar.org.ar/

Dear colleagues,

How to avoid holes in the financing for development? Work on our agenda Post2015 may be of interest 

Best regards, 

Santiago González Vallejo/Union Union Obrera-SOTERMUN. Area Internacional, www.sotermun.es

Susana Ruiz Rodriguz/Oxfam-Intermon. Head of Tax Justice  www.Oxfamintermon.org

Changing the Order and Setting our Agenda: for a World Tax Summit 
In most instances, the trade union movement and social movements are reactive. We respond to government agendas or the global agenda, which, in turn, respond to the interests of the same group - the global economic establishment. There are also, of course, important overlaps, with the same denomination, climate change, tracing the post-2015 route, etc., and we will find ourselves with different readings of how to respond to them and attempts to break out of the framework of the language imposed by the dominant ‘culture’ or pensée unique. But it is time we introduced our vision.

This is relevant to the problem witnessed over decades with economic growth, which has become visible since the onset of the crisis and that many of us consider part of its cause: growing inequality combined with the fall in wage income as a percentage of GDP, a rise in the number of workers and the gradual fall in the weight of public spending, fed by an increasingly regressive tax system. These overlapping dynamics are derivatives of a globalised economy, with its increase in international trade and greater price competition, free movement of capital and savings, and its absence of universal labour, environmental or fiscal standards, etc., resulting in shifts in production and putting downward pressure on social and labour costs (hence the social cuts), in order to save or attract orders, investments and savings, with the consequences previously mentioned.

Yes, the G20 and the OECD - the rich countries’ club, are officially concerned about tax havens and inequality. But whilst they write their reports and design their tax cooperation agreements, the tax havens remain firmly in place, along with the discretionary tax advantages and tax rates offered by many countries for a privileged few, as seen in Juncker’s Luxemburg, and which ultimately only serve to increase unfair tax competition. There are many tax havens, given the number of distinct jurisdictions in many countries. There are, above all, a great deal of abusive schemes in every one of them, such as the SICAV, the Entities Holding Foreign Securities (ETVE) and the ‘tax lease’ tax breaks in Spain, in addition to the multinationals’ tax dodging through aggressive tax planning and patent box schemes, or the huge fraud capacity of digital corporations, all operating as “apparently” legal tax havens. All over, companies, big investors, property owners, black money fraudsters, corrupt individuals and traffickers are being allowed to hoard money and pay no taxes whilst ordinary citizens and workers watch our rights being curtailed and our social benefits being cut.

If, on top of this opaque share of the cake in tax havens, which could amount to 20 trillion euros in hidden money, and the trillion or so euros lost to tax dodging in the European Union alone - enough to solve various problems facing humanity, we add the steamrolling of progressive taxation and the rise in indirect taxes, like VAT, it is not difficult to understand how one or ten percent of the global population manages to accumulate over 50 and 83 per cent of global wealth. If this continues, by next year the richest 1% will amass greater wealth than the remaining 99%.

If we look at what has been happening in recent decades as a result of tax havens, the flattening of progressive taxation, and the consequences in terms of redistribution and the incapability of public institutions to tackle problems such as poverty, be it in Uganda, Mexico, Chicago, Barcelona or Bhopal, we come to the realisation that focusing on tax issues, the criminal lair of tax havens and the tax competition created by multinational and big wealth owners, is an urgent priority on the global agenda.
Fortunately, preparations are underway for a high-level conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in June of this year, on financing for development, within the framework of the discussions on the strategic scenario for the Post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals, to take over from the Millennium Development Goals approved by the United Nations in the year 2000.

Many of the big multinationals’ abusive practices are the result of a global tax system tipped in favour of the interests of the major powers, under which the lack of genuine political will and tax cooperation prevent the filling of the holes through which resources crucial to more just social policies in all countries are allowed to drain. Hence our call for these tax justice issues to be discussed by all countries, as equal partners, at a World Tax Summit, and for the strengthening of financing for cohesive development, in preparation for the founding of an intergovernmental tax body, as part of the United Nations, to develop objectives, measures to achieve them, a timeframe, and monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms on global taxation. This would be a transcendental step towards inclusive and cohesive development.

It is not enough that the OECD is now expressing concern over inequality when, since its foundation, it has been cohabiting with and sheltering opaque jurisdictions and those transgressing even minimal taxation rules. Moreover, the reform it has introduced under the mandate of the G20 to tackle the tax engineering practices of major corporations will likely prove insufficient or tipped in favour of the interests of a select few. How can greater consideration be given to these countries/governments/jurisdictions than to those suffering the consequences? This is why it needs to come under the umbrella of the United Nations. Governments must pay heed to the voice of citizens, not the multinationals or wealth owners. Fiscal justice is a priority and the lack of it must be addressed. This is our agenda

Dear colleagues,

For the first time in Europe a committee for an audit of the debt (with citizens’ participation) was set up under the auspices of a parliament. On Saturday 4 April the president of the Hellenic parliament Zoe Konstantopoulou opened the first official session creating a debt audit committee , also called committee for the truth about the debt - read more in our CADTM news.
Best regards,

Éric Toussaint
Senior Lecturer at the University of Liège,
President of CADTM Belgium (Committee for the Abolition of Third-World Debt)

www.cadtm.org/4-April-2015-a-landmark-in-the

Greece

4 April 2015: a landmark in the search for the truth about the Greek debt

by Eric Toussaint

6 April 2015

Zoe Konstantopoulou read the decree establishing the said committee consisting of Greek and foreign members and defined its essential mission, namely identifying what part of the Greek debt is illegal, illegitimate, odious or unsustainable, in other words establishing the truth about the Greek debt, providing their findings to the Hellenic parliament, the European parliament, to the national parliaments of the EU member States as well as to the Greek and international public opinion. Zoe K. recalled the suffering imposed on the Greek people by the creditors’ demands.

Next the President of the Republic, Prokopis Pavlopoulos, made a substantial speech supporting this major initiative. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and some ten other ministers were also present.

The President of the Hellenic parliament invited MEP Sofia Sakorafa to take the floor. She recounted the five year trial of all those who demand an audit of the debt so as to radically reduce it have been involved in.
Éric Toussaint, Scientific Coordinator of the international team within the committee summed up some of the questions for which the auditing committee will seek answers as it investigates the Greek debt.

The following ministers spoke up in turn: the Defence Minister Panos Kammenos (who is also President of the party of Independent Greeks); the Minister for Administrative Reforms George Katrougalos; the Minister of state for the struggle against corruption Panayotis Nikoloudis; the Minister of justice Nikos Paraskevopoulos; the Minister for European affairs Nikos Chountis; deputy defence Minister Costas Isychos; Finance Minister Yannis Varoufakis; the deputy Minister for culture Nikos Xydakis; the Minister of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks Christos Spirtzis.

The head of the Parliamentary Budget Office Panagiotis Liargkovas and the head of the Parliamentary Scientific Service Professor Pliakos also spoke.
All mentioned essential elements for a successful auditing of the Greek debt, and all committed their ministries or departments to actively supporting the project.

Afterwards three members of the auditing committee took the floor, namely Cephas Lumina, former United Nations Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights; Margot Salomon, Director of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics, and Maria Lucia Fattorelli, former member of the committee auditing the debt of Ecuador and Coordinator of the Citizen Debt Audit-Brazil.

The whole session, that lasted from 2 p.m. to 7.45 p.m., was broadcast live on the Hellenic parliament television channel, which is steadily winning more viewers in the country.
The audit committee will continue its investigation on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday.
The Sunday session started with jurist Georges Kasamatis’ intervention. It was broadcast by the Hellenic parliament television channel: http://www.hellenicparliament.gr/En... https://parltv.live.grnet.gr/webtv/

Eric Toussaint’s speech 4th April 2015 – Hellenic parliament The Committee will audit the Greek debt in the coming months, aimed at finding out whether part of the Greek public debt is illegitimate, illegal, odious or unsustainable.

Without claiming to be exhaustive, one can propose the following definitions:

1. Illegitimate public debt : debt that was contracted by a government without considering the public interest, a debt contracted in favour of a privileged minority.
2. Illegal debt : debt contracted in violation of the current legal or constitutional system.
3. Odious public debt : granted on conditions that violate fundamental human rights (the social, economic, cultural, civic, and political rights of the people).
4. Unsustainable public debt : debt that can only be paid back with dire consequences for the people such as a dramatic degradation of their living conditions, of access to health care or education, an increase in unemployment.

In short, debt that undermines basic human rights.

In other words, an unsustainable debt is a debt whose repayment makes it impossible for governments to guarantee to the population fundamental human rights (good public health system, good public educational system, good social protection system, decent wages and pensions, etc.)

Paragraph 9 of Article 7 of Regulation No 472/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 (which strongly undermines the sovereignty of the member States that have to implement adjustment policies) maintains that States subject to structural adjustment should carry out a complete audit of public debt in order to explain why indebtedness increased so sharply and to identify any irregularities. Here is the text in full: “A Member State subject to a macroeconomic adjustment programme shall carry out a comprehensive audit of its public finances in order, inter alia, to assess the reasons that led to the building up of excessive levels of debt as well as to track any possible irregularity”. |1|

Citizen participation is fundamental to a rigorous and independent audit process.

Here are some key questions that could be tackled by auditing the Greek debt.

Greek debt was at 113% of GDP in 2009 before the onset of the Greek crisis and the intervention by the IMF and the European institutions involved in the Memorandum reached 175% of GDP in 2014. How could we explain that? Are there irregularities in the huge increase of the debt?

The audit will analyse the legality and legitimacy of the so-called bail-out process.

Is it in conformity with European treaties (especially Article 125 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which prohibits EU countries from taking on the financial engagements of another EU country)?

Did it comply with normal EU decision making procedure?

Did the public lenders in 2010 (the 14 EU countries that granted Greece €53 billion of loans, the IMF, the ECB, the European Commission etc.) respect the full consent of the borrower, Greece, or was Greece acting under coercion?

Did these creditors impose one-sided conditions such as excessive interest rates on the loans? |2|
Did the 14 EU member States that each granted Greece a bilateral loan respect their own laws and constitutions, as well as those of Greece?

Another purpose is to audit the actions of the IMF. We know that at the IMF Executive Board meeting of 9 May 2010 several members of the IMF Executive Board (the Brazilian, the Swiss, the Argentine, the Indian, the Chinese members) had expressed considerable reservations regarding the loan granted by the IMF, pointing out, among other things, that Greece would not be able to repay it due to the policies that were being imposed on the country |3| . See the revelations made by The Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013... See also: http://greece.greekreporter.com/201...

Recently, Paulo Nogueira Batista, one of the IMF’s executive directors, claims that all IMF board members knew that the loan was actually intended to save the French and German banks not Greece. |4| the revelations made by The Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013... See also: http://greece.greekreporter.com/201...

Philippe Legrain, advisor to the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso in 2010 when the Troika granted its loan, specifies that ‘IMF decision makers were overruled by the IMF Managing Director of the time, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was then running for the French presidency and consequently wanted to prevent French banks from facing losses. Similarly German banks had persuaded Angela Merkel that it would be terrible if ever they should lose money. So the Eurozone governments decided to pretend that Greece was only facing temporary problems.’ They had to bypass ‘an essential principle in the Maastricht Treaty, namely the no-bail out clause. The loans to Athens were not intended to save Greece but the French and German banks that had been foolish enough to grant loans to an insolvent State.’

Private European banks were thus replaced by the Troika as Greece’s main creditor as from late 2010.

Did the ECB has respected its mandate?

The audit must also evaluate whether the strict conditions imposed on Greece by the Troika in exchange for the loans it received has respected their international human rights obligations - such as the right to health care, to education, housing, social security, to a fair wage, and also freedom of association and collective bargaining.

These rights are protected by a range of conventions or other instruments at international and European level, such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter, the two UN Human Rights Covenants, the UN Charter, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and also the basic conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

The audit will need to verify whether, as provided for in Regulation (EU) No. 472/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 May, 2013, mentioned above, “The draft macroeconomic adjustment programme… fully observe[s] Article 152 TFEU and Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.” The audit must also verify whether the following passage of the Regulation is adhered to: “The budgetary consolidation efforts set out in the macroeconomic adjustment programme shall take into account the need to ensure sufficient means for fundamental policies, such as education and health care.” It must also be determined whether the following fundamental principle of the Regulation has been applied: “Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that, in defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union is to take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health.”

There are also 3 conditions proposed to define an odious debt

• lack of consent;
• lack of benefit to the population;
• awareness of the lenders.

Conclusions: The Committee will audit the Greek debt in the coming months, aimed at finding out whether part of the Greek public debt is illegitimate, illegal, odious or unsustainable.

notes articles:

|1| http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013R0472

|2| The interest rates imposed in 2010-201 were between 4% and 5.5%. In 2012 they were, after protests (including from the Irish government who was also asked to pay high interest in 2010), reduced to 1%. Lowering the rate was a tacit acknowledgement by the 14 States that the interest rates were too high.

|3| See the revelations made by The Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/10/07/imf-document-excerpts-disagreements-revealed/ See also: http://greece.greekreporter.com/2013/10/08/secret-imf-report-shows-greek-bailout-worries/

|4| http://www.marianne.net/on-renfloue-grece-sauver-les-banques-francaises-allemandes-100231807.html

Post-2015: Measuring the (real) scope of ambition

Barbara Adams, Gretchen Luchsinger

The post-2015 development agenda aspires to global transformation. Its content so far, including the set of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) agreed in last year’s Open Working Group, affirms that aim through an unprecedented commitment to inclusion, sustainability and universality. This suggests that the world might finally move beyond current imbalanced patterns of consumption and production that have left wide swathes of human deprivation and pushed the limits of planetary boundaries.

Yet the main question, after the most recent intergovernmental negotiations on the agenda in March in New York, is: will the political process live up to the agenda’s promise? It is still early days in forging global consensus, but given the stakes at hand, momentum is critical. Will governments and all other actors exercise the kind of visionary leadership and risk-taking that transformation demands? Or will they fall back on protecting familiar vested interests and avoid risk by seeking easier, quicker agreement? Does the calculation of political risk overwhelm the very urgent imperative to take serious action on urgent issues—namely, the long-term survival of people and the planet?

Eyes on the issues, via process and politics

Many issues are essential to the sustainable development agenda. There are clear rationales for singling out actions on gender equality, labour rights, quality health and education services, the conservation of oceans, clean and accessible energy and so on. There are technical aspects related to advancing and measuring progress on each. But what do all have in common beyond being integral—and integrated—elements of a sustainable development agenda? All depend on deep-seated political commitment to transformative change, as should be reflected in the post-2015 negotiations.

This commitment needs to be rooted in genuine fairness and cooperation, because transformation, in a real sense, will require people to work together, to move beyond just their own interests, and to share limited resources in a far more equitable manner. Without these shifts, and the significant redirections in global political and economic dynamics they imply, progress on any issue, from reducing poverty to saving forests, will automatically be constrained, and probably not sustainable.

The most recent round of negotiations suggested this understanding was not quite in play among all delegates. Some sought to switch the narrative mainly to national or narrow issue interests, and away from global ones. They know that from here on, containing the agenda means controlling the scope of the outcome.

Thwarted ambition?

The March session was dedicated to the post-2015 goals, targets and indicators. Much of the week was spent on intensive talks around whether or not to reopen negotiations on the targets affirmed by the Open Working Group for the 17 SDGs. Rich countries mostly pushed for reopening; developing countries opposed this as threatening the “delicate political balance” crafted last year. Among 169 previously agreed targets, the rich country argument centred on 19 for which the UN Secretariat had suggested technical “improvements.” These covered filling some remaining gaps marked by placeholder “x’s” and adjusting language inconsistent with or weaker than existing international agreements. A few rich countries went beyond the 19 and suggested that many other targets should also be improved, contending that the post-2015 agenda needs to be as ambitious as possible, and therefore should be guided by the most ambitious targets.

But was this really about ambition? The Open Working Group agreement took many months of hard negotiations to conclude. Only a few months remain before the September Summit, where heads of state and government will descend on New York to endorse the final post-2015 agenda.

Is it possible that some rich countries pushed as far as they did on opening the agenda so that developing countries would dig in and resist all attempts to do so? This approach to making global agreements protects the “delicate political balance,” but reduces prospects for collaboration to fine-tune the targets and possibly to reach agreement at the Third Conference on Financing for Development.

A dose of essential medicine

The calls for being ambitious in some instances attempted to hide the reality of a lack of ambition—perhaps from a concern late in the game that the post-2015 agenda goes too far, at least from the perspective of some vested interests. Rich countries urged alignment with existing international standards—fair enough. Who wants to backtrack? Except… behind the scenes some were insisting on maintaining a reference to access to “essential” medicines and obstructing a broader reference to medicines in general that would have brought target language in line with the 2001 Doha Declaration.

Worth keeping in mind is that revenues for global pharmaceutical companies, mostly based in rich countries, have soared from $390 billion in 2001 to nearly $1 trillion in 2013, approximately the period of the MDGs. These companies currently spend much more on selling products than researching new drugs, focus little attention on diseases afflicting poorer people and countries, and, if patterns across transnational corporations hold, pay a scant amount towards the taxes developing countries need to provide essential services. Can we talk about transformation and ambition if the idea is just a kind of MDG+, where developing countries are expected to improve their health systems, somehow, without sufficient resources and affordable access to all medicines? What might transformation look like if it began with those who have a highly disproportionate share of resources, rather than with those without enough for the basics of development?

An indicator of what’s ahead

Delegates agreed that the process of defining indicators under each of the 169 targets should be taken up by the UN Statistics Commission, with completion of the work expected in the first part of 2016. As many pointed out, designing correct indicators is a technical process that requires statistical expertise, amply provided by the national statisticians who sit on the commission.

Yet indicators are also political, including through their selection, which explains the multiple calls to ensure political oversight of the commission’s work. Postponing indicator selection to 2016 means that they will be decided outside the global spotlight currently shining on the post-2015 agenda. Countries intent on reducing their commitments and responsibilities could use the process for backdoor “re-engineering.” Alternatively, lower political pressure could provide opportunities to improve the quality and ambition of the agenda. Whether the choice becomes to scale up or scale down, measurement will largely determine what’s visible, what’s financed, who’s accountable, and what can actually be claimed as progress (or the opposite).

Many areas of the sustainable development agenda have not yet been measured, but that does not mean that they cannot be measured—in some cases, the obstacles are as much political as technical. Similarly, many statistical offices especially in poorer countries have low capacities—one delegate described how enacting the much simpler set of MDG indicators took 11 years. But capacities can be developed with adequate support, particularly from those with the greatest ability (and responsibility) to provide assistance. The indicators are, again, a chance for aiming high—or remaining stuck in the status quo.

A few good ideas…

Since the post-2015 agenda is universal, it will call on rich countries, for the first time, to report to the United Nations on progress under each of the targets and indicators. The March session saw a number of rich countries starting to describe their plans to implement the agenda within their own borders. Their presentations included acknowledgment that a paradigm shift is at work, and that they need to take steps including to improve their own statistical capacities—providing an unusual “leveling” sense of how all countries, rich and poor, face some similar issues. Presentations by diverse developing countries injected a further note of optimism, with some already well advanced in integrating the SDGs in national planning.

Another positive was repeated emphasis on the integrated nature of the post-2015 agenda—beyond the so-called “delicate political balance,” many people realize that while the agenda may feel messy and complex at times, all issues must be dealt with together. Some calls to simplify and aggregate indicators were met by equally strong voices emphasizing that even if it requires more time and resources, disaggregation is critical to making everyone and every issue visible. One developing country delegate underscored that the real point is to start looking at causes, not just symptoms.

What’s Not on the Agenda?

While rich countries have started to talk about how they will implement the post-2015 agenda, their focus is almost exclusively on actions they will take at home—to improve gender equality, reduce food waste, green the economy and reduce child poverty, for example—and on how they will spend foreign aid budgets. But if the goal is transformation, rich countries need to act equally on the principle of do no harm, and embrace a broader notion of international responsibility. Do no harm is contradicted by current global spillover effects from tax evasion and currency manipulation, to cite just two examples. International responsibility is not just about aid, but about addressing systemic obstacles, such as undemocratic international financial governance and a lack of financial regulation. For more, see Goals for the Rich.

Unpacking a Word…

Technical. It sounds desirable, coming with the imprimatur of evidence and scientific purpose. The word has been used often in discussing the alignment of goals, targets and indicators in the post-2015 agenda. And yet, in an environment where trust is shaky, the technical easily verges on the political. A proposed technical proofing of the targets soon became referred to as a political proofing by developing country delegates, aware of how political choices were being made through the language and selection of the targets and indicators.

Rich countries repeatedly claimed to be upholding high technical standards, but here’s how that can work. One such delegate suggested making “meaningful technical improvements” to a target on development-oriented policies that support productive activities. He first defined this as being about an enabling business environment, and then proposed a new target with a number for new business start-ups, cutting out previous references to development and decent job creation. He argued for being clear and precise.

There is, however, a great deal of clarity about how starting businesses does not automatically translate into enough decent jobs. Precision, at least in terms of alignment with the post-2015 agenda, requires making the link between business growth and employment, because the point is not just to create new enterprises and hope for trickle down, but to reduce poverty and inequalities, and improve human well-being—decent jobs being basic requirements for all these aims. For more on decent work, see the most recent ECOSOC Integration Segment.

Looking ahead to FfD3

The next post-2015 session (20-24 April) will take up the issue of means of implementation, on the heels of the first round of negotiations on the draft outcome document for the Third Conference on Financing for Development (13-17 April). Each of the first 16 SDGs includes targets on means of implementation; the 17th goal is about strengthening the means of implementation overall, through targets on finance, technology and capacity building, among others.

There is currently a lack of clarity on how the two processes intersect. What is clear is that the structure of the global economy—which determines the flow of finance, investment, technology, capacities, and so on—will define the success or failure of the goals. Some rich countries would like to incorporate the FfD3 outcome agreement as the means of implementation “pillar” of post-2015; many developing countries fear this could potentially undermine the means specified under each goal. It could also dilute the scope of the FfD3 agreement, which has a mandate beyond the SDGs, and places stronger and more detailed emphasis on systemic, structural issues.

The post-2015 agenda, for example, currently talks about improving domestic tax capacity—in part to pay for the many public services essential to a variety of the SDGs. FfD3 provides scope for moving efforts to stem illicit financial flows, 80 percent of which are due to tax evasion, outside the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and into a more democratic and globally representative UN Tax Commission.

The post-2015 agenda calls for addressing the external debt of poor countries, which can soak up resources that might otherwise go towards development. FfD3 could establish a debt workout mechanism that is situated in a neutral, intergovernmental forum, rather than being run by creditors, unbound by responsible lending principles, as is current practice.

Looking forward to FfD3, some issues to keep an eye on include discussions around access to countercyclical finance during downturns in order to stimulate recovery. The concept of the global partnership for sustainable development could be more precise in defining the roles and obligations of different actors, and upholding the central roles of states.

Definition is particularly needed for the private sector, where current incentive structures more often than not undercut sustainable development. Businesses may make logical partners for some infrastructure projects. Their activities can also be the source of financial instability and crisis, not to mention many social and environmental ills. For their part, private foundations, while offering an influx of new funds in recent years, have run up against criticisms that they distort public programmes with little in the way of accountability beyond their own boards.


What’s Happening Next

Post–2015 negotiations

• 20–24 April: Means of implementation and global partnership for sustainable development
• 18–22 May: Follow–up and review
• 22–25 June: Intergovernmental negotiations on the outcome document
• 6-8 July: High-level Political Forum, “Strengthening integration, implementation and review—the HLPF after 2015”
• 6-10 July: ECOSOC High-level Segment, “Managing the transition from the Millennium Development Goals to the sustainable development goals: What will it take?”
• 20-24 July, 27-31 July: Intergovernmental negotiations on the outcome document
• 25-27 September: UN Summit: “Delivering on and Implementing a Transformative Post-2015 Development Agenda”

FfD3 negotiations

• 8-9 April: Civil Society and Business Sector Hearings
• 8-10 April: Development Cooperation Forum, “Development cooperation for people and planet: What will it take?”
• 13–17 April: Intergovernmental negotiations on the outcome document
• 15–19 June: Intergovernmental negotiations on the outcome document
• 13–16 July: 3rd Conference on Financing for Development

To Find Out More

• UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform
• Proposals for the SDGs
• Financing for Development III: official website
• Statistics Commission
• ECOSOC Integration Segment
• The Reflection Group

Goals for the rich

Dear all,

Sharing below link to a blog posted by the colleagues at the UK TUC:

http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2015/04/a-cautionary-tale-pension-funds-and-the-infrastructure-bandwagon/ 

Best,

Aldo Caliari
Director
Rethinking Bretton Woods Project
Center of Concern

Hello all. Thanks to Thomas and Selim for their very interesting texts and attachments/links.

It is not a surprise that The individual Deprivation Measure is not included in Lin Yang's Inventory of Composite Measures of Human Progress, as this inventory only includes 5 measures classified under the entry Poverty, three of them carried out by UNDP.

Imitating Thomas, I dare to send all of you two attachments containing chapters 4 and 5 of a draft book on which I am still working. Chapter 4 contains a Typology of Poverty Measurement Methods, with emphasis on combined (i.e. containing both income and direct indicators of deprivation) multidimensional methods. Chapter 5 is called Principles of Multidimensional Poverty. These principles I have applied for my IPMM (Integrated Poverty Measurement Method) which I developed at the beginning of the nineties and have been applying (and improving) since then. This method is explained in the last section of chapter 4. The typology contained has not (yet) been actualised to include Alkire-Santos method now used by UNDP.

I beg all of you to send me commentaries, suggestions, critiques that will be of great help in preparing the last version of these chapters.

Julio Boltvinik    
   
Julio Botvinik
Professor at El Colegio de México, Mexico City
www.julioboltvinik.org