The
UN development finance summit
in Addis Ababa was disappointing. Member states failed to address a
host of flaws in international financial policy that, tackled
effectively, could have done much for human rights, especially women’s
rights and gender equality.
The
final agreement,
known as the Addis Ababa action agenda, is almost entirely devoid of
specific proposals that can be swiftly implemented, and fails to rise to
the world’s multiple challenges.
The
women’s working group on financing for development
said the talks had damaged the integrity of the development finance
agenda, retreating from commitments made on several issues at previous
conferences in
Monterrey and
Doha.
The group added that the chance to remove global obstacles to
development and set the right priorities, policies and rules for
financing the
sustainable development goals – as well as the full implementation of other internationally agreed development agendas, such as the
Beijing platform on
gender equality and the
Cairo programme of action on population growth and development – had been missed.
There is strong evidence that a lack of regulation in the financial
sector is one of the primary causes of economic crises such as the 2008
global financial crash, which resulted in greater inequality and
instability throughout the world and particularly affected women in the
global south.
A
2009 UN conference
on the effect of the financial crash on development made
recommendations and commitments to prevent future crises, yet none of
these were factored into the Addis agenda. Instead, the new accord
continues to promote the
International Monetary Fund as the only international safety net for global stability.
The Addis agenda may pay lip service to women’s rights and gender
equality, but in reality it seeks to make the contribution of women to
the global economy predominantly about growth and productivity.
Rather than encouraging states to remove obstacles to development,
mobilise official development assistance and commit adequate public
resources, this approach puts the emphasis on private sector
contributions.
As a result, little attention is given to structural barriers to
women’s economic rights or their ability to access, own and control
economic resources. The unequal distribution of unpaid care work, poor
access to health care services and natural resources, persistent gender
discrimination in the labour market – all went largely ignored by the
Addis delegates.
There was a big push at the conference for the recognition of strong
public finance as the most important source of development funding.
Taxation is key to raising funds to build comprehensive social
protection systems that provide universal access to quality social
services.
However, the resistance shown by OECD countries to the creation of a
UN intergovernmental tax body has been unacceptable – it is their
multinationals that lead the list of tax avoiders, after all – and
reasserts the current undemocratic and unfair status quo.
In addition, many OECD governments are shying away from aid
commitments, preferring instead to rely on private sector contributions
in the form of foreign direct investment and public-private
partnerships. Again, this is problematic.
As the women’s working group argues, private sector activities,
including public-private partnerships, are promoted in the Addis agenda
with scant regard for accountability mechanisms to uphold human rights
standards, including environmental and social safeguards. Moreover,
insufficient attention has been paid to the cost of public-private
partnerships and the quality of services and infrastructure they will
deliver.
This is a real problem: imagine a company partners with a government
to provide economic opportunities for women through garment production.
Is this a step forward if the women are employed on the lowest salary
scale, with no social protection, while the company pays little or no
tax in the country where the business is based?
That is why the UN human rights council’s rather marginalised efforts to develop an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations needs stronger recognition.
As we mark the 20th anniversary of the Beijing platform, with
critical areas still lagging, it is unacceptable that developed
countries are not committing to scale up their share of overseas
development assistance for achieving gender equality.
As Dinah Musindarwezo, executive director of
Femnet,
told participants in Addis: “Political will to gender justice and
women’s rights is not matched by the needed resources in the (Addis
agenda) text”.
We welcome the commitment in the Addis accord to track and report
resource allocation for gender equality and women’s empowerment, but the
funds are still insufficient. Feminists and women’s rights
organisations have proven the importance of their work on the ground and
need to be adequately resourced.
Whether the Addis agenda represents another missed opportunity for
building a better global framework for development finance – one that
works towards the achievement of women’s rights and gender equality –
will become clear only with time.
Even at this early stage, the future does not look too promising. But
maybe the Addis agenda will at least open the door to advocacy for
those of us who harbour high ambitions for change.
SOURCE: www.theguardian.com
