|
|
A Critical
Evaluation of the Draft Outcome of the International Conference on
Financing for Development
General comments: Following two years of preparations, negotiations and discussions of several drafts, the Financing for Development process has now reached the end of the road and will be held in less than 3 weeks. The last and final PrepCom, held in January 2002, produced a draft paper expected to be signed by all parties in Monterrey, Mexico. It is this document – known as the Monterrey Consensus (MC) – which this NGO evaluation will be addressing. We would initially like to draw the attention of the reader to the fact that we, - from the NGOs’ side, are clearly dissatisfied with the content as well as the language of the document. Unlike with the previous documents, we find the last and final draft to be significantly deteriorated. It is however not our intention to undertake a critical comparison between the MC paper and the previous drafts. We would just like to clarify the fact that, from the NGOs points of view, Monterrey Consensus is not the ideal outcome. It is actually far from what NGOs have worked towards achieving throughout the entire preparatory process. Financing for Development is considered by many to be a success. This perception is further reinforced through the constant references to the involvement of powerful actors/stakeholders in the context of UN conferences. Attention is drawn in particular to the involvement of and the dialogue achieved with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as well as civil society and the private sector. This success can in itself not compensate for the obvious lack of substance and real commitment that the process has brought about and which furthermore was materialised in the form of the Draft Outcome. The overwhelming attention cast on the process and the actors, as well the conference follow-up towards the Draft Outcomes final content, can in this case be interpreted as a cover for the process’s inability to produce results which live up to the original intentions of the Financing for Development conference. The negotiations were inadvertently weakened by compromise politics caused by the pressure to achieve a globally accepted consensus paper. In our opinion the consensus paper reflects to a great extent the interests of the United States, who have in this process managed to exert great political pressure on numerous areas of contention. This comment equally applies to the European Union and other industrialised countries. NGOs have only left a limited impression on the Monterrey Consensus document. The European NGOs are generally disappointed with the EU negotiation tactics at the last two PrepComs in New York. Language: From an NGO perspective the paper can be described as very weak and with a very few exceptions almost meaningless. The Monterrey Consensus missed a crucial opportunity to achieve numerous substantive results and it refers to only few real commitments. The language is weak and most of the suggestions are not even specific enough to be operationalised. The use of language is soft and it refers to “consider, encourage, invite, and welcome consideration”. Rather imprecise statements such as “the need to ensure, stress the need” are widely practiced. The strongest verbs used in the document are “recognize, acknowledge, encourage and urge”. All in all there are only eight commitments or formulations, which can be considered committal; words such as “affirm, will implement, will ensure, resolve, underscore” (§ 23, 26ter, 38, 40, 47, 59, 60 and 62) are used in this context. Most of these formulations are to be found in the Trade Chapter, which primarily reaffirms those decisions passed in Doha, as well as a few on ODA and Systemic Issues. There is clearly a lack of real commitment and political will for financing of development, while there are very many observations about the problems that plague the world we all live in. Content: There is a skewed balance between the responsibility of developing countries for their own development on one side and the international responsibility in terms of aid and economic and international frameworks, on the other. The main outcome of the January negotiations was the shift in balance of the six FfD themes in such a way that the primary focus now lies on the subject of “Mobilising Domestic Financial Resources for Development”. The assumption that the responsibility for development is primarily the responsibility of the individual countries is recurring through the whole document and is incorporated in all of its chapters. Another general clue in the Monterrey Consensus document is that the vision for development builds on the neo-liberal economic/political model with main emphasis on the reliance on market forces, trade liberalisation and FDI as elements of external development dynamics. (We wander if it is the first time we see a UN document, which so clearly and straightforwardly expresses the political and economic adherence to the neo-liberal line of thought?) Regarding the need to find increased means for the financing of development targets and for the solving of global problems, there has, from the point of view of the industrialised countries, always existed a clear attitude to the fact that this is not a question of “more financial means” but instead a question of a better and more effective use of the already existing means as well as a demand for good governance and sound economic policies. - This attitude is apparent is apparent in the whole document and is strongly expressed in the themes: debt, ODA, international financial resources (where the question of innovative financial resources as well as the question of Global Public Goods is completely erased from the document) Reform of international financial institutions and World Trade Organisation (WTO): There was a whole lot of unwillingness from the industrialised countries to discuss and formulate demands regarding democratisation and transparency and only one vague reference to §47 was recorded. The official explanation was that UN conferences are not mandated to discuss IFI and WTO mandates despite the fact that IFI/WTO are stakeholders in Financing for Development, and that central IFI representatives participate in the FfD process. The original principles of the Millennium Declaration and the 1990s UN conferences are weakened. The human rights based approach to development is recurrently opted out of as a framework and there are only scattered references to it. The same comment applies to women and gender aspects of development. The social and economic realities of poor women and girls in LDCs are not reflected in the document. The central problems regarding gender equality and women’s economic rights are not incorporated in the text. The formulations regarding the mainstreaming of gender in development policies on all levels - § 58, Systemic Issues is good but lacks the recognition that it should apply to all macroeconomic policies. Gender is absent from all chapters regarding Mobilising International Resources, Trade, International Cooperation (ODA) and Debt. It is our provisional conclusion that the Monterrey Consensus bears a mark of a lost opportunity to create a new and innovative frame for the financing of development anchored in the Millennium Declaration and the 1990’s UN resolutions – a new consensus based on other and alternative values to those that already are found in the Washington Consensus – with a clear base in human rights rather than market forces and which builds on a joint international effort and interacts with individual countries’ own responsibility. We believe this shift, particularly in the light of September 11th, to be most worrying. In a world where economic globalisation leads to greater differences between rich and poor, women and men and where large groups of population in the South live below the poverty line and are marginalized due to a lack of development, disease, conflicts/wars and natural disasters. It is absolutely shameful that the Western world/industrialised countries and international financial institutions are not ready to contribute. Compared to the enormous amounts of money that are now raised for security, anti-terrorism and anti-terror wars, it is simply appalling. Denmark and the European Union ought to lead the claim before the OECD countries and USA about the adherence to active multi-lateralism and a security policy, which is based on international involvement in an extended development co-operation, dialogue and strengthened poverty eradication. Critical remarks: Our critical remarks to the FfD Final Draft Outcome are as follows: - Co-operation with civil society is not visible enough, particularly in the section dealing with Systemic Issues, where it was attempted to include all stakeholders. - The possibility to establish a consistent human rights framework for development is out of the picture. - References to “Sustainable Development” that is on the agenda in the preparations to the WSSD (Rio-10) are missing. - The existing global governance power relations are not infringed upon. - No new processes in the field of increased international tax co-operation are established. - The Monterrey Consensus undermines Millennium development targets, although they are recurrently referred to in the document. - Monterrey Consensus ignores new approaches such as the debate on Global Public Goods and their financing. The previous §37 has completely disappeared from the text. - Monterrey Consensus has not been able to assign the UN-system a clear role regarding governance of the global economic relations, even though the UN General Assembly assumes a focal point role and even though ECOSOC will be strengthened. - The suggestion on double ODA is dropped. In fact, there is only talk of making the already existing financial means more effective, or simply to relocate them. Only few EU countries have expressed willingness to increase financial donations. Conclusion: Based on the abovementioned general analysis and points of criticism we would like to express our dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Financing for Development process and the Draft Outcome document Monterrey Consensus that is now finally negotiated and which awaits signing by Heads of States in Monterrey, Mexico. We are aware of the fact that there no longer is an opportunity to influence the language and content of the paper. Instead we do find it necessary to direct attention to those initiatives, which individual countries and regions such as EU, will contribute to in the follow-up process. It is also be important to focus on the planned Round Table discussions, which will take place in Mexico at the actual conference. These Round Tables will presumably set the stage for continued processes in several areas, such as the FfD follow-up. The official FfD team at the UN, as well as governments of countries involved, emphasise that Monterrey Consensus is but a start of a process, which reaches far into the future. It is this process that us, the NGOs, should seek to influence with good suggestions about the innovative approaches to financing and a more prospective FfD follow-up process. Abstract: It is our opinion that the pressure to achieve a global consensus has sidetracked the Financing for Development negotiations regarding the final outcome. From an NGO perspective the Monterrey Consensus is as such very weak and with very few exceptions, meaningless. It refers to very few real commitments. The language is weak and most of the suggestions in the text are not concrete enough to be operationalised. An expedient opportunity, which could have been used to achieve some substantial results, has now been lost. Monterrey Consensus is clearly an expression of a lack of real commitment and political will to finance development. The document demonstrates a skewed balance between the responsibility of individual countries for their own development and the responsibility of the international community, hereby the industrialised countries and international financial institutions. Monterrey Consensus demonstrates a lost opportunity to create international support system regarding new and innovative frameworks for the financing of development and a new consensus based on values different to those that are already in the so called Washington Consensus – particularly with the emphasis on market forces rather than human rights and the joint international effort intertwined with the responsibility of individual countries. If Monterrey Consensus should have any real international meaning, also as follow-up to the Millennium Declaration and as a start point for a long and fruitful FfD process, it is important to from now on think and contribute with concrete and more innovative approaches, particularly those outside the frames set by the document. The development needs of the poor men and women as well as equality in the developing countries should be brought forward including the right to a decent and humane existence. Furthermore, suggestions relating to how money should be raised in order to practically realise the Millennium poverty targets before year 2015 are more than welcome! |
|
|