Civil Society Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE), Asia Pacific Regional CSO Engagement Mechanism, Women’s Major Group (WMG)
Post-‐2015
Intergovernmental
Negotiations
Session,
March
2015
Interactive
Dialogue
with
major
groups
and
other
stakeholders,
March
25
Maria
Theresa
Nera-‐Lauron
Civil
Society
Partnership
for
Development
Effectiveness
(CPDE),
Asia
Pacific
Regional
CSO
Engagement
Mechanism,
Women’s
Major
Group
(WMG)
In
the
Philippines,
like
many
other
countries,
statistics
have
been
used
to
mask
poverty
and
inequalities
between
rich
and
poor,
men
and
women.
A
few
magical
waves
of
statistical
wands
support
governments’
claim
that
poverty
has
been
greatly
reduced,
and
that
globalization
has
been
good
for
all.
But
walk
with
me
through
the
slums
of
Manila
and
I
will
show
you
that
poverty,
no
matter
how
it’s
measured,
is
deeply
felt
by
millions.
Come
to
our
rural
communities
and
see
how
resource
grabs,
the
privatization
of
water,
energy,
education
and
health
are
greater
indicators
of
misery.
Statistics
are
political
acts.
They
matter
for
those
we
choose
to
count.
They
matter
even
more
for
those
we
don’t
count.
The
use
of
the
World
Bank’s
poverty
measurement
and
the
failure
to
measure
the
concentration
of
wealth
are
two
political
statistical
choices
designed
to
continue
the
malevolent
fiction
that
neo-‐liberalism
is
good
for
the
world.
Anywhere
in
the
world,
USD1.25/person/day
is
a
starvation
rate.
It
suggests
that
it’s
acceptable
for
3.5
billion
people
in
the
global
south
to
live
on
the
equivalent
of
minimum
wage
in
a
wealthy
country
with
no
benefits
or
public
services.1
That
is
a
morally
reprehensible
assertion
that
values
the
lives
of
the
vast
majority
of
the
world
less
than
those
in
the
developed
world.
The
World
Bank’s
changing
the
base
year
for
the
statistic
is
another
reprehensible
manipulation
to
make
the
poor
‘disappear’2.
The
statistics
we
select
should
measure
transformation.
And
it’s
not
hard.
We
can
measure:
-‐ growing
wealth
inequalities
between
countries
and
between
people;
-‐ how
much
of
the
world’s
wealth
sits
in
offshore
bank
accounts;
-‐ whether
a
country
provides
living
wages;
1
David
Woodward,
http://newint.org/features/special/2010/07/01poverty-‐line-‐definition/
2
Sanjay
Reddy
and
Thomas
Pogge,
‘How
NOT
to
count
the
poor’
http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/count.pdf
-‐ the
ratio
between
labour
share
and
profits.
We
could
even
measure
the
time
it
takes
the
world’s
richest
person
to
gain
what
a
Bangladeshi
garment
worker
will
earn
in
a
year
(which
is
one
second,
by
the
way).
We
can
measure
policies,
not
just
outcomes.
We
can
measure:
-‐ military
spending
and
compare
it
to
public
health
spending;
-‐ taxes
paid
by
corporations
and
by
the
wealthy;
-‐ interest
in
loans
paid
by
developing
countries;
-‐ how
many
trade
agreements
are
subject
to
human
rights
and
gender
audits.
These
would
be
statistics
faithful
to
the
Open
Working
Group
(OWG)
goals
and
targets
(SDGs).
We
should
not
restrict
the
number
of
indicators
nor
the
political
intention
of
the
indicators.
Civil
society
and
proportional
representation
from
the
G77
countries
in
the
expert
group
is
crucial.
For
instance,
the
proposed
indicator
for
redistributing
unpaid
care
work
is
the
distance
to
fetch
water.
Of
course
it
is
important
to
measure
women’s
access
to
publicly
available
water
through
Goal
6,
but
here
we
need
to
measure
public
investment
in
care
services
–
surely
that
was
the
intention.
Civil
society
can
play
a
powerful
role
in
monitoring
the
SDGs,
connecting
local
realities
to
global
policy
debates,
building
new
paradigms
for
social
transformation.
###
Intergovernmental
Negotiations
Session,
March
2015
Interactive
Dialogue
with
major
groups
and
other
stakeholders,
March
25
Maria
Theresa
Nera-‐Lauron
Civil
Society
Partnership
for
Development
Effectiveness
(CPDE),
Asia
Pacific
Regional
CSO
Engagement
Mechanism,
Women’s
Major
Group
(WMG)
In
the
Philippines,
like
many
other
countries,
statistics
have
been
used
to
mask
poverty
and
inequalities
between
rich
and
poor,
men
and
women.
A
few
magical
waves
of
statistical
wands
support
governments’
claim
that
poverty
has
been
greatly
reduced,
and
that
globalization
has
been
good
for
all.
But
walk
with
me
through
the
slums
of
Manila
and
I
will
show
you
that
poverty,
no
matter
how
it’s
measured,
is
deeply
felt
by
millions.
Come
to
our
rural
communities
and
see
how
resource
grabs,
the
privatization
of
water,
energy,
education
and
health
are
greater
indicators
of
misery.
Statistics
are
political
acts.
They
matter
for
those
we
choose
to
count.
They
matter
even
more
for
those
we
don’t
count.
The
use
of
the
World
Bank’s
poverty
measurement
and
the
failure
to
measure
the
concentration
of
wealth
are
two
political
statistical
choices
designed
to
continue
the
malevolent
fiction
that
neo-‐liberalism
is
good
for
the
world.
Anywhere
in
the
world,
USD1.25/person/day
is
a
starvation
rate.
It
suggests
that
it’s
acceptable
for
3.5
billion
people
in
the
global
south
to
live
on
the
equivalent
of
minimum
wage
in
a
wealthy
country
with
no
benefits
or
public
services.1
That
is
a
morally
reprehensible
assertion
that
values
the
lives
of
the
vast
majority
of
the
world
less
than
those
in
the
developed
world.
The
World
Bank’s
changing
the
base
year
for
the
statistic
is
another
reprehensible
manipulation
to
make
the
poor
‘disappear’2.
The
statistics
we
select
should
measure
transformation.
And
it’s
not
hard.
We
can
measure:
-‐ growing
wealth
inequalities
between
countries
and
between
people;
-‐ how
much
of
the
world’s
wealth
sits
in
offshore
bank
accounts;
-‐ whether
a
country
provides
living
wages;
1
David
Woodward,
http://newint.org/features/special/2010/07/01poverty-‐line-‐definition/
2
Sanjay
Reddy
and
Thomas
Pogge,
‘How
NOT
to
count
the
poor’
http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/count.pdf
-‐ the
ratio
between
labour
share
and
profits.
We
could
even
measure
the
time
it
takes
the
world’s
richest
person
to
gain
what
a
Bangladeshi
garment
worker
will
earn
in
a
year
(which
is
one
second,
by
the
way).
We
can
measure
policies,
not
just
outcomes.
We
can
measure:
-‐ military
spending
and
compare
it
to
public
health
spending;
-‐ taxes
paid
by
corporations
and
by
the
wealthy;
-‐ interest
in
loans
paid
by
developing
countries;
-‐ how
many
trade
agreements
are
subject
to
human
rights
and
gender
audits.
These
would
be
statistics
faithful
to
the
Open
Working
Group
(OWG)
goals
and
targets
(SDGs).
We
should
not
restrict
the
number
of
indicators
nor
the
political
intention
of
the
indicators.
Civil
society
and
proportional
representation
from
the
G77
countries
in
the
expert
group
is
crucial.
For
instance,
the
proposed
indicator
for
redistributing
unpaid
care
work
is
the
distance
to
fetch
water.
Of
course
it
is
important
to
measure
women’s
access
to
publicly
available
water
through
Goal
6,
but
here
we
need
to
measure
public
investment
in
care
services
–
surely
that
was
the
intention.
Civil
society
can
play
a
powerful
role
in
monitoring
the
SDGs,
connecting
local
realities
to
global
policy
debates,
building
new
paradigms
for
social
transformation.
###