Major Group: Women
12
June
2013
12
June
2013
Reflections
on
HLP
post
2015
report
-‐
by
far
not
good
enough!
The
High
Level
Panel
of
Eminent
Persons
report
to
UN
Secretary
General
proposes
12
global
goals
that
are
not
ambitious
enough,
do
not
question
the
inherent
inequalities
of
the
current
economic
systems,
and
fail
to
bring
the
necessary
change
to
end
poverty
now!
Reflection
on
the
High
Level
Panel
post
2015
report
By
members
of
the
Women’s
Major
Group1
This
critical
analysis
by
the
Women’s
Major
Group
members2
on
the
High-‐level
Panel
(HLP)
of
Eminent
Persons
report,
released
on
May
30th
with
recommendations
for
the
Post
2015
Development
Agenda3
,
notes
the
report
as
a
starting
point
for
discussion,
but
not
good
enough.
The
Women’s
Major
Group
is
concerned
about
the
narrow
set
of
goals
and
the
predominance
given
to
the
corporate/business
sector
in
the
“new”
development
agenda.
We
look
to
the
world's
governments
to
be
far
more
ambitious
and
focused
on
addressing
the
root
causes
of
inequality,
injustice
and
poverty
inherent
to
the
existing
economic
paradigm,
as
they
negotiate
the
next
sustainable
development
framework
in
the
Open
Working
Group
on
SDGs
and
the
Post
2015
Development
Agenda.
Contents
• Goals
setting;
too
reductive
to
allow
for
sustainable
development
• A
new
15-‐year
time-‐frame;
delaying
essential
human
rights
even
further!
• Contradictions;
between
goals
and
business-‐as-‐usual
economic
model
• Human
rights
-‐
inconsistent
application
• Critical
analysis
of
selected
specific
Goals
and
Targets
and
Means
of
Implementation
o GOAL
1
End
Poverty:
too
narrow
in
scope,
too
one-‐dimensional
o GOAL
2:
Empower
Girls
and
Women
and
achieve
Gender
Equality:
some
positive
targets,
but
lacks
women’s
rights
as
underpinning
the
entire
development
agenda
o GOAL
3:
Provide
quality
education
and
life-‐long
learning:
lacks
girls’
priorities
o GOAL
4:
Ensure
Healthy
Lives:
some
positive
targets,
but
fails
to
address
social
and
environmental
determinants
of
health
o GOAL
5
Ensure
Food
Security
and
Good
Nutrition:
should
recognize
women’s
role
in
food
sovereignty
o GOAL
7:
Secure
Sustainable
Energy:
utterly
insufficient
and
likely
to
have
negative
impact
on
female
poverty
o GOAL
8:
Create
Jobs,
Sustainable
Livelihoods,
and
Equitable
Growth:
Fails
to
call
for
global
social
protection
floor
and
the
right
to
decent
work
1 The Women’s Major Group (www.womenrio20.org) brings together 400 organisations and individuals working on sustainable
development from a women’s rights perspective at local, national, regional and global level
2 Members of the Women’s Major Group who authored and have endorsed are listed at the end
3 http://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/UN-Report.pdf
12
June
2013
o GOAL
9:
Manage
Natural
Resource
Assets
Sustainability:
too
limiting
in
defining
nature
as
an
asset
o GOAL
12:
Global
Enabling
environment
and
Catalyse
Long-‐Term
Finance:
entirely
insufficient
on
finance,
trade
and
climate
protection
Nothing
‘New’
about
proposed
Global
Governance
and
Global
Partnership
for
Development
No
accountability
of
corporations
Financing
for
Gender
Equality
should
be
a
priority
–
it
is
not
in
the
HLP
report
• Concluding:
This
report
should
not
be
taken
as
a
basis
for
development
of
the
Post
2015
agenda
Goals
setting;
too
reductive
to
allow
for
sustainable
development
Before
analysing
the
specific
goals
and
targets,
the
Women’s
Major
Group
notes
that
the
“goal
setting”
exercise
of
the
Millennium
Development
Goals
and
now
of
the
post
2015
development
agenda
is
in
itself
problematic.
The
MDGs
were
a
donor
driven
approach,
to
focus
development
funds
on
a
few
key
‘deliverables’
and
as
such
goes
against
the
human
rights
approach,
in
which
rights
are
universal
and
indivisible.
The
Women’s
Major
Group
and
other
civil
society
representatives
had
criticised
the
Millennium
Development
Goals
for
not
taking
a
human-‐rights
based
approach
to
development.
Targets
aimed,
for
example,
to
“reduce”
by
50%
the
number
of
people
in
poverty,
or
without
drinking
water,
rather
than
ensuring
that
all
people's
human
rights
to
food,
water,
health,
education,
and
social
protection
were
met.
Often,
development
funds
were
only
used
to
achieve
MDG
targets,
and
anything
outside
the
targets
–
for
example,
access
to
drinking
water
in
schools
–
would
not
be
funded,
as
it
was
not
“counted”
as
achieving
MDG-‐7
by
the
statisticians.
The
report
of
the
High
Level
Panel
on
Post
2015
makes
an
effort
to
respond
to
this
criticism,
and
introduces
goals
which
aim
at
‘universal
coverage’
and
to
‘leave
no-‐one
behind’.
Amongst
the
12
illustrative
goals
we
find
“eradicate
absolute
poverty“
and
“end
hunger“,
“end
child
deaths”,
“provide
universal
health”,
“ensure
universal
sexual
and
reproductive
health
and
rights”,
“universalise
primary
and
lower
secondary
education”
and
“universal
access
to
water
and
sanitation.”
However,
the
overall
problem
of
the
Goals
approach
is
that
it
limits
focus
on
only
a
small
number
of
goals
(8-‐12)
and
only
a
few
targets
per
goal
(4
per
goal,
54
targets
total).
Even
though
this
appears
better
than
the
MDGs,
it
still
results
in
prioritizing
‘just
a
few
human
rights,
while
ignoring
others.
This
approach
also
prevents
an
integrated
approach
to
development
and
reinforces
development
silos.
Gender
equality
is
one
of
the
pre-‐requisites
for
sustainable
development,
and
as
such
specific
efforts
to
achieve
gender
equality
need
to
be
included
in
all
goal
areas,
with,
at
least
one
or
more
specific
gender
targets
per
goal.
The
54
targets
identified
are
just
not
sufficient.
The
goals
approach
is
too
reductive
to
achieve
sustainable
development.
A
new
15-‐year
time-‐frame
may
delay
the
promotion
and
protection
of
human
rights!
The
goals
and
targets
methodology
has
a
further
main
disadvantage;
it
may
delay
the
realization
of
essential
human
rights
and
women’s
rights.
While
the
realization
of
economic
and
social
rights
can
be
progressive,
governments
have
the
obligation
to
ensure
minimum
levels
of
economic
and
social
rights
12
June
2013
protections
for
all
people
now,
without
retrogression,
and
to
allocate
the
maximum
available
resources
to
fully
realize
these
rights.
The
protection
of
civil
and
political
rights,
and
women’s
rights
to
equality
and
non-‐discrimination,
cannot
be
delayed.
However,
by
linking
rights
to
the
availability
of
funds
and
setting
15-‐year
time
horizons
for
their
achievement,
may
give
an
excuse
for
further
delay
in
fully
respecting,
protecting
and
fulfilling
human
rights.
The
universal
commitment
to
end
poverty
which
appears
ambitious
at
first
glance,
is
actually
mere
lip
service
if
its
achievement
is
delayed
until
2030.
This
means
tolerating
yet
another
generation
of
2
billion
people
living
in
poverty,
when
it
would
be
feasible
to
eradicate
absolute
poverty
now.
Contradictions;
between
goals
and
business-‐as-‐usual
economic
model
A
further
serious
problem
of
the
report
is
the
lack
of
coherence
between
the
current
economic
paradigm
which
the
report
does
not
question,
and
the
illustrative
goals
that
are
developed.
To
give
an
example,
how
will
Target
5-‐a
"End
hunger
and
protect
the
right
of
everyone
to
have
access
to
sufficient,
safe,
affordable
and
nutritious
food"
be
made
consistent
with
Target
12
-‐
a
"Support
an
open,
fair
and
development
friendly
trading
system,
substantially
reducing
agricultural
subsidies,
while
improving
market
access
of
developing
countries
products".
Developing
local
sustainable
agriculture
and
empowerment
of
women
peasants
in
developing
countries
requires
support,
including
via
fiscal
incentives,
and
even
protection
measures.
A
Global
Sustainable
Development
Agenda.
We
note
positively
that
the
report
recognizes
that
to
durably
eradicate
poverty,
development
has
to
be
sustainable,
socially
just
and
within
the
planet’s
carrying
capacity.
It
also
recognizes
that
people
living
in
poverty
suffer
first
and
worst
from
environmental
disasters
like
droughts,
floods
and
harvest
failures.
However,
the
targets
often
contradict
this
overall
aim.
The
report
fails
to
recognize
the
failures
of
the
no
(ecological)
limits
to
“growth”
paradigm
that
underlies
the
current
economic
system,
promoting
corporate
profits
over
the
wellbeing
of
people.
The
report
does
not
provide
an
explanation
on
how
States
will
connect,
measure
and
simultaneously
address
complex
issues
of
ecological
loss
and
damage,
community
sustainability
and
economic
viability
and
does
not
recognize
the
role
of
developed
countries
in
contributing
to
historical
emissions
and
the
inequitable
impacts
(geography,
gender,
economic)
of
climate
change.
Beyond
Gross
Domestic
Product
and
removing
perverse
subsidies.
We
note
that
the
report
sets
a
target
for
all
countries
to
add
environmental
and
social
measures
to
its
national
accounting,
to
go
beyond
GDP
and
recognizes
the
need
to
abolish
(inefficient)
subsidies
for
agriculture
and
fossil
fuels,
but
forgets
the
need
to
abolish
fishery
subsidies
and
does
not
distinguish
between
the
role
of
subsidies
in
rich
countries
and
low-‐income
countries
(where
they
may
actually
be
useful).
But
the
report
neglects
to
set
a
target
for
a
true
reform
of
the
monetary,
financial
and
trade
rules
globally
that
would
ensure
enough
fiscal
policy
space
at
the
national
level
to
implement
all
the
envisioned
recommendations.
Without
seriously
reforming
the
economic
and
social
systems
that
can
create
the
necessary
enabling
environments
for
national
governments
to
actually
provide
their
people
with
the
services
that
they
need,
and
the
human
rights
that
they
are
entitled
to,
we
will
not
create
transformational
change
for
women,
men,
young
people
or
for
the
planet.
12
June
2013
Finally,
the
report
neglects
to
address
the
destructive
nature
of
the
extractives
sector,
depleting
natural
resources
of
developing
countries
and
displacing
communities,
while
taking
almost
all
revenues
abroad
and
leaving
irreparable
damage
to
the
environment
and
public
health.
The
Women’s
Major
Group
addressed
the
destructive
role
of
the
extractive
industry
sector
in
its
letter
to
the
HLP
meeting
in
Bali;
a
sentence
from
this
letter
has
found
its
way
into
the
annexes
of
the
report
(pg
62),
but
this
has
not
been
addressed
by
the
HLP.
Human
rights
-‐
inconsistent
approach
At
a
certain
moment
in
the
consultations
leading
up
to
the
report,
it
seemed
as
if
the
HLP
members
did
not
even
dare
to
use
the
term
“human
rights.”
We
note
positively
that
the
report
recommends
to
include
the
protection
and
fulfilment
of
some
human
rights,
including
the
right
to
freedom
of
speech,
association,
and
peaceful
protest
(10b);
the
right
to
access
to
independent
media
and
information
(10b
and
d);
public
participation
in
political
processes
and
civil
engagement
at
all
levels
(10c);
access
to
justice
(11b);
and
the
right
to
food
(5a).
Even
though
human
rights
are
universal,
indivisible
and
interdependent4
the
report
focuses
on
the
achievement
of
just
a
few
human
rights
-‐
and
prioritizes
civil
and
political
rights
over
economic,
social
and
cultural
rights.
The
report
misses
the
critical
opportunity
to
concretely
frame
its
recommendations
in
terms
of
fundamental
human
rights;
promote
human
rights-‐based
approaches
in
its
implementation;
and
link
the
strong
human
rights
accountability
mechanisms
that
already
exist
with
governments'
development
obligations
as
duty
bearers.
In
the
area
of
women’s
rights,
the
report
misses
the
opportunity
to
include
a
target
on
enforcing
laws
and
policies
that
promote
gender
equality
and
eliminating
laws,
policies
and
practices
that
discriminate
against
and
are
harmful
to
women
and
girls.
Included
in
this
is
the
need
to
enact
economic
and
social
policies
that
contribute
to
achieving
gender
equality
and
align
with
human
rights
principles.
This
application
of
a
human
rights
framework
to
the
design
of
development
priorities
is
largely
missing
in
the
report
and
is
a
vital
and
critical
step
to
reach
girls
and
women
and
achieve
the
goals
envisioned.
The
report
falsely
equates
the
rights
of
business
with
human
rights.
The
real
priorities
of
the
'new'
and
ambitious
agenda
are
exposed
when
the
report
recommends
that
businesses
have
the
same
rights
of
women,
men
and
children,
to
that
of
business,
regarding
land
and
property
rights
(target
1b).
This
creates
conditions
for
more
land-‐grabbing,
when
the
opposite
is
necessary:
a
target
that
redistributes
assets
from
corporations
to
women,
indigenous
peoples,
people
living
in
poverty,
and
other
groups
that
are
marginalized.
.
Rights
of
migrants
not
adequately
addressed
Chapter
3
(p.
18)
of
the
report
notes,
“the
universal
human
rights
and
fundamental
freedoms
of
migrants
must
be
respected.”
Their
economic
contributions
to
both
origin
and
host
countries
are
also
acknowledged.
Aside
from
this
small
section,
the
report
does
not
have
any
substantive
proposals
on
migrants.
Their
contributions
to
society,
aside
from
economic,
are
not
acknowledged;
neither
are
the
challenges
and
discriminations
they
face.
The
concept
of
“leave
no
one
behind”
as
it
stands
in
the
report
does
not
seem
4 1992 Vienna Declaration, Paragraph 5
12
June
2013
to
explicitly
cover
migrants.
Citizenship
and
migration
status,
as
well
as
the
irregularity
or
legality
of
the
migration,
have
great
impact
on
migrants’
access
to
social
protection
and
services,
particularly
health
services,
including
sexual
and
reproductive
health
services,
and
education,
.
Citizenship
and
migration
status
need
to
be
included
among
the
factors
for
discrimination,
together
with
gender,
sexual
orientation
and
gender
identity,
ethnicity,
disability,
age,
geography,
income
level,
race
or
other
status,
throughout
the
report.
Equal
rights
and
access
to
services
should
be
for
all,
whether
citizens,
migrants,
asylum
seekers
or
refugees.
Critical
analysis
of
selected
specific
Goals
and
Targets
and
Means
of
Implementation
Below
we
discuss
examples
of
the
illustrative
goals
and
targets,
which
contain
some
positive
elements
but
also
many
glaring
shortcomings.
GOAL
1
End
Poverty:
too
narrow
in
scope,
too
one-‐dimensional
The
HLP
Report
would
be
satisfied
with
eradicating
only
the
most
extreme
form
of
income
poverty
–
under
$1.25
per
day.
We
know
from
the
MDGs
that
in
many
instances
extreme
poverty
persists
even
with
double
that
income,
as
witnessed
most
recently
by
the
food
price
hikes
which
hit
low
income
households
the
hardest.
The
income
poverty
line
also
ignores
specific
economic
burdens
depending
on
the
country
and
situation
(e.g.,
extra
costs
where
harsh
winters
exist
or
in
remote
areas
where
access
to
food,
other
commodities,
and
services
is
unreliable
and
more
costly).
More
importantly,
an
income-‐
based
indicator
gives
partly
wrong
information
on
who
is
living
in
poverty,
and
if
any
progress
is
being
made.
As
the
majority
of
people
living
in
poverty
are
women,
and
many
of
them
are
engaged
in
the
informal
and
precarious
sectors,
or
depend
for
their
livelihoods
on
access
to
natural
resources
of
the
commons,
women's
poverty
is
often
invisible
with
such
an
income
indicator.
GOAL
2
Empower
Girls
and
Women
and
achieve
Gender
Equality:
some
positive
targets,
but
lacks
women’s
rights
as
underpinning
the
entire
development
agenda
Firstly,
we
note
positively
that
the
report
includes
concrete
recommendations
on
women's
and
girls'
empowerment
and
gender
equality,
including
specific
targets
to:
• Prevent
and
eliminate
all
forms
of
violence
against
girls
and
women
(target
2a);
• End
child
marriage
(target
2b);
• Ensure
the
equal
right
of
women
to
own
and
inherit
property,
sign
a
contract,
register
a
business
and
open
a
bank
account
(target
2c);
and
• Ensure
universal
sexual
and
reproductive
health
and
rights
(target
4d).
We
are
not
convinced
by
the
wording
of
target
2d
to
“Eliminate
discrimination
against
women
in
political,
economic,
and
public
life”,
it
should
have
been
formulated
as
“ensuring
gender
equality
in
political,
economic
and
public
life”,
because
ending
discrimination
is
just
a
fist
step
towards
equality,
and
not
enough
to
assure
women’s
and
girl’s
empowerment
in
all
areas
of
society.
12
June
2013
It
does
not
build
on
internationally
agreed
normative
framework
of
women's
rights
as
human
rights5.
In
several
places
women's
human
rights
are
eroded
by
giving
businesses
the
same
rights
and
privileges:.
Target
1b
of
the
'Ending
Poverty'
goal,
states,
'Increase
by
x
percent
the
share
of
women
and
men,
communities
and
business
with
secure
rights
to
land,
property
and
other
assets.”
In
many
countries,
violations
of
women's
and
community
rights
to
land,
food,
water,
are
a
direct
result
of
land-‐grabbing
and
other
privileges
given
to
private
businesses.
Weak
gender
analysis
and
failure
to
address
women's
rights
as
a
cross-‐cutting
issue.
The
report
notes
that
it
addresses
women
and
girls
in
a
cross-‐cutting
way,
however,
at
close
scrutiny,
neither
the
narrative
nor
the
goals
and
targets
framework
go
far
enough
in
identifying
how
women's
and
girls'
experiences
of
multiple
and
intersecting
forms
of
discrimination
result
in
deeper
experiences
of
poverty,
deprivation
and
social
marginalization;
how
women
and
girls
face
unequal
and
unfair
burdens
in
sustaining
the
well-‐
being
of
their
societies
and
economies
in
both
the
wage
and
the
care
economy;
and
how
women
face
multiple
violations
of
their
human
rights
that
obstruct
their
equitable
participation
in
economic,
social
and
political
life.
The
majority
of
the
world's
poor
are
women;
women
are
primarily
employed
in
the
informal
economy
and
work
triple
burdens
in
underpaid
wage
work,
household-‐related
work,
and
the
care
economy.
In
low
income
countries
they
face
a
high
risk
of
dying
in
childbirth
and
malnourished;
women
are
more
likely
to
die
as
a
result
of
natural
disasters
than
men;
women
have
far
less
access
to
or
rights
to
land,
property
and
other
assets;
and
women
are
not
adequately
covered
by
most
social
protection
systems.
Yet
women
are
not
explicitly
addressed
under
the
goal
to
end
poverty
in
either
the
narrative
or
the
proposed
targets,
or
other
goals.
The
links
to
gender
equality
and
women’s
empowerment
must
go
beyond
recognizing
women
as
a
vulnerable
group
to
ensure
women’s
full
and
equal
enjoyment
of
rights,
participation
in
all
aspects
of
planning
and
decision-‐making
and
incorporation
of
valuable
knowledge
and
experiences.
GOAL
3
Provide
quality
education
and
life-‐long
learning:
lacks
girls’
priorities!
Provide
quality
life-‐long
education
is
a
very
important
goal
and
a
fundamental
pre-‐requisite
for
achievement
of
other
goals.
However,
the
report
should
explain
that
it
is
a
right,
and
that
the
right
is
to
universal
access
to
education.
No
consideration
of
the
need
for
girls
to
complete
secondary
education.
While
gender
parity
in
primary
education
may
have
been
achieved,
girls
are
far
less
likely
to
complete
secondary
school
education
than
boys,
undermining
their
right
to
education,
and
with
far-‐reaching
consequences
for
their
own
development
and
well-‐being,
as
well
as
that
of
their
families
and
communities.
Girls
who
do
not
complete
secondary
education
are
more
likely
to
be
forced
into
early
marriage;
experience
early
pregnancy
and
childbearing;
and
are
less
likely
to
be
able
to
exercise
their
economic
rights,
ensure
sustainable
livelihoods,
or
access
employment.
There
is
also
no
consideration
to
the
need
for
girls
to
complete
secondary
education
or
access
tertiary
education
or
other
forms
of
employment
training
or
livelihood
skills
to
have
access
to
decent
work
and
social
protection.
There
is
absolutely
no
gender
analysis
or
specific
recommendations
focused
on
ensuring
girls
can
receive
the
sexuality
education
that
provides
them
with
the
knowledge
about
their
bodies
and
their
rights
that
they
need
in
order
to
5. Women's Major Group Statement, Bonn: http://www.womenrio20.org/docs/final_Women%20Statements_Endorsements-2…
12
June
2013
negotiate
relationships.
Finally,
women’s
and
men’s
literacy
and
adult
education
are
not
sufficiently
addressed
and
targets
for
quality
education
and
life-‐long
learning
should
be
developed
and
oriented
to
equity,
universal
access
and
quality.
GOAL
4
Ensure
Healthy
Lives:
fails
to
address
social
and
environmental
determinants
of
health
Ensure
healthy
lives
is
a
laudable
goal,
and
we
welcome
the
targets
calling
for
universal
sexual
and
reproductive
health
and
rights,
which
is
critical
for
gender
equality
and
a
priority
for
women.
The
inclusion
of
non-‐communicable
diseases,
such
as
cancer,
and
the
continuing
focus
on
reducing
the
burden
of
disease
from
HIV,
TB
and
malaria
are
also
welcome.
Fails
to
address
social
determinants
of
health:
The
report
does
not
adequately
address
how
social
determinants
of
health,
including
environmental
health,
contribute
to
many
of
the
poor
health
outcomes
that
the
panel
aims
to
address.
Food
and
nutrition,
security,
water
and
sanitation,
and
other
environmental
and
occupational
factors
can
have
specific
negative
health
consequences
for
women
and
girls,
including
for
their
sexual
and
reproductive
health.
While
the
report
acknowledges
that
universal
health
coverage
is
an
important
step
toward
achieving
the
targets,
it
does
not
adequately
analyse
how
other
barriers
can
impede
or
facilitate
women's
and
girls'
access
to
critical
health
services,
such
as
laws
and
policies,
social
and
cultural
norms
and
practices,
weaknesses
in
health
systems,
or
lack
of
information
or
individual
empowerment.
The
report
also
does
not
address
public
financing
of
health
services
or
the
quality
of
services
and
the
need
for
public
control
over
public
services
and
to
halt
the
promotion
of
privatization.
To
ensure
universal
and
quality
health
services,
a
tax
justice
and
tax
reform
strategy
should
be
a
target
for
sustainable
development.
Fails
to
address
environmental
determinants
of
health.
A
main
cause
of
non-‐communicable
diseases
is
likely
to
be
related
environmental
pollution
factors.
For
example,
UNEP’s
global
chemicals
outlook
2012
estimated
2
million
people
get
ill,
and
800,000
die
each
year
from
pesticides
and
harmful
chemicals.
There
is
no
reference
to
environmental
determinants
of
health
in
the
HLP
report.
On
the
contrary,
the
report
speaks
of
“insecticide-‐treated
bed-‐nets”
for
malaria
control,
most
likely
referring
to
DDT
treated
bed
nets.
DDT
is
known
as
one
of
the
most
dangerous
insecticides,
and
WHO6
has
established
that
malaria
can
be
ended
without
use
of
DDT.
Would
benefit
from
more
information
on
SRHR.
In
the
section
on
health,
where
SRHR
is
mentioned,
it
would
be
beneficial
to
describe
what
services
are
meant.
We
want
these
services
to
be
of
quality
(as
in
accessible,
available,
appropriate),
comprehensive
across
a
woman’s
lifecycle
and
across
various
locations
–
home,
community
and
health
facilities
–
as
important
to
reduce
adolescent,
maternal,
newborn
and
child
mortality
and
morbidity
and
improve
women’s
reproductive
health.
This
would
include
provision
of
the
full
range
of
contraceptives
(including
emergency
contraception),
services
to
ensure
maternal
health
and
nutrition,
emergency
and
comprehensive
obstetric
and
postnatal
care
services,
interventions
for
maternal
morbidities
including
uterine
prolapse,
services
for
safe
abortion
and
management
of
abortion
complications,
infertility
treatment,
access
to
medication
and
treatment
for
STI
and
HIV
and
reproductive
cancers,
and
appropriate
referral
systems.
Services
and
programs
for
SRHR,
HIV
and
AIDS
and
gender
based
violence
need
to
be
inter-‐linked,
gender-‐sensitive,
rights-‐based,
disability-‐friendly,
and
available
even
in
times
of
conflict,
disasters,
migration
and
displacement7.
6 WHO has set a target to phase out DDT use in combatting malaria latest by 2020, earlier if possible.
7 KL Call to Action 2012 http://arrow.org.my/APNGOs/KL_Call_to_Action.pdf
12
June
2013
GOAL
5
Ensure
Food
Security
and
Good
Nutrition:
should
recognize
women’s
role
in
food
sovereignty
The
HLP
report
makes
the
linkages
between
poverty
as
a
cause
of
food
insecurity
and
affordability
of
food
as
being
a
primary
concern.
It
is
important
to
understand
these
linkages
and
their
mutually
reinforcing
nature,
and
this
was
adequately
covered
in
the
report.
Additionally,
the
report
highlights
the
link
between
undernourished
women
and
undernourished
children.
Women
who
suffer
from
food
insecurity
and
related
conditions
such
as
stunting,
wasting
and
anaemia
are
more
likely
to
give
birth
to
undernourished
children
with
low
birth
rates
who
are
more
prone
to
stunting,
wasting
and
anaemia,
as
well
as
other
health
complications.
We
miss,
however,
a
critique
of
the
whole
concept
of
food
security.
Women’s
and
peasant
movements
use
the
concept
of
food
sovereignty
instead,
which
asserts
the
right
of
people
to
define
their
own
food
systems
and
puts
people
who
produce,
distribute
and
consume
food
at
the
centre
of
decisions
on
food
systems
and
policies,
rather
than
the
corporations
and
market
institutions
they
believe
have
come
to
dominate
the
global
food
system.
Women
in
many
regions
of
the
world
are
key
to
ending
hunger,
in
some
regions
producing
up
to
80%
of
the
food
for
their
families.
The
report
lacks
an
analysis
as
to
the
role
that
transnational
corporations
play
in
food
insecurity,
through
genetically
modified
crops
and
seed
patenting.
Instead,
there
is
an
emphasis
on
utilising
new
technologies
and
shifting
to
large
scale
sustainable
food
production.
It
is
important
to
note
that
pesticides
and
other
technologies
that
tend
to
be
pushed
by
transnational
corporations
and
used
in
large-‐scale
food
production
have
a
strong
impact
on
sexual
and
reproductive
health,
particularly
of
women
who
tend
to
be
more
frequently
employed
as
agrarian
workers.
These
impacts
include
reproductive
cancers,
loss
of
fertility
and
menstrual
problems.
Moreover,
while
the
link
between
undernourished
women
and
undernourished
children
is
highlighted,
this
is
only
in
the
context
of
children’s
welfare.
As
such,
the
proposed
goal
for
food
security
and
nutrition
only
includes
reducing
stunting,
wasting
and
anaemia
in
children
under
5;
it
is
unacceptable
that
there
is
no
target
for
assuring
women’s
food
sovereignty,
health
and
nutrition
security.
Food
security
and
nutrition
are
crucial
concerns
for
women,
as
these
are
linked
to
women’s
health,
including
their
sexual
and
reproductive
health.
Patriarchal
and
cultural
norms
in
many
of
our
contexts,
mean
that
women
eat
least
and
last.
As
such
many
women
are
undernourished,
which
has
consequences
particularly
during
pregnancy,
increasing
the
risks
of
complications
during
childbirth.
In
India,
19%
of
all
maternal
deaths
are
thought
to
be
related
to
nutritional
anaemia
and
this
figure
is
reflected
across
many
parts
of
the
global
South.8
While
a
focus
on
children
is
also
important,
it
should
not
be
at
the
expense
of
women.
GOAL
7
Secure
Sustainable
Energy:
utterly
insufficient
and
likely
to
have
negative
impact
on
female
poverty.
8ANSWERS & CHETNA, Monitoring Nutritional Anaemia: India’s Commitments to the ICPD Programme of Action 15 Years
on. In, , Reclaiming & Redefining Rights: Thematic Series 4 Maternal Mortality and Morbidity in Asia, ARROW , 201
12
June
2013
Targets
for
renewable
energy
are
utterly
insufficient.
The
Report
contradicts
itself
when
it
sets
a
target
for
renewable
energy
and
energy
saving
(in
buildings)
which
is
utterly
insufficient
to
achieve
climate
protection
whilst
ensuring
sustainable
development.
The
Women’s
Major
Group
calls
for
a
specific
target
to
ensure
access
to
safe
and
renewable
energy
for
households.
If
renewable
energy
technology
is
not
accessible
by
households,
the
benefits
to
women
and
girls
will
be
limited.
Small-‐scale
mitigation
projects
for
households
and
rural
communities
cannot
compete
against
large-‐scale
development
project
that
are
often
proposed
by
huge
multinational
corporations.
Entirely
missing
are
also
sustainable
agricultural
practices
that
help
protect
small-‐holder
farmers
(often
women)
and
provide
for
climate
mitigation
(drought,
crop
failure,
etc.)
At
the
same
time,
we
are
cautious
of
how
renewable
energy
is
defined.
With
the
current
flawed
definition
of
renewable
energy
used
in
international
forums,
generic
renewables
targets
such
as
in
the
HLP
report
can
be
used
to
justify
massive
increase
in
mega
hydro
dams
as
well
as
biofuels
and
biomass
from
vast
new
monoculture
plantations,
involving
displacement,
hunger,
human
rights
abuses
and
deforestation.
Women
are
often
disproportionally
affected
by
land-‐grabbing
as
a
result
of
such
types
of
large-‐scale
destructive
energy
programmes.
Further,
CO2
reductions
cannot
and
should
not
come
from
high-‐risk
technologies
that
create
irreversible
damage
to
our
health
and
the
planet,
such
as
nuclear,
tar
sands,
shale
gas,
geo-‐engineering
or
the
like.
Energy
policies
and
investments
should
have
human
rights-‐
based
safeguards,
so
that
'modern'
energy
and
efforts
for
C02
reductions
cannot
be
based
on
high-‐risk
technologies
that
create
irreversible
damage
to
our
health
and
the
planet,
such
as
nuclear,
tar
sands,
shale
gas,
geo-‐engineering
or
the
like.
GOAL
8
Create
Jobs,
Sustainable
Livelihoods,
and
Equitable
Growth:
Fails
to
call
for
global
social
protection
floor
and
the
right
to
decent
work.
The
Report
remains
in
the
conceptual
world
of
economic
growth
and
market
forces,
with
merely
the
assuaging
attribute
that
such
growth
be
“inclusive”.
The
Report
is
oblivious
to
the
requirements
for
radical
change
in
the
functioning
of
global
value
chains
which
re-‐create
poverty
and
ill-‐being
on
a
daily
basis.
The
Report
does
not
propose
universal
access
to
decent
work,
nor
equitable
access
to
assets
such
as
land,
water,
IPRs.
There
is
no
mention
of
the
falling
share
of
wages
in
GDP
that
has
characterised
the
past
decade
in
so
many
countries.
Instead,
the
Report
backs
the
neoliberal
policy
of
flexible
labour
markets
–
as
though
unemployment
were
labour´s
fault
by
being
so
inflexible.
It
recommends
business
start-‐ups
as
a
solution
to
ever
increasing
numbers
of
unemployed
and
working
poor.
These
are
market-‐
fundamentalist
responses
to
deep
structural
faults
–
and
have
proved
not
just
wrong,
but
pernicious
for
the
majority
of
the
world´s
population,
in
particular
for
women.
Women
are
the
majority
of
those
living
in
poverty
and
working
in
precarious
jobs,
and
therefore
the
foremost
beneficiaries
of
social
protection
and
decent
jobs,
as
shown
by
the
more
than
thousand
textile
workers
killed
in
the
first
months
of
2013,
in
majority
women
and
girls.
GOAL
9
Manage
Natural
Resource
Assets
Sustainability:
too
limiting
in
defining
nature
as
an
asset
The
title
of
goal
9
is
dangerous
and
can
lead
to
increased
poverty
and
inequalities.
The
title
of
the
goal
'manage
natural
resource
assets
sustainably'
ignores
the
fact
that
ecosystems
do
not
necessarily
have
to
be
managed,
they
can
also
be
conserved
through
set-‐asides
as
sacred
sites
or
for
other
ethical,
cultural,
environmental
or
other
purposes.
The
role
of
women,
indigenous
peoples,
small
farmers
and
small
scale
fishers
in
conserving
and
restoring
soils,
coastal
and
marine
territories
and
other
ecosystems
is
not
12
June
2013
sufficiently
recognized;
throughout
the
document
these
groups
seems
to
be
treated
as
victims
of
environmental
degradation
only,
rather
than
active
actors
in
sustainable
livelihoods.
The
role
of
traditional
knowledge
is
particularly
important
for
ecosystem
conservation
and
restoration.
The
report
fails
to
recognize
that
territories
and
areas
conserved
by
Indigenous
Peoples
and
local
communities
play
a
key
role
not
only
in
forest
conservation,
but
in
soil,
coastal
and
marine
conservation,
and
in
ecosystem
conservation
in
general,
and
that
these
territories
and
areas
should
be
legally
and
politically
recognized
and
supported.
Women’s
traditional
knowledge
should
instead
have
been
recognized.
Women
—
in
all
their
cultural
diversity
as
indigenous
people,
afro-‐descendants,
peasants
and
fisherwomen
—
have
a
collective
but
differentiated
traditional
knowledge
about
natural
resources
that
is
crucial
to
the
future
sustainable
management
and
conservation
of
those
resources.
This
expertise
has
been
built
upon
years
of
often
invisible
or
unpaid
work,
that
has
been
key
to
the
livelihoods
of
entire
communities.
At
the
same
time
prioritising
sustainable
use
approaches,9
including
community-‐based
natural
resource
management
and
policies
that
give
resource
and
tenure
rights
to
women,
is
vital
for
women.
This
would
allow
them
to
increase
the
benefits
they
derive
from
natural
resources,
with
significant
implications
for
poverty
eradication.
This
approach
involves
promoting
conservation
based
on
a
long-‐term
vision
of
the
sustainable
use
of
nature,
maximizing
the
value
of
common
pool
wild
resources,
and
increasing
local
governance
over
natural
resources.
Forests
are
not
plantations,
as
the
report
seems
to
suggest.
Without
a
proper
definition
of
'forests",
a
target
on
"reforestation"
is
extremely
problematic
as
it
could
include
the
expansion
of
monoculture
tree
plantations.
Direct
and
indirect
replacement
of
natural
forests
by
monoculture
tree
plantations
is
one
of
the
main
threats
to
the
world's
biodiversity.
In
this
respect,
it
is
also
crucially
important
to
ensure
a
'land
degradation
neutral'
or
'net
deforestation'
approach
does
not
lead
to
offsetting
natural
forest
loss
and
soil
degradation
in
one
location
through
tree
planting,
including
with
invasive
and/or
exotic
species,
elsewhere.
We
are
also
concerned
about
the
emphasis
on
valuation,
partnerships,
REDD+
and
other
'green
economy'
approaches
under
goal
9,
which
trigger
the
commodification
and
corporate
take-‐over
of
nature
to
the
detriment
of
women
and
other
groups.
The
rights
of
Mother
Earth,
which
are
recognized
by
the
UN
General
Assembly,
are
ignored
in
the
report.
Missing;
redirect
perverse
subsidies
to
protect
biodiversity.
We
welcome
that
the
report
acknowledges
the
importance
of
vital
ecosystems
like
forests,
and
that
there
are
concrete
targets
proposed
to
safeguard
ecosystems,
species
and
genetic
diversity,
and
to
reduce
deforestation,
soil
erosion,
and
desertification.
It
is
positive
these
areas
are
combined.
The
recognition
that
more
corporate
accountability
and
a
concrete
target
on
sustainable
government
procurement
are
needed
to
achieve
the
goal
of
sustainable
management
of
'natural
resource
assets'
is
welcome
as
well.
We
also
welcome
the
acknowledgement
that
biodiversity
loss
is
irreversible,
and
that
maintaining
forests
and
other
essential
ecosystems
'with
many
different
species'
is
essential
for
livelihoods.
However,
a
reference
to
the
existing
Aichi
targets
of
the
Biodiversity
Convention
is
missing,
including
the
important
target
to
redirect
perverse
incentives.
Sustainable
consumption
and
production
patterns
are
essential
as
well,
and
both
9 “Use, if sustainable, can serve human needs on an on-going basis while contributing to the conservation of biological
diversity”, Sustainable Use Policy Statement, IUCN, 2000,
http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/sustainable_use_and_livelih…
12
June
2013
regulatory
approaches
and
education
and
awareness
raising
are
key
in
this
respect.
No
critical
growth
analysis,
nor
reform
of
trade,
financial,
extractives
and
investor
sectors.
The
report
also
neglects
to
target
a
true
reform
of
the
monetary,
financial
and
trade
rules
globally
that
would
ensure
enough
fiscal
policy
space
at
the
national
level
to
implement
all
the
envisioned
recommendations.
Without
seriously
reforming
the
economic
and
social
paradigms
that
can
create
the
necessary
enabling
environments
for
national
governments
to
actually
provide
their
people
with
the
services
that
they
need,
and
the
human
rights
that
they
are
entitled
to,
we
will
not
create
transformational
change
for
women,
men,
young
people
or
for
the
planet.
GOAL
12
Global
Enabling
environment
and
Catalyse
Long-‐Term
Finance
–
entirely
insufficient
Deep
financial
and
trade
reform
not
addressed:
The
finance
recommendations
of
the
report
are
utterly
insufficient,
and
it
does
not
recommend
the
deep
financial
and
trade
reform
necessary
to
achieve
the
goals.
The
report
does
not
address
the
impact
of
transnational
corporations
and
businesses
and
their
role
and
power
that
they
exert
nationally
and
regionally
which
often
goes
in
detriment
of
the
realization
of
Human
Rights.
On
the
contrary,
in
target
12.b
the
report
calls
on
“stable,
long-‐term
private
investments”
which
can
be
interpreted
in
many
ways,
including
a
further
weakening
of
States
faced
with
unfair
bilateral
investment
treaties.
The
post
2015
recommendations
in
the
report
do
not
address
the
systemic
risks
produced
by
poorly
regulated
financial
flows
and
financial
markets.
The
panel
does
not
call
for
re-‐evaluation
and
reform
of
existing
international
institutions—IMF,
WB,
WTO—or
the
creation
of
new
ones
to
correct
global
economic
imbalances,
enforce
accountability,
and
promote
stability.
The
report
does
not
address
the
fact
that
the
poorer
developing
countries
do
not
have
an
equal
voice
in
financial
decisions.
Climate
change
as
a
critical
and
cross-‐cutting
issue
and
should
be
framed
within
the
planetary
boundaries.
The
report
recognizes
that
climate
change
is
a
threat
to
humanity,
that
people
living
in
poverty
are
most
affected,
and
that
it
is
better
to
address
it
now
than
deal
with
the
consequences
later.
The
report
sets
a
target
(12
c)
to
stay
below
2
degrees
Celsius
global
temperature
increase,
which
is
a
first
step.
But
it
is
not
enough.
Two
degrees
of
global
temperature
increase
will
not
allow
for
a
stable
climate
and
effects
today
are
already
putting
the
survival
of
entire
countries
and
millions
of
people
at
great
risk,
as
well
as
reversing
existing
development
gains.
While
climate
change
is
highlighted
as
a
cross-‐cutting
issue,
the
report
does
not
include
critical
inter-‐
linkages
in
terms
of
women's
rights
and
gender
equality,
and
climate
change.
The
illustrative
targets
related
to
energy,
agriculture,
transport,
deforestation
and
food
security,
which
are
indicated
as
means
to
address
climate
change,
need
to
clearly
articulate
the
connections
or
they
will
not
be
prioritized.
Examples
include
ensuring
women's
access
and
control
of
natural
resources,
promoting
women’s
role
in
sustainable
energy
solutions,
drawing
on
and
safeguarding
women’s
traditional
knowledge,
and
integrating
sustainable
agricultural
practices
that
help
protect
small
holder
farmers
(often
women)
and
provide
for
climate
mitigation
(drought,
crop
failure,
etc.).
We
also
call
for
a
stronger
recognition
that
climate
change
has
differentiated
effects
on
women
and
men
which
require
translation
into
prioritized
targets
and
efforts
regarding
women’s
adaptation
to
climate
change,
gender-‐sensitive
strategies
and
women’s
access
to
adaptation
and
disaster
risk
reduction
12
June
2013
finance.
Financing
for
Gender
Equality
should
be
a
priority
–
it
is
not
in
the
HLP
report
As
has
been
clear
in
the
MDG
review
processes,
limited
financing
has
been
a
major
barrier
to
advancing
development
goals.
This
report
does
not
address
this
vital
issue.
There
is
no
specific
recommendation
to
allocate
resources
for
advancing
women’s
rights
and
gender
equality.
We
appreciate
efforts
to
define
clear
financing
targets
to
achieve
the
goals,
but
we
believe
the
report
should
also
have
given
attention
to
how
funding
is
delivered
in
ways
that
maximize
its
impact.
Research
from
recent
years
has
shown
that
effective
financing
for
gender
equality
moves
away
from
fragmented,
short-‐term
funding
cycles
towards
longer
term
partnerships
of
predictable,
flexible,
and
multiyear
support.
Further,
the
report
fails
to
highlight
the
need
to
secure
resources
for
the
diversity
of
actors
engaged
in
this
work,
including
civil
society
and
rights
holders,
and
among
them,
women’s
organizations
and
movements,
who
are
doing
some
of
the
most
impactful
and
innovative
work
in
this
field,
holding
the
line
on
past
gains,
pushing
for
new
policy
and
behavioural
changes,
providing
critical
services,
and
holding
governments
accountable
for
their
commitments.
Securing
resources
for
women’s
organizations
and
movements
is
clearly
a
key
lever
for
sustainable
change
to
advance
gender
equality
and
women’s
rights
at
different
levels.
Yet
this
is
missing
from
the
report.
Finally,
we
believe
current
debates
on
financial
policies
cannot
happen
separately
to
the
framing
of
a
development
agenda
post-‐2015.
We
urge
strong
recommendations
to
accelerate
progress
and
include
this
aspect
in
further
thematic,
regional,
national
and
intergovernmental
consultations
that
are
already
being
planned
by
the
UN.
Nothing
‘New’
about
proposed
Global
Governance
and
Global
Partnership
for
Development
There
is
nothing
new
about
the
“Global
Partnership
for
Development”
proposed
in
the
report
(chapter
2).
The
focus
seems
to
be
largely
on
foreign
private
investment
and
domestic
sources,
with
recognition
of
the
role
of
Official
Development
Assistance
(ODA)
from
developed
countries.
Although
there
is
still
a
role
for
development
assistance
in
the
appropriate
context,
ODA
is
insufficient.
Particularly
in
a
context
of
financial
crisis,
cuts
in
aid
delivery
and
dramatic
changes
in
the
financial
development
landscape,
there
is
a
need
to
do
a
better
assessment.
All
experience
with
market-‐based
financial
mechanisms
show
that
women
are
at
a
disadvantage,
and
that
women
living
in
poverty
need
public
funding
programs
to
move
out
of
the
poverty
spiral.
The
new
post
2015
should
take
into
consideration
these
changes.
Regarding
policy
coherence,
we
acknowledge
that
the
report
sees
the
need
for
"reforms
in
the
international
financial
architecture"
and
ways
to
"create
a
more
open,
more
fair
global
trading
system"
(p.15,
chapter
3).
However,
we
regret
that
the
report
falls
short
of
explicitly
recommending
policy
coherence
and
the
alignment
of
trade
and
financial
systems
with
a
human
rights
framework,
preferring
to
stress
their
contribution
"to
real
economic
growth"
(p.15).
The
result
is
only
vague
commitments
for
reform.
Accountability
–
corporations
are
off
the
hook
In
terms
of
multiple
accountability
the
HLP
recognizes
multiple
actors
involved
in
development
and
the
need
to
"include
monitoring
and
accountability
mechanisms
involving
states,
civil
society,
the
private
12
June
2013
sector,
foundations,
and
the
international
development
community"
(p.13).
We
miss
the
fact
that
–
unlike
in
the
UN
sustainable
development
processes
–
civil
society
is
not
addressed
in
its
diversity,
with
reference
to
women
and
other
important
groups
of
civil
society
(youth,
indigenous
peoples
etc.).
However,
the
report
fails
to
recognize
the
need
for
stronger
regulatory
frameworks,
especially
for
the
corporate
sector
and
instead
relies
on
the
“willingness
on
the
part
of
large
corporations
as
well
as
governments
to
report
on
their
social
and
environmental
impact
in
addition
to
releasing
financial
accounts.”
(p.17).
The
business-‐oriented
language
is
very
clear
in
the
definition
of
'accountability'
in
the
High
Level
Panel
Report,
where
“accountability
must
be
exercised
at
the
right
level:
governments
to
their
own
citizens,
local
governments
to
their
communities,
corporations
to
their
shareholders,
civil
society
to
the
constituencies
they
represent”
(2013,
23,
italics
added).
However,
corporate
shareholders’
interests
are
not
the
same
as
citizen’s
interests,
as
profit
is
their
primary
declarative
interest.
Indeed,
the
reality
is
that
business
has
been
busily
creating
more
and
more
access,
leverage
and
lobbying
capacity
into
national,
regional
and
global
political
systems.
This
is
why,
even
where
the
report
identifies
CSOs
as
partners,
but
fails
to
design
mechanisms
for
accountability
that
will
ensure
the
meaningful
participation
of
women’s
and
social
movements.
As
the
120
mentions
of
business
in
the
report
testify
,
the
role
of
the
private
sector
is
over-‐emphasized.
The
private
sector
needs
more
regulation
and
accountability,
but
we
should
not
prioritize
business
partnerships
for
sustainable
development,
nor
give
business
rights
and
priorities
over
that
of
women,
men
and
children
The
accountability
proposal
to
have
peer
review
through
the
use
of
the
data
revolution
will
be
an
important
step,
but
not
enough
guarantee
political
commitment
nor
improve
good
governance.
For
example,
poor
reproductive
health
outcomes
also
indicate
weak
health
system
governance.
Challenges
in
health
system
governance
include
addressing
the
gap
between
policy
development
and
policy
implementation
exacerbated
by
weak
monitoring
and
evaluation
systems,
as
well
as
inequitable
health
financing.
Out
of
pocket
or
self-‐financing
is
the
largest
source
of
healthcare
financing
in
South
Asia
and
South
East
Asia.
There
is
an
increasing
trend
of
privatisation
of
service
provision
and
the
unloading
of
responsibility
by
national
governments
who
are
constitutionally
mandated
to
provide
universal
health
care.
Connected
to
this
is
also
a
lack
of
adequate
mechanisms
and
implementation
of
private
sector
regulation.
Unfair
trade
policies
also
affect
access
to
lifesaving
medicines
and
must
be
abolished.
These
issues
have
not
been
included
in
the
narrative
nor
are
they
addressed
in
the
goals
and
targets.
Issues
of
governance
in
relation
to
health
include
accurate
reporting
of
data
and
functional
health
information
systems.
The
experience
of
our
partners
from
Bangladesh
demonstrates
that
documenting
of
maternal
deaths
is
significantly
flawed.
Persons
responsible
for
keeping
records
of
maternal
deaths
are
instructed
unofficially
and
sometimes
pressured
to
“keep”
the
number
as
low
as
possible.
Record
keepers,
who
are
part
of
the
health
service
delivery
system,
fear
that
the
numbers
might
reflect
on
their
professional
performance.
How
will
national
roadmaps
deal
with
such
issues
of
accountability?
There
is
a
need
to
capture
qualitative
data
which
is
as
important
as
statistics
to
substantiate
claims
of
progress
in
meeting
targets.
Presently,
this
is
also
not
reflected
in
the
HLP
document.
We
reiterate
the
importance
of
using
existing
human
rights
accountability
mechanisms
as
tools
for
the
accountability
of
this
agenda.
12
June
2013
Concluding:
This
report
should
not
be
taken
as
a
basis
for
development
of
the
Post
2015
agenda.
Instead
the
human
rights
architecture
and
environmental
standards
must
be
the
core
of
a
global
sustainable
development
agenda.
It
must
also
include
concrete
means
of
implementation
that
prioritize
public
financing
over
public-‐private
partnerships
in
order
to
realise
states
obligation
to
allocate
the
maximum
availability
of
resources
for
universal
human
rights,
social
justice
and
environmental
sustainability.
To
sign
on
contact:
Women’s
Major
Group
(WMG)10
Contact@WomenMajGrp.org
and
secretariat@wecf.eu
www.womenrio20.org
@Women_Rio20
10 Drafting team includes: Alexandra Garita, Resurj Mexico; Gabriele Koehler Germany; Sascha Gabizon WICF
Netherlands; Shannon Kowalski, International Women's Health Coalition, USA; Almuth Ernsting Biofuelwatch UK;
Gillian Bowser USA; Nicole Bidegain DAWN Uruguay; Alejandra Scampini, AWID, Uruguay; Noelene Nabulivou
DAWN, Fiji; Simone Lovera, Global Forest Coalition, Paraguay; Eleanor Blomstrom, Women’s Environment and
Development Organization, USA; Vivienne Solis, Coopesolidar, Costa Rica; Elina Doshanova, Social Eco Fund,
Kazakhstan; Maria Melinda Ando - Asian-Pacific Resource & Research Centre for Women (ARROW), Malaysia;
Yveline Nicolas, ADEQUATIONS, France, Marcella Balara, ICAE – Chile & Uruguay.
June
2013
12
June
2013
Reflections
on
HLP
post
2015
report
-‐
by
far
not
good
enough!
The
High
Level
Panel
of
Eminent
Persons
report
to
UN
Secretary
General
proposes
12
global
goals
that
are
not
ambitious
enough,
do
not
question
the
inherent
inequalities
of
the
current
economic
systems,
and
fail
to
bring
the
necessary
change
to
end
poverty
now!
Reflection
on
the
High
Level
Panel
post
2015
report
By
members
of
the
Women’s
Major
Group1
This
critical
analysis
by
the
Women’s
Major
Group
members2
on
the
High-‐level
Panel
(HLP)
of
Eminent
Persons
report,
released
on
May
30th
with
recommendations
for
the
Post
2015
Development
Agenda3
,
notes
the
report
as
a
starting
point
for
discussion,
but
not
good
enough.
The
Women’s
Major
Group
is
concerned
about
the
narrow
set
of
goals
and
the
predominance
given
to
the
corporate/business
sector
in
the
“new”
development
agenda.
We
look
to
the
world's
governments
to
be
far
more
ambitious
and
focused
on
addressing
the
root
causes
of
inequality,
injustice
and
poverty
inherent
to
the
existing
economic
paradigm,
as
they
negotiate
the
next
sustainable
development
framework
in
the
Open
Working
Group
on
SDGs
and
the
Post
2015
Development
Agenda.
Contents
• Goals
setting;
too
reductive
to
allow
for
sustainable
development
• A
new
15-‐year
time-‐frame;
delaying
essential
human
rights
even
further!
• Contradictions;
between
goals
and
business-‐as-‐usual
economic
model
• Human
rights
-‐
inconsistent
application
• Critical
analysis
of
selected
specific
Goals
and
Targets
and
Means
of
Implementation
o GOAL
1
End
Poverty:
too
narrow
in
scope,
too
one-‐dimensional
o GOAL
2:
Empower
Girls
and
Women
and
achieve
Gender
Equality:
some
positive
targets,
but
lacks
women’s
rights
as
underpinning
the
entire
development
agenda
o GOAL
3:
Provide
quality
education
and
life-‐long
learning:
lacks
girls’
priorities
o GOAL
4:
Ensure
Healthy
Lives:
some
positive
targets,
but
fails
to
address
social
and
environmental
determinants
of
health
o GOAL
5
Ensure
Food
Security
and
Good
Nutrition:
should
recognize
women’s
role
in
food
sovereignty
o GOAL
7:
Secure
Sustainable
Energy:
utterly
insufficient
and
likely
to
have
negative
impact
on
female
poverty
o GOAL
8:
Create
Jobs,
Sustainable
Livelihoods,
and
Equitable
Growth:
Fails
to
call
for
global
social
protection
floor
and
the
right
to
decent
work
1 The Women’s Major Group (www.womenrio20.org) brings together 400 organisations and individuals working on sustainable
development from a women’s rights perspective at local, national, regional and global level
2 Members of the Women’s Major Group who authored and have endorsed are listed at the end
3 http://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/UN-Report.pdf
12
June
2013
o GOAL
9:
Manage
Natural
Resource
Assets
Sustainability:
too
limiting
in
defining
nature
as
an
asset
o GOAL
12:
Global
Enabling
environment
and
Catalyse
Long-‐Term
Finance:
entirely
insufficient
on
finance,
trade
and
climate
protection
Nothing
‘New’
about
proposed
Global
Governance
and
Global
Partnership
for
Development
No
accountability
of
corporations
Financing
for
Gender
Equality
should
be
a
priority
–
it
is
not
in
the
HLP
report
• Concluding:
This
report
should
not
be
taken
as
a
basis
for
development
of
the
Post
2015
agenda
Goals
setting;
too
reductive
to
allow
for
sustainable
development
Before
analysing
the
specific
goals
and
targets,
the
Women’s
Major
Group
notes
that
the
“goal
setting”
exercise
of
the
Millennium
Development
Goals
and
now
of
the
post
2015
development
agenda
is
in
itself
problematic.
The
MDGs
were
a
donor
driven
approach,
to
focus
development
funds
on
a
few
key
‘deliverables’
and
as
such
goes
against
the
human
rights
approach,
in
which
rights
are
universal
and
indivisible.
The
Women’s
Major
Group
and
other
civil
society
representatives
had
criticised
the
Millennium
Development
Goals
for
not
taking
a
human-‐rights
based
approach
to
development.
Targets
aimed,
for
example,
to
“reduce”
by
50%
the
number
of
people
in
poverty,
or
without
drinking
water,
rather
than
ensuring
that
all
people's
human
rights
to
food,
water,
health,
education,
and
social
protection
were
met.
Often,
development
funds
were
only
used
to
achieve
MDG
targets,
and
anything
outside
the
targets
–
for
example,
access
to
drinking
water
in
schools
–
would
not
be
funded,
as
it
was
not
“counted”
as
achieving
MDG-‐7
by
the
statisticians.
The
report
of
the
High
Level
Panel
on
Post
2015
makes
an
effort
to
respond
to
this
criticism,
and
introduces
goals
which
aim
at
‘universal
coverage’
and
to
‘leave
no-‐one
behind’.
Amongst
the
12
illustrative
goals
we
find
“eradicate
absolute
poverty“
and
“end
hunger“,
“end
child
deaths”,
“provide
universal
health”,
“ensure
universal
sexual
and
reproductive
health
and
rights”,
“universalise
primary
and
lower
secondary
education”
and
“universal
access
to
water
and
sanitation.”
However,
the
overall
problem
of
the
Goals
approach
is
that
it
limits
focus
on
only
a
small
number
of
goals
(8-‐12)
and
only
a
few
targets
per
goal
(4
per
goal,
54
targets
total).
Even
though
this
appears
better
than
the
MDGs,
it
still
results
in
prioritizing
‘just
a
few
human
rights,
while
ignoring
others.
This
approach
also
prevents
an
integrated
approach
to
development
and
reinforces
development
silos.
Gender
equality
is
one
of
the
pre-‐requisites
for
sustainable
development,
and
as
such
specific
efforts
to
achieve
gender
equality
need
to
be
included
in
all
goal
areas,
with,
at
least
one
or
more
specific
gender
targets
per
goal.
The
54
targets
identified
are
just
not
sufficient.
The
goals
approach
is
too
reductive
to
achieve
sustainable
development.
A
new
15-‐year
time-‐frame
may
delay
the
promotion
and
protection
of
human
rights!
The
goals
and
targets
methodology
has
a
further
main
disadvantage;
it
may
delay
the
realization
of
essential
human
rights
and
women’s
rights.
While
the
realization
of
economic
and
social
rights
can
be
progressive,
governments
have
the
obligation
to
ensure
minimum
levels
of
economic
and
social
rights
12
June
2013
protections
for
all
people
now,
without
retrogression,
and
to
allocate
the
maximum
available
resources
to
fully
realize
these
rights.
The
protection
of
civil
and
political
rights,
and
women’s
rights
to
equality
and
non-‐discrimination,
cannot
be
delayed.
However,
by
linking
rights
to
the
availability
of
funds
and
setting
15-‐year
time
horizons
for
their
achievement,
may
give
an
excuse
for
further
delay
in
fully
respecting,
protecting
and
fulfilling
human
rights.
The
universal
commitment
to
end
poverty
which
appears
ambitious
at
first
glance,
is
actually
mere
lip
service
if
its
achievement
is
delayed
until
2030.
This
means
tolerating
yet
another
generation
of
2
billion
people
living
in
poverty,
when
it
would
be
feasible
to
eradicate
absolute
poverty
now.
Contradictions;
between
goals
and
business-‐as-‐usual
economic
model
A
further
serious
problem
of
the
report
is
the
lack
of
coherence
between
the
current
economic
paradigm
which
the
report
does
not
question,
and
the
illustrative
goals
that
are
developed.
To
give
an
example,
how
will
Target
5-‐a
"End
hunger
and
protect
the
right
of
everyone
to
have
access
to
sufficient,
safe,
affordable
and
nutritious
food"
be
made
consistent
with
Target
12
-‐
a
"Support
an
open,
fair
and
development
friendly
trading
system,
substantially
reducing
agricultural
subsidies,
while
improving
market
access
of
developing
countries
products".
Developing
local
sustainable
agriculture
and
empowerment
of
women
peasants
in
developing
countries
requires
support,
including
via
fiscal
incentives,
and
even
protection
measures.
A
Global
Sustainable
Development
Agenda.
We
note
positively
that
the
report
recognizes
that
to
durably
eradicate
poverty,
development
has
to
be
sustainable,
socially
just
and
within
the
planet’s
carrying
capacity.
It
also
recognizes
that
people
living
in
poverty
suffer
first
and
worst
from
environmental
disasters
like
droughts,
floods
and
harvest
failures.
However,
the
targets
often
contradict
this
overall
aim.
The
report
fails
to
recognize
the
failures
of
the
no
(ecological)
limits
to
“growth”
paradigm
that
underlies
the
current
economic
system,
promoting
corporate
profits
over
the
wellbeing
of
people.
The
report
does
not
provide
an
explanation
on
how
States
will
connect,
measure
and
simultaneously
address
complex
issues
of
ecological
loss
and
damage,
community
sustainability
and
economic
viability
and
does
not
recognize
the
role
of
developed
countries
in
contributing
to
historical
emissions
and
the
inequitable
impacts
(geography,
gender,
economic)
of
climate
change.
Beyond
Gross
Domestic
Product
and
removing
perverse
subsidies.
We
note
that
the
report
sets
a
target
for
all
countries
to
add
environmental
and
social
measures
to
its
national
accounting,
to
go
beyond
GDP
and
recognizes
the
need
to
abolish
(inefficient)
subsidies
for
agriculture
and
fossil
fuels,
but
forgets
the
need
to
abolish
fishery
subsidies
and
does
not
distinguish
between
the
role
of
subsidies
in
rich
countries
and
low-‐income
countries
(where
they
may
actually
be
useful).
But
the
report
neglects
to
set
a
target
for
a
true
reform
of
the
monetary,
financial
and
trade
rules
globally
that
would
ensure
enough
fiscal
policy
space
at
the
national
level
to
implement
all
the
envisioned
recommendations.
Without
seriously
reforming
the
economic
and
social
systems
that
can
create
the
necessary
enabling
environments
for
national
governments
to
actually
provide
their
people
with
the
services
that
they
need,
and
the
human
rights
that
they
are
entitled
to,
we
will
not
create
transformational
change
for
women,
men,
young
people
or
for
the
planet.
12
June
2013
Finally,
the
report
neglects
to
address
the
destructive
nature
of
the
extractives
sector,
depleting
natural
resources
of
developing
countries
and
displacing
communities,
while
taking
almost
all
revenues
abroad
and
leaving
irreparable
damage
to
the
environment
and
public
health.
The
Women’s
Major
Group
addressed
the
destructive
role
of
the
extractive
industry
sector
in
its
letter
to
the
HLP
meeting
in
Bali;
a
sentence
from
this
letter
has
found
its
way
into
the
annexes
of
the
report
(pg
62),
but
this
has
not
been
addressed
by
the
HLP.
Human
rights
-‐
inconsistent
approach
At
a
certain
moment
in
the
consultations
leading
up
to
the
report,
it
seemed
as
if
the
HLP
members
did
not
even
dare
to
use
the
term
“human
rights.”
We
note
positively
that
the
report
recommends
to
include
the
protection
and
fulfilment
of
some
human
rights,
including
the
right
to
freedom
of
speech,
association,
and
peaceful
protest
(10b);
the
right
to
access
to
independent
media
and
information
(10b
and
d);
public
participation
in
political
processes
and
civil
engagement
at
all
levels
(10c);
access
to
justice
(11b);
and
the
right
to
food
(5a).
Even
though
human
rights
are
universal,
indivisible
and
interdependent4
the
report
focuses
on
the
achievement
of
just
a
few
human
rights
-‐
and
prioritizes
civil
and
political
rights
over
economic,
social
and
cultural
rights.
The
report
misses
the
critical
opportunity
to
concretely
frame
its
recommendations
in
terms
of
fundamental
human
rights;
promote
human
rights-‐based
approaches
in
its
implementation;
and
link
the
strong
human
rights
accountability
mechanisms
that
already
exist
with
governments'
development
obligations
as
duty
bearers.
In
the
area
of
women’s
rights,
the
report
misses
the
opportunity
to
include
a
target
on
enforcing
laws
and
policies
that
promote
gender
equality
and
eliminating
laws,
policies
and
practices
that
discriminate
against
and
are
harmful
to
women
and
girls.
Included
in
this
is
the
need
to
enact
economic
and
social
policies
that
contribute
to
achieving
gender
equality
and
align
with
human
rights
principles.
This
application
of
a
human
rights
framework
to
the
design
of
development
priorities
is
largely
missing
in
the
report
and
is
a
vital
and
critical
step
to
reach
girls
and
women
and
achieve
the
goals
envisioned.
The
report
falsely
equates
the
rights
of
business
with
human
rights.
The
real
priorities
of
the
'new'
and
ambitious
agenda
are
exposed
when
the
report
recommends
that
businesses
have
the
same
rights
of
women,
men
and
children,
to
that
of
business,
regarding
land
and
property
rights
(target
1b).
This
creates
conditions
for
more
land-‐grabbing,
when
the
opposite
is
necessary:
a
target
that
redistributes
assets
from
corporations
to
women,
indigenous
peoples,
people
living
in
poverty,
and
other
groups
that
are
marginalized.
.
Rights
of
migrants
not
adequately
addressed
Chapter
3
(p.
18)
of
the
report
notes,
“the
universal
human
rights
and
fundamental
freedoms
of
migrants
must
be
respected.”
Their
economic
contributions
to
both
origin
and
host
countries
are
also
acknowledged.
Aside
from
this
small
section,
the
report
does
not
have
any
substantive
proposals
on
migrants.
Their
contributions
to
society,
aside
from
economic,
are
not
acknowledged;
neither
are
the
challenges
and
discriminations
they
face.
The
concept
of
“leave
no
one
behind”
as
it
stands
in
the
report
does
not
seem
4 1992 Vienna Declaration, Paragraph 5
12
June
2013
to
explicitly
cover
migrants.
Citizenship
and
migration
status,
as
well
as
the
irregularity
or
legality
of
the
migration,
have
great
impact
on
migrants’
access
to
social
protection
and
services,
particularly
health
services,
including
sexual
and
reproductive
health
services,
and
education,
.
Citizenship
and
migration
status
need
to
be
included
among
the
factors
for
discrimination,
together
with
gender,
sexual
orientation
and
gender
identity,
ethnicity,
disability,
age,
geography,
income
level,
race
or
other
status,
throughout
the
report.
Equal
rights
and
access
to
services
should
be
for
all,
whether
citizens,
migrants,
asylum
seekers
or
refugees.
Critical
analysis
of
selected
specific
Goals
and
Targets
and
Means
of
Implementation
Below
we
discuss
examples
of
the
illustrative
goals
and
targets,
which
contain
some
positive
elements
but
also
many
glaring
shortcomings.
GOAL
1
End
Poverty:
too
narrow
in
scope,
too
one-‐dimensional
The
HLP
Report
would
be
satisfied
with
eradicating
only
the
most
extreme
form
of
income
poverty
–
under
$1.25
per
day.
We
know
from
the
MDGs
that
in
many
instances
extreme
poverty
persists
even
with
double
that
income,
as
witnessed
most
recently
by
the
food
price
hikes
which
hit
low
income
households
the
hardest.
The
income
poverty
line
also
ignores
specific
economic
burdens
depending
on
the
country
and
situation
(e.g.,
extra
costs
where
harsh
winters
exist
or
in
remote
areas
where
access
to
food,
other
commodities,
and
services
is
unreliable
and
more
costly).
More
importantly,
an
income-‐
based
indicator
gives
partly
wrong
information
on
who
is
living
in
poverty,
and
if
any
progress
is
being
made.
As
the
majority
of
people
living
in
poverty
are
women,
and
many
of
them
are
engaged
in
the
informal
and
precarious
sectors,
or
depend
for
their
livelihoods
on
access
to
natural
resources
of
the
commons,
women's
poverty
is
often
invisible
with
such
an
income
indicator.
GOAL
2
Empower
Girls
and
Women
and
achieve
Gender
Equality:
some
positive
targets,
but
lacks
women’s
rights
as
underpinning
the
entire
development
agenda
Firstly,
we
note
positively
that
the
report
includes
concrete
recommendations
on
women's
and
girls'
empowerment
and
gender
equality,
including
specific
targets
to:
• Prevent
and
eliminate
all
forms
of
violence
against
girls
and
women
(target
2a);
• End
child
marriage
(target
2b);
• Ensure
the
equal
right
of
women
to
own
and
inherit
property,
sign
a
contract,
register
a
business
and
open
a
bank
account
(target
2c);
and
• Ensure
universal
sexual
and
reproductive
health
and
rights
(target
4d).
We
are
not
convinced
by
the
wording
of
target
2d
to
“Eliminate
discrimination
against
women
in
political,
economic,
and
public
life”,
it
should
have
been
formulated
as
“ensuring
gender
equality
in
political,
economic
and
public
life”,
because
ending
discrimination
is
just
a
fist
step
towards
equality,
and
not
enough
to
assure
women’s
and
girl’s
empowerment
in
all
areas
of
society.
12
June
2013
It
does
not
build
on
internationally
agreed
normative
framework
of
women's
rights
as
human
rights5.
In
several
places
women's
human
rights
are
eroded
by
giving
businesses
the
same
rights
and
privileges:.
Target
1b
of
the
'Ending
Poverty'
goal,
states,
'Increase
by
x
percent
the
share
of
women
and
men,
communities
and
business
with
secure
rights
to
land,
property
and
other
assets.”
In
many
countries,
violations
of
women's
and
community
rights
to
land,
food,
water,
are
a
direct
result
of
land-‐grabbing
and
other
privileges
given
to
private
businesses.
Weak
gender
analysis
and
failure
to
address
women's
rights
as
a
cross-‐cutting
issue.
The
report
notes
that
it
addresses
women
and
girls
in
a
cross-‐cutting
way,
however,
at
close
scrutiny,
neither
the
narrative
nor
the
goals
and
targets
framework
go
far
enough
in
identifying
how
women's
and
girls'
experiences
of
multiple
and
intersecting
forms
of
discrimination
result
in
deeper
experiences
of
poverty,
deprivation
and
social
marginalization;
how
women
and
girls
face
unequal
and
unfair
burdens
in
sustaining
the
well-‐
being
of
their
societies
and
economies
in
both
the
wage
and
the
care
economy;
and
how
women
face
multiple
violations
of
their
human
rights
that
obstruct
their
equitable
participation
in
economic,
social
and
political
life.
The
majority
of
the
world's
poor
are
women;
women
are
primarily
employed
in
the
informal
economy
and
work
triple
burdens
in
underpaid
wage
work,
household-‐related
work,
and
the
care
economy.
In
low
income
countries
they
face
a
high
risk
of
dying
in
childbirth
and
malnourished;
women
are
more
likely
to
die
as
a
result
of
natural
disasters
than
men;
women
have
far
less
access
to
or
rights
to
land,
property
and
other
assets;
and
women
are
not
adequately
covered
by
most
social
protection
systems.
Yet
women
are
not
explicitly
addressed
under
the
goal
to
end
poverty
in
either
the
narrative
or
the
proposed
targets,
or
other
goals.
The
links
to
gender
equality
and
women’s
empowerment
must
go
beyond
recognizing
women
as
a
vulnerable
group
to
ensure
women’s
full
and
equal
enjoyment
of
rights,
participation
in
all
aspects
of
planning
and
decision-‐making
and
incorporation
of
valuable
knowledge
and
experiences.
GOAL
3
Provide
quality
education
and
life-‐long
learning:
lacks
girls’
priorities!
Provide
quality
life-‐long
education
is
a
very
important
goal
and
a
fundamental
pre-‐requisite
for
achievement
of
other
goals.
However,
the
report
should
explain
that
it
is
a
right,
and
that
the
right
is
to
universal
access
to
education.
No
consideration
of
the
need
for
girls
to
complete
secondary
education.
While
gender
parity
in
primary
education
may
have
been
achieved,
girls
are
far
less
likely
to
complete
secondary
school
education
than
boys,
undermining
their
right
to
education,
and
with
far-‐reaching
consequences
for
their
own
development
and
well-‐being,
as
well
as
that
of
their
families
and
communities.
Girls
who
do
not
complete
secondary
education
are
more
likely
to
be
forced
into
early
marriage;
experience
early
pregnancy
and
childbearing;
and
are
less
likely
to
be
able
to
exercise
their
economic
rights,
ensure
sustainable
livelihoods,
or
access
employment.
There
is
also
no
consideration
to
the
need
for
girls
to
complete
secondary
education
or
access
tertiary
education
or
other
forms
of
employment
training
or
livelihood
skills
to
have
access
to
decent
work
and
social
protection.
There
is
absolutely
no
gender
analysis
or
specific
recommendations
focused
on
ensuring
girls
can
receive
the
sexuality
education
that
provides
them
with
the
knowledge
about
their
bodies
and
their
rights
that
they
need
in
order
to
5. Women's Major Group Statement, Bonn: http://www.womenrio20.org/docs/final_Women%20Statements_Endorsements-2…
12
June
2013
negotiate
relationships.
Finally,
women’s
and
men’s
literacy
and
adult
education
are
not
sufficiently
addressed
and
targets
for
quality
education
and
life-‐long
learning
should
be
developed
and
oriented
to
equity,
universal
access
and
quality.
GOAL
4
Ensure
Healthy
Lives:
fails
to
address
social
and
environmental
determinants
of
health
Ensure
healthy
lives
is
a
laudable
goal,
and
we
welcome
the
targets
calling
for
universal
sexual
and
reproductive
health
and
rights,
which
is
critical
for
gender
equality
and
a
priority
for
women.
The
inclusion
of
non-‐communicable
diseases,
such
as
cancer,
and
the
continuing
focus
on
reducing
the
burden
of
disease
from
HIV,
TB
and
malaria
are
also
welcome.
Fails
to
address
social
determinants
of
health:
The
report
does
not
adequately
address
how
social
determinants
of
health,
including
environmental
health,
contribute
to
many
of
the
poor
health
outcomes
that
the
panel
aims
to
address.
Food
and
nutrition,
security,
water
and
sanitation,
and
other
environmental
and
occupational
factors
can
have
specific
negative
health
consequences
for
women
and
girls,
including
for
their
sexual
and
reproductive
health.
While
the
report
acknowledges
that
universal
health
coverage
is
an
important
step
toward
achieving
the
targets,
it
does
not
adequately
analyse
how
other
barriers
can
impede
or
facilitate
women's
and
girls'
access
to
critical
health
services,
such
as
laws
and
policies,
social
and
cultural
norms
and
practices,
weaknesses
in
health
systems,
or
lack
of
information
or
individual
empowerment.
The
report
also
does
not
address
public
financing
of
health
services
or
the
quality
of
services
and
the
need
for
public
control
over
public
services
and
to
halt
the
promotion
of
privatization.
To
ensure
universal
and
quality
health
services,
a
tax
justice
and
tax
reform
strategy
should
be
a
target
for
sustainable
development.
Fails
to
address
environmental
determinants
of
health.
A
main
cause
of
non-‐communicable
diseases
is
likely
to
be
related
environmental
pollution
factors.
For
example,
UNEP’s
global
chemicals
outlook
2012
estimated
2
million
people
get
ill,
and
800,000
die
each
year
from
pesticides
and
harmful
chemicals.
There
is
no
reference
to
environmental
determinants
of
health
in
the
HLP
report.
On
the
contrary,
the
report
speaks
of
“insecticide-‐treated
bed-‐nets”
for
malaria
control,
most
likely
referring
to
DDT
treated
bed
nets.
DDT
is
known
as
one
of
the
most
dangerous
insecticides,
and
WHO6
has
established
that
malaria
can
be
ended
without
use
of
DDT.
Would
benefit
from
more
information
on
SRHR.
In
the
section
on
health,
where
SRHR
is
mentioned,
it
would
be
beneficial
to
describe
what
services
are
meant.
We
want
these
services
to
be
of
quality
(as
in
accessible,
available,
appropriate),
comprehensive
across
a
woman’s
lifecycle
and
across
various
locations
–
home,
community
and
health
facilities
–
as
important
to
reduce
adolescent,
maternal,
newborn
and
child
mortality
and
morbidity
and
improve
women’s
reproductive
health.
This
would
include
provision
of
the
full
range
of
contraceptives
(including
emergency
contraception),
services
to
ensure
maternal
health
and
nutrition,
emergency
and
comprehensive
obstetric
and
postnatal
care
services,
interventions
for
maternal
morbidities
including
uterine
prolapse,
services
for
safe
abortion
and
management
of
abortion
complications,
infertility
treatment,
access
to
medication
and
treatment
for
STI
and
HIV
and
reproductive
cancers,
and
appropriate
referral
systems.
Services
and
programs
for
SRHR,
HIV
and
AIDS
and
gender
based
violence
need
to
be
inter-‐linked,
gender-‐sensitive,
rights-‐based,
disability-‐friendly,
and
available
even
in
times
of
conflict,
disasters,
migration
and
displacement7.
6 WHO has set a target to phase out DDT use in combatting malaria latest by 2020, earlier if possible.
7 KL Call to Action 2012 http://arrow.org.my/APNGOs/KL_Call_to_Action.pdf
12
June
2013
GOAL
5
Ensure
Food
Security
and
Good
Nutrition:
should
recognize
women’s
role
in
food
sovereignty
The
HLP
report
makes
the
linkages
between
poverty
as
a
cause
of
food
insecurity
and
affordability
of
food
as
being
a
primary
concern.
It
is
important
to
understand
these
linkages
and
their
mutually
reinforcing
nature,
and
this
was
adequately
covered
in
the
report.
Additionally,
the
report
highlights
the
link
between
undernourished
women
and
undernourished
children.
Women
who
suffer
from
food
insecurity
and
related
conditions
such
as
stunting,
wasting
and
anaemia
are
more
likely
to
give
birth
to
undernourished
children
with
low
birth
rates
who
are
more
prone
to
stunting,
wasting
and
anaemia,
as
well
as
other
health
complications.
We
miss,
however,
a
critique
of
the
whole
concept
of
food
security.
Women’s
and
peasant
movements
use
the
concept
of
food
sovereignty
instead,
which
asserts
the
right
of
people
to
define
their
own
food
systems
and
puts
people
who
produce,
distribute
and
consume
food
at
the
centre
of
decisions
on
food
systems
and
policies,
rather
than
the
corporations
and
market
institutions
they
believe
have
come
to
dominate
the
global
food
system.
Women
in
many
regions
of
the
world
are
key
to
ending
hunger,
in
some
regions
producing
up
to
80%
of
the
food
for
their
families.
The
report
lacks
an
analysis
as
to
the
role
that
transnational
corporations
play
in
food
insecurity,
through
genetically
modified
crops
and
seed
patenting.
Instead,
there
is
an
emphasis
on
utilising
new
technologies
and
shifting
to
large
scale
sustainable
food
production.
It
is
important
to
note
that
pesticides
and
other
technologies
that
tend
to
be
pushed
by
transnational
corporations
and
used
in
large-‐scale
food
production
have
a
strong
impact
on
sexual
and
reproductive
health,
particularly
of
women
who
tend
to
be
more
frequently
employed
as
agrarian
workers.
These
impacts
include
reproductive
cancers,
loss
of
fertility
and
menstrual
problems.
Moreover,
while
the
link
between
undernourished
women
and
undernourished
children
is
highlighted,
this
is
only
in
the
context
of
children’s
welfare.
As
such,
the
proposed
goal
for
food
security
and
nutrition
only
includes
reducing
stunting,
wasting
and
anaemia
in
children
under
5;
it
is
unacceptable
that
there
is
no
target
for
assuring
women’s
food
sovereignty,
health
and
nutrition
security.
Food
security
and
nutrition
are
crucial
concerns
for
women,
as
these
are
linked
to
women’s
health,
including
their
sexual
and
reproductive
health.
Patriarchal
and
cultural
norms
in
many
of
our
contexts,
mean
that
women
eat
least
and
last.
As
such
many
women
are
undernourished,
which
has
consequences
particularly
during
pregnancy,
increasing
the
risks
of
complications
during
childbirth.
In
India,
19%
of
all
maternal
deaths
are
thought
to
be
related
to
nutritional
anaemia
and
this
figure
is
reflected
across
many
parts
of
the
global
South.8
While
a
focus
on
children
is
also
important,
it
should
not
be
at
the
expense
of
women.
GOAL
7
Secure
Sustainable
Energy:
utterly
insufficient
and
likely
to
have
negative
impact
on
female
poverty.
8ANSWERS & CHETNA, Monitoring Nutritional Anaemia: India’s Commitments to the ICPD Programme of Action 15 Years
on. In, , Reclaiming & Redefining Rights: Thematic Series 4 Maternal Mortality and Morbidity in Asia, ARROW , 201
12
June
2013
Targets
for
renewable
energy
are
utterly
insufficient.
The
Report
contradicts
itself
when
it
sets
a
target
for
renewable
energy
and
energy
saving
(in
buildings)
which
is
utterly
insufficient
to
achieve
climate
protection
whilst
ensuring
sustainable
development.
The
Women’s
Major
Group
calls
for
a
specific
target
to
ensure
access
to
safe
and
renewable
energy
for
households.
If
renewable
energy
technology
is
not
accessible
by
households,
the
benefits
to
women
and
girls
will
be
limited.
Small-‐scale
mitigation
projects
for
households
and
rural
communities
cannot
compete
against
large-‐scale
development
project
that
are
often
proposed
by
huge
multinational
corporations.
Entirely
missing
are
also
sustainable
agricultural
practices
that
help
protect
small-‐holder
farmers
(often
women)
and
provide
for
climate
mitigation
(drought,
crop
failure,
etc.)
At
the
same
time,
we
are
cautious
of
how
renewable
energy
is
defined.
With
the
current
flawed
definition
of
renewable
energy
used
in
international
forums,
generic
renewables
targets
such
as
in
the
HLP
report
can
be
used
to
justify
massive
increase
in
mega
hydro
dams
as
well
as
biofuels
and
biomass
from
vast
new
monoculture
plantations,
involving
displacement,
hunger,
human
rights
abuses
and
deforestation.
Women
are
often
disproportionally
affected
by
land-‐grabbing
as
a
result
of
such
types
of
large-‐scale
destructive
energy
programmes.
Further,
CO2
reductions
cannot
and
should
not
come
from
high-‐risk
technologies
that
create
irreversible
damage
to
our
health
and
the
planet,
such
as
nuclear,
tar
sands,
shale
gas,
geo-‐engineering
or
the
like.
Energy
policies
and
investments
should
have
human
rights-‐
based
safeguards,
so
that
'modern'
energy
and
efforts
for
C02
reductions
cannot
be
based
on
high-‐risk
technologies
that
create
irreversible
damage
to
our
health
and
the
planet,
such
as
nuclear,
tar
sands,
shale
gas,
geo-‐engineering
or
the
like.
GOAL
8
Create
Jobs,
Sustainable
Livelihoods,
and
Equitable
Growth:
Fails
to
call
for
global
social
protection
floor
and
the
right
to
decent
work.
The
Report
remains
in
the
conceptual
world
of
economic
growth
and
market
forces,
with
merely
the
assuaging
attribute
that
such
growth
be
“inclusive”.
The
Report
is
oblivious
to
the
requirements
for
radical
change
in
the
functioning
of
global
value
chains
which
re-‐create
poverty
and
ill-‐being
on
a
daily
basis.
The
Report
does
not
propose
universal
access
to
decent
work,
nor
equitable
access
to
assets
such
as
land,
water,
IPRs.
There
is
no
mention
of
the
falling
share
of
wages
in
GDP
that
has
characterised
the
past
decade
in
so
many
countries.
Instead,
the
Report
backs
the
neoliberal
policy
of
flexible
labour
markets
–
as
though
unemployment
were
labour´s
fault
by
being
so
inflexible.
It
recommends
business
start-‐ups
as
a
solution
to
ever
increasing
numbers
of
unemployed
and
working
poor.
These
are
market-‐
fundamentalist
responses
to
deep
structural
faults
–
and
have
proved
not
just
wrong,
but
pernicious
for
the
majority
of
the
world´s
population,
in
particular
for
women.
Women
are
the
majority
of
those
living
in
poverty
and
working
in
precarious
jobs,
and
therefore
the
foremost
beneficiaries
of
social
protection
and
decent
jobs,
as
shown
by
the
more
than
thousand
textile
workers
killed
in
the
first
months
of
2013,
in
majority
women
and
girls.
GOAL
9
Manage
Natural
Resource
Assets
Sustainability:
too
limiting
in
defining
nature
as
an
asset
The
title
of
goal
9
is
dangerous
and
can
lead
to
increased
poverty
and
inequalities.
The
title
of
the
goal
'manage
natural
resource
assets
sustainably'
ignores
the
fact
that
ecosystems
do
not
necessarily
have
to
be
managed,
they
can
also
be
conserved
through
set-‐asides
as
sacred
sites
or
for
other
ethical,
cultural,
environmental
or
other
purposes.
The
role
of
women,
indigenous
peoples,
small
farmers
and
small
scale
fishers
in
conserving
and
restoring
soils,
coastal
and
marine
territories
and
other
ecosystems
is
not
12
June
2013
sufficiently
recognized;
throughout
the
document
these
groups
seems
to
be
treated
as
victims
of
environmental
degradation
only,
rather
than
active
actors
in
sustainable
livelihoods.
The
role
of
traditional
knowledge
is
particularly
important
for
ecosystem
conservation
and
restoration.
The
report
fails
to
recognize
that
territories
and
areas
conserved
by
Indigenous
Peoples
and
local
communities
play
a
key
role
not
only
in
forest
conservation,
but
in
soil,
coastal
and
marine
conservation,
and
in
ecosystem
conservation
in
general,
and
that
these
territories
and
areas
should
be
legally
and
politically
recognized
and
supported.
Women’s
traditional
knowledge
should
instead
have
been
recognized.
Women
—
in
all
their
cultural
diversity
as
indigenous
people,
afro-‐descendants,
peasants
and
fisherwomen
—
have
a
collective
but
differentiated
traditional
knowledge
about
natural
resources
that
is
crucial
to
the
future
sustainable
management
and
conservation
of
those
resources.
This
expertise
has
been
built
upon
years
of
often
invisible
or
unpaid
work,
that
has
been
key
to
the
livelihoods
of
entire
communities.
At
the
same
time
prioritising
sustainable
use
approaches,9
including
community-‐based
natural
resource
management
and
policies
that
give
resource
and
tenure
rights
to
women,
is
vital
for
women.
This
would
allow
them
to
increase
the
benefits
they
derive
from
natural
resources,
with
significant
implications
for
poverty
eradication.
This
approach
involves
promoting
conservation
based
on
a
long-‐term
vision
of
the
sustainable
use
of
nature,
maximizing
the
value
of
common
pool
wild
resources,
and
increasing
local
governance
over
natural
resources.
Forests
are
not
plantations,
as
the
report
seems
to
suggest.
Without
a
proper
definition
of
'forests",
a
target
on
"reforestation"
is
extremely
problematic
as
it
could
include
the
expansion
of
monoculture
tree
plantations.
Direct
and
indirect
replacement
of
natural
forests
by
monoculture
tree
plantations
is
one
of
the
main
threats
to
the
world's
biodiversity.
In
this
respect,
it
is
also
crucially
important
to
ensure
a
'land
degradation
neutral'
or
'net
deforestation'
approach
does
not
lead
to
offsetting
natural
forest
loss
and
soil
degradation
in
one
location
through
tree
planting,
including
with
invasive
and/or
exotic
species,
elsewhere.
We
are
also
concerned
about
the
emphasis
on
valuation,
partnerships,
REDD+
and
other
'green
economy'
approaches
under
goal
9,
which
trigger
the
commodification
and
corporate
take-‐over
of
nature
to
the
detriment
of
women
and
other
groups.
The
rights
of
Mother
Earth,
which
are
recognized
by
the
UN
General
Assembly,
are
ignored
in
the
report.
Missing;
redirect
perverse
subsidies
to
protect
biodiversity.
We
welcome
that
the
report
acknowledges
the
importance
of
vital
ecosystems
like
forests,
and
that
there
are
concrete
targets
proposed
to
safeguard
ecosystems,
species
and
genetic
diversity,
and
to
reduce
deforestation,
soil
erosion,
and
desertification.
It
is
positive
these
areas
are
combined.
The
recognition
that
more
corporate
accountability
and
a
concrete
target
on
sustainable
government
procurement
are
needed
to
achieve
the
goal
of
sustainable
management
of
'natural
resource
assets'
is
welcome
as
well.
We
also
welcome
the
acknowledgement
that
biodiversity
loss
is
irreversible,
and
that
maintaining
forests
and
other
essential
ecosystems
'with
many
different
species'
is
essential
for
livelihoods.
However,
a
reference
to
the
existing
Aichi
targets
of
the
Biodiversity
Convention
is
missing,
including
the
important
target
to
redirect
perverse
incentives.
Sustainable
consumption
and
production
patterns
are
essential
as
well,
and
both
9 “Use, if sustainable, can serve human needs on an on-going basis while contributing to the conservation of biological
diversity”, Sustainable Use Policy Statement, IUCN, 2000,
http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/sustainable_use_and_livelih…
12
June
2013
regulatory
approaches
and
education
and
awareness
raising
are
key
in
this
respect.
No
critical
growth
analysis,
nor
reform
of
trade,
financial,
extractives
and
investor
sectors.
The
report
also
neglects
to
target
a
true
reform
of
the
monetary,
financial
and
trade
rules
globally
that
would
ensure
enough
fiscal
policy
space
at
the
national
level
to
implement
all
the
envisioned
recommendations.
Without
seriously
reforming
the
economic
and
social
paradigms
that
can
create
the
necessary
enabling
environments
for
national
governments
to
actually
provide
their
people
with
the
services
that
they
need,
and
the
human
rights
that
they
are
entitled
to,
we
will
not
create
transformational
change
for
women,
men,
young
people
or
for
the
planet.
GOAL
12
Global
Enabling
environment
and
Catalyse
Long-‐Term
Finance
–
entirely
insufficient
Deep
financial
and
trade
reform
not
addressed:
The
finance
recommendations
of
the
report
are
utterly
insufficient,
and
it
does
not
recommend
the
deep
financial
and
trade
reform
necessary
to
achieve
the
goals.
The
report
does
not
address
the
impact
of
transnational
corporations
and
businesses
and
their
role
and
power
that
they
exert
nationally
and
regionally
which
often
goes
in
detriment
of
the
realization
of
Human
Rights.
On
the
contrary,
in
target
12.b
the
report
calls
on
“stable,
long-‐term
private
investments”
which
can
be
interpreted
in
many
ways,
including
a
further
weakening
of
States
faced
with
unfair
bilateral
investment
treaties.
The
post
2015
recommendations
in
the
report
do
not
address
the
systemic
risks
produced
by
poorly
regulated
financial
flows
and
financial
markets.
The
panel
does
not
call
for
re-‐evaluation
and
reform
of
existing
international
institutions—IMF,
WB,
WTO—or
the
creation
of
new
ones
to
correct
global
economic
imbalances,
enforce
accountability,
and
promote
stability.
The
report
does
not
address
the
fact
that
the
poorer
developing
countries
do
not
have
an
equal
voice
in
financial
decisions.
Climate
change
as
a
critical
and
cross-‐cutting
issue
and
should
be
framed
within
the
planetary
boundaries.
The
report
recognizes
that
climate
change
is
a
threat
to
humanity,
that
people
living
in
poverty
are
most
affected,
and
that
it
is
better
to
address
it
now
than
deal
with
the
consequences
later.
The
report
sets
a
target
(12
c)
to
stay
below
2
degrees
Celsius
global
temperature
increase,
which
is
a
first
step.
But
it
is
not
enough.
Two
degrees
of
global
temperature
increase
will
not
allow
for
a
stable
climate
and
effects
today
are
already
putting
the
survival
of
entire
countries
and
millions
of
people
at
great
risk,
as
well
as
reversing
existing
development
gains.
While
climate
change
is
highlighted
as
a
cross-‐cutting
issue,
the
report
does
not
include
critical
inter-‐
linkages
in
terms
of
women's
rights
and
gender
equality,
and
climate
change.
The
illustrative
targets
related
to
energy,
agriculture,
transport,
deforestation
and
food
security,
which
are
indicated
as
means
to
address
climate
change,
need
to
clearly
articulate
the
connections
or
they
will
not
be
prioritized.
Examples
include
ensuring
women's
access
and
control
of
natural
resources,
promoting
women’s
role
in
sustainable
energy
solutions,
drawing
on
and
safeguarding
women’s
traditional
knowledge,
and
integrating
sustainable
agricultural
practices
that
help
protect
small
holder
farmers
(often
women)
and
provide
for
climate
mitigation
(drought,
crop
failure,
etc.).
We
also
call
for
a
stronger
recognition
that
climate
change
has
differentiated
effects
on
women
and
men
which
require
translation
into
prioritized
targets
and
efforts
regarding
women’s
adaptation
to
climate
change,
gender-‐sensitive
strategies
and
women’s
access
to
adaptation
and
disaster
risk
reduction
12
June
2013
finance.
Financing
for
Gender
Equality
should
be
a
priority
–
it
is
not
in
the
HLP
report
As
has
been
clear
in
the
MDG
review
processes,
limited
financing
has
been
a
major
barrier
to
advancing
development
goals.
This
report
does
not
address
this
vital
issue.
There
is
no
specific
recommendation
to
allocate
resources
for
advancing
women’s
rights
and
gender
equality.
We
appreciate
efforts
to
define
clear
financing
targets
to
achieve
the
goals,
but
we
believe
the
report
should
also
have
given
attention
to
how
funding
is
delivered
in
ways
that
maximize
its
impact.
Research
from
recent
years
has
shown
that
effective
financing
for
gender
equality
moves
away
from
fragmented,
short-‐term
funding
cycles
towards
longer
term
partnerships
of
predictable,
flexible,
and
multiyear
support.
Further,
the
report
fails
to
highlight
the
need
to
secure
resources
for
the
diversity
of
actors
engaged
in
this
work,
including
civil
society
and
rights
holders,
and
among
them,
women’s
organizations
and
movements,
who
are
doing
some
of
the
most
impactful
and
innovative
work
in
this
field,
holding
the
line
on
past
gains,
pushing
for
new
policy
and
behavioural
changes,
providing
critical
services,
and
holding
governments
accountable
for
their
commitments.
Securing
resources
for
women’s
organizations
and
movements
is
clearly
a
key
lever
for
sustainable
change
to
advance
gender
equality
and
women’s
rights
at
different
levels.
Yet
this
is
missing
from
the
report.
Finally,
we
believe
current
debates
on
financial
policies
cannot
happen
separately
to
the
framing
of
a
development
agenda
post-‐2015.
We
urge
strong
recommendations
to
accelerate
progress
and
include
this
aspect
in
further
thematic,
regional,
national
and
intergovernmental
consultations
that
are
already
being
planned
by
the
UN.
Nothing
‘New’
about
proposed
Global
Governance
and
Global
Partnership
for
Development
There
is
nothing
new
about
the
“Global
Partnership
for
Development”
proposed
in
the
report
(chapter
2).
The
focus
seems
to
be
largely
on
foreign
private
investment
and
domestic
sources,
with
recognition
of
the
role
of
Official
Development
Assistance
(ODA)
from
developed
countries.
Although
there
is
still
a
role
for
development
assistance
in
the
appropriate
context,
ODA
is
insufficient.
Particularly
in
a
context
of
financial
crisis,
cuts
in
aid
delivery
and
dramatic
changes
in
the
financial
development
landscape,
there
is
a
need
to
do
a
better
assessment.
All
experience
with
market-‐based
financial
mechanisms
show
that
women
are
at
a
disadvantage,
and
that
women
living
in
poverty
need
public
funding
programs
to
move
out
of
the
poverty
spiral.
The
new
post
2015
should
take
into
consideration
these
changes.
Regarding
policy
coherence,
we
acknowledge
that
the
report
sees
the
need
for
"reforms
in
the
international
financial
architecture"
and
ways
to
"create
a
more
open,
more
fair
global
trading
system"
(p.15,
chapter
3).
However,
we
regret
that
the
report
falls
short
of
explicitly
recommending
policy
coherence
and
the
alignment
of
trade
and
financial
systems
with
a
human
rights
framework,
preferring
to
stress
their
contribution
"to
real
economic
growth"
(p.15).
The
result
is
only
vague
commitments
for
reform.
Accountability
–
corporations
are
off
the
hook
In
terms
of
multiple
accountability
the
HLP
recognizes
multiple
actors
involved
in
development
and
the
need
to
"include
monitoring
and
accountability
mechanisms
involving
states,
civil
society,
the
private
12
June
2013
sector,
foundations,
and
the
international
development
community"
(p.13).
We
miss
the
fact
that
–
unlike
in
the
UN
sustainable
development
processes
–
civil
society
is
not
addressed
in
its
diversity,
with
reference
to
women
and
other
important
groups
of
civil
society
(youth,
indigenous
peoples
etc.).
However,
the
report
fails
to
recognize
the
need
for
stronger
regulatory
frameworks,
especially
for
the
corporate
sector
and
instead
relies
on
the
“willingness
on
the
part
of
large
corporations
as
well
as
governments
to
report
on
their
social
and
environmental
impact
in
addition
to
releasing
financial
accounts.”
(p.17).
The
business-‐oriented
language
is
very
clear
in
the
definition
of
'accountability'
in
the
High
Level
Panel
Report,
where
“accountability
must
be
exercised
at
the
right
level:
governments
to
their
own
citizens,
local
governments
to
their
communities,
corporations
to
their
shareholders,
civil
society
to
the
constituencies
they
represent”
(2013,
23,
italics
added).
However,
corporate
shareholders’
interests
are
not
the
same
as
citizen’s
interests,
as
profit
is
their
primary
declarative
interest.
Indeed,
the
reality
is
that
business
has
been
busily
creating
more
and
more
access,
leverage
and
lobbying
capacity
into
national,
regional
and
global
political
systems.
This
is
why,
even
where
the
report
identifies
CSOs
as
partners,
but
fails
to
design
mechanisms
for
accountability
that
will
ensure
the
meaningful
participation
of
women’s
and
social
movements.
As
the
120
mentions
of
business
in
the
report
testify
,
the
role
of
the
private
sector
is
over-‐emphasized.
The
private
sector
needs
more
regulation
and
accountability,
but
we
should
not
prioritize
business
partnerships
for
sustainable
development,
nor
give
business
rights
and
priorities
over
that
of
women,
men
and
children
The
accountability
proposal
to
have
peer
review
through
the
use
of
the
data
revolution
will
be
an
important
step,
but
not
enough
guarantee
political
commitment
nor
improve
good
governance.
For
example,
poor
reproductive
health
outcomes
also
indicate
weak
health
system
governance.
Challenges
in
health
system
governance
include
addressing
the
gap
between
policy
development
and
policy
implementation
exacerbated
by
weak
monitoring
and
evaluation
systems,
as
well
as
inequitable
health
financing.
Out
of
or
self-‐financing
is
the
largest
source
of
healthcare
financing
in
South
Asia
and
South
East
Asia.
There
is
an
increasing
trend
of
privatisation
of
service
provision
and
the
unloading
of
responsibility
by
national
governments
who
are
constitutionally
mandated
to
provide
universal
health
care.
Connected
to
this
is
also
a
lack
of
adequate
mechanisms
and
implementation
of
private
sector
regulation.
Unfair
trade
policies
also
affect
access
to
lifesaving
medicines
and
must
be
abolished.
These
issues
have
not
been
included
in
the
narrative
nor
are
they
addressed
in
the
goals
and
targets.
Issues
of
governance
in
relation
to
health
include
accurate
reporting
of
data
and
functional
health
information
systems.
The
experience
of
our
partners
from
Bangladesh
demonstrates
that
documenting
of
maternal
deaths
is
significantly
flawed.
Persons
responsible
for
keeping
records
of
maternal
deaths
are
instructed
unofficially
and
sometimes
pressured
to
“keep”
the
number
as
low
as
possible.
Record
keepers,
who
are
part
of
the
health
service
delivery
system,
fear
that
the
numbers
might
reflect
on
their
professional
performance.
How
will
national
roadmaps
deal
with
such
issues
of
accountability?
There
is
a
need
to
capture
qualitative
data
which
is
as
important
as
statistics
to
substantiate
claims
of
progress
in
meeting
targets.
Presently,
this
is
also
not
reflected
in
the
HLP
document.
We
reiterate
the
importance
of
using
existing
human
rights
accountability
mechanisms
as
tools
for
the
accountability
of
this
agenda.
12
June
2013
Concluding:
This
report
should
not
be
taken
as
a
basis
for
development
of
the
Post
2015
agenda.
Instead
the
human
rights
architecture
and
environmental
standards
must
be
the
core
of
a
global
sustainable
development
agenda.
It
must
also
include
concrete
means
of
implementation
that
prioritize
public
financing
over
public-‐private
partnerships
in
order
to
realise
states
obligation
to
allocate
the
maximum
availability
of
resources
for
universal
human
rights,
social
justice
and
environmental
sustainability.
To
sign
on
contact:
Women’s
Major
Group
(WMG)10
Contact@WomenMajGrp.org
and
secretariat@wecf.eu
www.womenrio20.org
@Women_Rio20
10 Drafting team includes: Alexandra Garita, Resurj Mexico; Gabriele Koehler Germany; Sascha Gabizon WICF
Netherlands; Shannon Kowalski, International Women's Health Coalition, USA; Almuth Ernsting Biofuelwatch UK;
Gillian Bowser USA; Nicole Bidegain DAWN Uruguay; Alejandra Scampini, AWID, Uruguay; Noelene Nabulivou
DAWN, Fiji; Simone Lovera, Global Forest Coalition, Paraguay; Eleanor Blomstrom, Women’s Environment and
Development Organization, USA; Vivienne Solis, Coopesolidar, Costa Rica; Elina Doshanova, Social Eco Fund,
Kazakhstan; Maria Melinda Ando - Asian-Pacific Resource & Research Centre for Women (ARROW), Malaysia;
Yveline Nicolas, ADEQUATIONS, France, Marcella Balara, ICAE – Chile & Uruguay.