Major Group: Women, and Trade Union and Workers Major Groups
Means of Implementation: remarks on the part of the Women’s Major Group,
Trade Union and Workers Major Group, Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and
Development, Third World Network, Global Policy Forum, IBON International.
With respect to Focus Area 18 on Means of Implementation, we welcome your
proposal for developed countries to recommit to meet ODA targets, especially in
light of the recent decline in ODA flows.
We are concerned, however, that the focus area text does not recognize that
Means of Implementation must address both the mobilization of financial
resources and technology, and the international architecture that determines
States’ ability to use those resources for sustainable development, namely the
global trade and financial framework.
International financial institutions and trade policies require fundamental,
development-oriented, rights-based, structural reform. Taking the key issue of
sovereign debt: The IMF and World Bank, despite some debt cancellation
initiatives, continue to require a total debt service that is reportedly 5 times that
of total annual ODA flows to developing countries. Ensuring long-term debt
sustainability is included under “means of implementation” in the Rio+ 20
outcome document, and we therefore call for sovereign debt to be specifically
addressed by the Open Working Group.
Our second principal concern is that, consistent with the Rio+20 outcome
document, new sources of financing such as public-private partnerships and
South-South cooperation must be recognized as complementary and not a
substitute for traditional means of implementation.
We note however that private public partnerships can seem financially attractive
because of accounting that hides fiscal risks and costs. These partnerships risk
worsening inequality in income and access by socializing costs while privatizing
benefits. They cannot be viewed as suitable replacements to the state in
delivering essential services and, accordingly, public finance should be used to
strengthen state institutions to deliver these services. Moreover, the profit-
orientation of the private sector and the fact it’s not required to invest in global
public goods means that the public sector must remain at the centre of
sustainable development financing. Private sector participation, where
appropriate, must be underpinned by human rights and ILO normative
frameworks.
Investment is highlighted in the focus area text as a promising additional source
of financing, yet bilateral and multilateral investment treaties allow significant
infringement by corporate actors on national policy space that should be
protected to allow rights-based, development-oriented social and economic
policies.
Third, we wish to highlight that means of implementation encompasses capacity-
building and technology transfer. While the focus area text makes some mention
of technology transfer, it misses critical points from the Rio+20 outcome
document. We draw your attention particularly to paragraphs 269 to 273.
Developing countries must have equitable access to environmentally sound
technologies, which may require lifting intellectual property barriers. In this
regard, we refer to the work of the Technology Working Group and its
recommendations pertaining to least developed countries.
Fourth, we emphasize that the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities applies to means of implementation on the whole, and not just
climate policy; and that the obligations of States should be commensurate with
their stage of development.
Finally, we call for a standalone goal on global partnership. Effective means of
implementation requires a strengthened global partnership to mobilise the will
and leadership required to create the necessary systemic change.
Trade Union and Workers Major Group, Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and
Development, Third World Network, Global Policy Forum, IBON International.
With respect to Focus Area 18 on Means of Implementation, we welcome your
proposal for developed countries to recommit to meet ODA targets, especially in
light of the recent decline in ODA flows.
We are concerned, however, that the focus area text does not recognize that
Means of Implementation must address both the mobilization of financial
resources and technology, and the international architecture that determines
States’ ability to use those resources for sustainable development, namely the
global trade and financial framework.
International financial institutions and trade policies require fundamental,
development-oriented, rights-based, structural reform. Taking the key issue of
sovereign debt: The IMF and World Bank, despite some debt cancellation
initiatives, continue to require a total debt service that is reportedly 5 times that
of total annual ODA flows to developing countries. Ensuring long-term debt
sustainability is included under “means of implementation” in the Rio+ 20
outcome document, and we therefore call for sovereign debt to be specifically
addressed by the Open Working Group.
Our second principal concern is that, consistent with the Rio+20 outcome
document, new sources of financing such as public-private partnerships and
South-South cooperation must be recognized as complementary and not a
substitute for traditional means of implementation.
We note however that private public partnerships can seem financially attractive
because of accounting that hides fiscal risks and costs. These partnerships risk
worsening inequality in income and access by socializing costs while privatizing
benefits. They cannot be viewed as suitable replacements to the state in
delivering essential services and, accordingly, public finance should be used to
strengthen state institutions to deliver these services. Moreover, the profit-
orientation of the private sector and the fact it’s not required to invest in global
public goods means that the public sector must remain at the centre of
sustainable development financing. Private sector participation, where
appropriate, must be underpinned by human rights and ILO normative
frameworks.
Investment is highlighted in the focus area text as a promising additional source
of financing, yet bilateral and multilateral investment treaties allow significant
infringement by corporate actors on national policy space that should be
protected to allow rights-based, development-oriented social and economic
policies.
Third, we wish to highlight that means of implementation encompasses capacity-
building and technology transfer. While the focus area text makes some mention
of technology transfer, it misses critical points from the Rio+20 outcome
document. We draw your attention particularly to paragraphs 269 to 273.
Developing countries must have equitable access to environmentally sound
technologies, which may require lifting intellectual property barriers. In this
regard, we refer to the work of the Technology Working Group and its
recommendations pertaining to least developed countries.
Fourth, we emphasize that the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities applies to means of implementation on the whole, and not just
climate policy; and that the obligations of States should be commensurate with
their stage of development.
Finally, we call for a standalone goal on global partnership. Effective means of
implementation requires a strengthened global partnership to mobilise the will
and leadership required to create the necessary systemic change.