Mr. Alejandro Barrios
Good morning and warm regards to all!
I would like to welcome the Synthesis Report recognizes many of the world’s crises as rooted in structural inequality, injustice, discrimination, environmental and social exploitation.
We welcome its reaffirmation of the broader international human rights framework at the heart of the agenda, including the right to development and future generations’ wellbeing.
Among other things, it also stresses the role of civil society in the pursuit of solutions to these problems.
But since I only have few minutes to share our points of view, I would prefer, in the sense to contribute, bring some gaps we found in the Report.
We think the Report chose to ignore the UN-NGLS report entitled, “Advancing Regional Recommendations on the Post-2015 Development Agenda” which goes farther than the other reports in terms of progressive proposals especially in the areas of reforming the international economic architecture. Indeed, we are deeply disappointed that, the synthesis report falls far short of proposing a truly just and democratic development model beyond the dominant framework of neoliberalism.
Civil society organizations and movements have long contended that for the post-2015 agenda to be truly transformative, it needs to put people, especially the poor and marginalized, at front and center of development. The Report hides the hard reality that entrenched interests, especially corporate interests, are behind unsustainable and unjust patterns of extraction, production, consumption and waste that are driving poverty, hunger and climate change in the world today.
We affirm our conviction that unjust and unequal power relations are at the root of multidimensional poverty and inequalities, social exclusion and ecological destruction, and place the principle of justice at the heart of the alternative development process. And we reiterate our demand for concrete and meaningful actions.
We believe that the framework of Development Justice and Living Well are an alternatives framework that comprehensively captures the demands of the majority of the poor and marginalized, around five foundations.
REDISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, It is a major omission of the report to neglect elaborating on targets and indicators for the goal on addressing inequality.
Is about Justice also to address historical responsibilities and inequities between countries, and not transferring responsibility for such issues to private actors who are less accountable to the needs of those affected by the problem in question.
There is a need to adjust the normative framework of financial transfers from an aid-based approach to a rights-based approach. This would involve eliminating any form of conditionalities to ODA and should be binding governments to meet their obligations.
ON ECONOMIC JUSTICE, we are glad the renewed emphasis on the need to translate economic growth to shared prosperity and move away from GDP to one that adequately accounts for human wellbeing, justice, social progress, sustainability and equity. But we need to see concrete ways to achieve this.
Even the Report mentions the need to generate inclusive and decent employment as a hallmark of economic success. However we feel that this is a step-back from the broader, more balanced and internationally recognized framework of ILO’s Decent Work Agenda.
The synthesis report proposes the need to tap into private resources and facilitate foreign direct investments in developing countries. This is alarming given that as per the experience of many nations in the Global South, foreign direct investments liberalization has greatly sapped the resources and weakened their economies, while it has definitely favored wealthy countries and their transnational companies and banks. This, we fear will further justify the liberalization of investment in land and resources, promoting large-scale land purchases or leases, escalating land grabbing and violence, and further impoverishing rural and urban populations including small-scale farmers, indigenous peoples, slum dwellers and other groups already marginalized.
ON GENDER AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, The report lags behind the recommendations already included in the OWG Outcome Document that clearly demands for equal opportunities for leadership and effective participation of women at all levels.
While sexual health has already been added in the official version of the report, it is still concerning to see there’s no reference to sexual rights. The report also lacks proposals for countering the negative impact of inheritance, succession, customary and/or family laws and marriage related-practices to women’s rights, particularly their equal right to land.
ON ENVIROMENTAL JUSTICE, The Synthesis Report puts prime importance on the issue of climate change and points to human activities as its primary cause. To be exact, climate change is the result of a particular type of historically and socially determined human activity within the context of a capitalist mode of development pushed by Northern governments, corporations, and their client states and elites in the Global South.
So, all efforts to address the issue of Climate Change must be accompanied by the delivery of adequate and appropriate climate finance and technology for mitigation actions in the South, based in the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities.
We are disappointed about the report’s lack of an in-depth analysis as to the role that transnational corporations play in food insecurity and ecological imbalance through their promotion of genetically modified crops and seed patenting. This poses a serious threat, not only to our food sovereignty but also to our ecological diversity.
ON ACCOUNTABILITY TO PEOPLE, we are disappointed with the report’s promotion of “public- private- people partnerships” that obscures the relationship between people as right-holders and States as duty-bearers.
We believe that a voluntary review process as cited in the report will not be effective as compared to a mandatory and universal process.
We are also disappointed that the Secretary General failed to elaborate on a regulatory framework compelling corporations to report on, and be liable for the social and environmental impacts and effects to human rights of their activities.
Stronger language on the private sector, regulatory mechanisms, and initiatives for corporate accountability are needed to bring the private sector more into line with all development- effectiveness principles.
Finally, we are disappointed to see no reference to the urgent need to reduce militarism and the arms trade globally.
Thank you!
I would like to welcome the Synthesis Report recognizes many of the world’s crises as rooted in structural inequality, injustice, discrimination, environmental and social exploitation.
We welcome its reaffirmation of the broader international human rights framework at the heart of the agenda, including the right to development and future generations’ wellbeing.
Among other things, it also stresses the role of civil society in the pursuit of solutions to these problems.
But since I only have few minutes to share our points of view, I would prefer, in the sense to contribute, bring some gaps we found in the Report.
We think the Report chose to ignore the UN-NGLS report entitled, “Advancing Regional Recommendations on the Post-2015 Development Agenda” which goes farther than the other reports in terms of progressive proposals especially in the areas of reforming the international economic architecture. Indeed, we are deeply disappointed that, the synthesis report falls far short of proposing a truly just and democratic development model beyond the dominant framework of neoliberalism.
Civil society organizations and movements have long contended that for the post-2015 agenda to be truly transformative, it needs to put people, especially the poor and marginalized, at front and center of development. The Report hides the hard reality that entrenched interests, especially corporate interests, are behind unsustainable and unjust patterns of extraction, production, consumption and waste that are driving poverty, hunger and climate change in the world today.
We affirm our conviction that unjust and unequal power relations are at the root of multidimensional poverty and inequalities, social exclusion and ecological destruction, and place the principle of justice at the heart of the alternative development process. And we reiterate our demand for concrete and meaningful actions.
We believe that the framework of Development Justice and Living Well are an alternatives framework that comprehensively captures the demands of the majority of the poor and marginalized, around five foundations.
REDISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, It is a major omission of the report to neglect elaborating on targets and indicators for the goal on addressing inequality.
Is about Justice also to address historical responsibilities and inequities between countries, and not transferring responsibility for such issues to private actors who are less accountable to the needs of those affected by the problem in question.
There is a need to adjust the normative framework of financial transfers from an aid-based approach to a rights-based approach. This would involve eliminating any form of conditionalities to ODA and should be binding governments to meet their obligations.
ON ECONOMIC JUSTICE, we are glad the renewed emphasis on the need to translate economic growth to shared prosperity and move away from GDP to one that adequately accounts for human wellbeing, justice, social progress, sustainability and equity. But we need to see concrete ways to achieve this.
Even the Report mentions the need to generate inclusive and decent employment as a hallmark of economic success. However we feel that this is a step-back from the broader, more balanced and internationally recognized framework of ILO’s Decent Work Agenda.
The synthesis report proposes the need to tap into private resources and facilitate foreign direct investments in developing countries. This is alarming given that as per the experience of many nations in the Global South, foreign direct investments liberalization has greatly sapped the resources and weakened their economies, while it has definitely favored wealthy countries and their transnational companies and banks. This, we fear will further justify the liberalization of investment in land and resources, promoting large-scale land purchases or leases, escalating land grabbing and violence, and further impoverishing rural and urban populations including small-scale farmers, indigenous peoples, slum dwellers and other groups already marginalized.
ON GENDER AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, The report lags behind the recommendations already included in the OWG Outcome Document that clearly demands for equal opportunities for leadership and effective participation of women at all levels.
While sexual health has already been added in the official version of the report, it is still concerning to see there’s no reference to sexual rights. The report also lacks proposals for countering the negative impact of inheritance, succession, customary and/or family laws and marriage related-practices to women’s rights, particularly their equal right to land.
ON ENVIROMENTAL JUSTICE, The Synthesis Report puts prime importance on the issue of climate change and points to human activities as its primary cause. To be exact, climate change is the result of a particular type of historically and socially determined human activity within the context of a capitalist mode of development pushed by Northern governments, corporations, and their client states and elites in the Global South.
So, all efforts to address the issue of Climate Change must be accompanied by the delivery of adequate and appropriate climate finance and technology for mitigation actions in the South, based in the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities.
We are disappointed about the report’s lack of an in-depth analysis as to the role that transnational corporations play in food insecurity and ecological imbalance through their promotion of genetically modified crops and seed patenting. This poses a serious threat, not only to our food sovereignty but also to our ecological diversity.
ON ACCOUNTABILITY TO PEOPLE, we are disappointed with the report’s promotion of “public- private- people partnerships” that obscures the relationship between people as right-holders and States as duty-bearers.
We believe that a voluntary review process as cited in the report will not be effective as compared to a mandatory and universal process.
We are also disappointed that the Secretary General failed to elaborate on a regulatory framework compelling corporations to report on, and be liable for the social and environmental impacts and effects to human rights of their activities.
Stronger language on the private sector, regulatory mechanisms, and initiatives for corporate accountability are needed to bring the private sector more into line with all development- effectiveness principles.
Finally, we are disappointed to see no reference to the urgent need to reduce militarism and the arms trade globally.
Thank you!