Mr. Roberto Bissio, Executive Director of the Instituto del Tercer Mundo
Speaking notes
by Roberto Bissio (coordinator of Social Watch)
at the Session 8: Review of Implementation: SDG5
of the High-level Political Forum (HLPF) of the United Nations
New York, July 12, 2017
The 2030 Agenda includes a stand-alone goal to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
(SDG 5), but there are also specific targets under 11 other goals that link women's rights to the three
dimensions of sustainable development (social, economic and environmental).
I would like to highlight the usefulness of data such as those that are going to be collected in Uganda about
unpaid work of women as well as the regulation in Jordan about providing benefits to people engaged in care
of children, the elderly or persons with disabilities.
Both are addressing a key aspect of inequalities, which is the particular responsibility of women in care.
In my own country, Uruguay, a law creating a National Care System was created in November 2015,
establishing a coordination of the ministries and agencies of social development, social security, labour,
health, education and the ministry of finances and the planning office to coordinate social policies from the
perspective of care, and it establishes THE RIGHT TO BE CARED. Which means that persons in need of
care (children, the elderly, persons withe permanent or temporary disabilities) will receive from the state
financial support to pay for the person caring for them, which could be a family member. (90% of the
persons providing care are women). This means that care work will be paid. It is the result of campaigning
by the women groups supported by the trade unions. It is an expansion ofrights and places the issue in a
rights-based perspective.
In the presentations to this panel and many others the day before, we have heard about many good practice
examples, such as those I commented on, and somehow this answers the first question formulated. We have
heard recommendations about the need for statistics, indicators and their gender disaggregation, which is key
for accountability and gender-responsive implementation. I would add that a rights-based approach can be
started even before having the data, so lack is data is no excuse for inaction, but rather having a rights-based
policy in place will result in producing better data (and better evaluation).
But we haven't heard good stories of examples of successful multistakeholder partnerships ... which points to
the need to better define the different roles of different stakeholders and the rules that bind them. There are
regrettably too many examples of public-private-partnerships that went wrong.
In 2013 the World Bank's IFC published the report "Investing in Women's Employment: Good for Business,
Good for Development" to highlight WINvest (Investing in Women), the World Bank Group's Global
Partnership initiative with the private sector on women's employment. This initiative aimed to bring together
IFC clients and private sector partners with a vested interest in substantiating the business case for improving
working conditions and employment opportunities for women. Mining companies notorious for their
environmental damage and fossil fuels coprorations were involved. The example given the largest attention
by the report is that of the Brazilian company Odebrecht, that launched a 9 million US dollar program (over
five years) to train and hire women as construction workers. Aside from Brazil, the program was launched
(even when "on a much smaller scale") in Angola, Argentina, Colombia, Cuba, Guinea, Liberia,
Mozambique, Peru and Venezuela. Thus, with a tiny fraction of their global income of 100 billion US dollars
in 2016, Odebrecht gained recognition and praise from the World Bank ... and now all of their top executives,
including CEO Marcelo Odebrecht, are in jail in Brazil and fined with 2.6 billion dollars by the US courts for
their massive bribing of decision-makers in almost every country in which their operated!
"Women washing" can be as bad as "green washing" and without proper screening and vetting and
safeguarding these "partnerships" can result in moral damage for the UN and the member states involved.
by Roberto Bissio (coordinator of Social Watch)
at the Session 8: Review of Implementation: SDG5
of the High-level Political Forum (HLPF) of the United Nations
New York, July 12, 2017
The 2030 Agenda includes a stand-alone goal to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
(SDG 5), but there are also specific targets under 11 other goals that link women's rights to the three
dimensions of sustainable development (social, economic and environmental).
I would like to highlight the usefulness of data such as those that are going to be collected in Uganda about
unpaid work of women as well as the regulation in Jordan about providing benefits to people engaged in care
of children, the elderly or persons with disabilities.
Both are addressing a key aspect of inequalities, which is the particular responsibility of women in care.
In my own country, Uruguay, a law creating a National Care System was created in November 2015,
establishing a coordination of the ministries and agencies of social development, social security, labour,
health, education and the ministry of finances and the planning office to coordinate social policies from the
perspective of care, and it establishes THE RIGHT TO BE CARED. Which means that persons in need of
care (children, the elderly, persons withe permanent or temporary disabilities) will receive from the state
financial support to pay for the person caring for them, which could be a family member. (90% of the
persons providing care are women). This means that care work will be paid. It is the result of campaigning
by the women groups supported by the trade unions. It is an expansion ofrights and places the issue in a
rights-based perspective.
In the presentations to this panel and many others the day before, we have heard about many good practice
examples, such as those I commented on, and somehow this answers the first question formulated. We have
heard recommendations about the need for statistics, indicators and their gender disaggregation, which is key
for accountability and gender-responsive implementation. I would add that a rights-based approach can be
started even before having the data, so lack is data is no excuse for inaction, but rather having a rights-based
policy in place will result in producing better data (and better evaluation).
But we haven't heard good stories of examples of successful multistakeholder partnerships ... which points to
the need to better define the different roles of different stakeholders and the rules that bind them. There are
regrettably too many examples of public-private-partnerships that went wrong.
In 2013 the World Bank's IFC published the report "Investing in Women's Employment: Good for Business,
Good for Development" to highlight WINvest (Investing in Women), the World Bank Group's Global
Partnership initiative with the private sector on women's employment. This initiative aimed to bring together
IFC clients and private sector partners with a vested interest in substantiating the business case for improving
working conditions and employment opportunities for women. Mining companies notorious for their
environmental damage and fossil fuels coprorations were involved. The example given the largest attention
by the report is that of the Brazilian company Odebrecht, that launched a 9 million US dollar program (over
five years) to train and hire women as construction workers. Aside from Brazil, the program was launched
(even when "on a much smaller scale") in Angola, Argentina, Colombia, Cuba, Guinea, Liberia,
Mozambique, Peru and Venezuela. Thus, with a tiny fraction of their global income of 100 billion US dollars
in 2016, Odebrecht gained recognition and praise from the World Bank ... and now all of their top executives,
including CEO Marcelo Odebrecht, are in jail in Brazil and fined with 2.6 billion dollars by the US courts for
their massive bribing of decision-makers in almost every country in which their operated!
"Women washing" can be as bad as "green washing" and without proper screening and vetting and
safeguarding these "partnerships" can result in moral damage for the UN and the member states involved.