UN DESSA Finance For Dev (FFD)

.
PGA meets with Queen of  the Netherlands 
The President of the UN General Assembly on Tuesday met with Her Royal Highness Queen Máxima of the Netherlands to discuss her work as Special Advocate of the UN Secretary-General for Inclusive Finance for Development.
.
.
UN 17 Goals pics images
.
.
.

DESA NEWS — UN DESA VOICE

70 Strong UN Better World

Dear readers,

Our monthly newsletter DESA News is celebrating its twentieth anniversary and we decided it is time for a new look! Beginning with our next issue on 4 January 2016, DESA News will become UN DESA Voice.

For the past two decades, DESA News has been bringing you updates and analyses about economic, social and sustainable development, an insider’s look at the work of the United Nations. Inspired by the appreciated help from about 1,000 survey participants, we have made some changes, including a new visual identity and more engaging content – putting people at the heart of the story.

We are very excited about the new UN DESA Voice! Thank you for staying with us!

United Nations

To learn more, visit:  https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/

FIND US ALSO ON:

© United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

 

.

 

 

 

.

Christine Lagarde
.
.
NGODPI LOGO

NGO/DPI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE – CALL FOR NOMINATIONS

We need sustainable statistics to support sustainable development”
Dr. P. J. Puntenney

Environmental & Human Systems Management
1989 West Liberty
 Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA
Voice/Fax: (734) 994-3612
.
———————————————————————————————
.
.

Mr. Albert Gyan

 Albert Gyan Pics

About Mr. Albert Gyan

https://sites.google.com/site/albertgyanbio/

.

UNITED NATIONS ADVISOR AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT

 Début Interactive Civil Society Hearing with the President of the United Nations General Assembly

 UN High level Dialogue on Financing for Development – Dec 2011

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaOmscuj2Mo&feature=autoshare

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yObru_lxNPY http://www.ngosonffd.org/documents/

.

 .

.
————————————————————————————————
.
.

DESA News November 2015: UNGA, Ending poverty, Internet governance

click here

 

.

.

UN DESA Updates

Dear Community of Educators,

 
There have been many activities around the new development agenda, to brief you on the work of the UN DESA, visit
 
 
All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh
UNSD Education Caucus Co-Chairs
Co-Coordinators Climate Change

__________________

Dr. P. J. Puntenney
Environmental & Human Systems Management
1989 West Liberty
 Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA
Cell:  1-734-352-7429
.
—————————————————————————————————-
.
.

Civil Society Reflects on FfD3, Issues Recommendations on Post-2015 Agenda — Update on Universal Education & Poverty Dialogue – Kevin Watkins ODI Executive Director

Dear Friends and Colleagues,
To add to our growing understand of the SDGs, this summary of input from Civil Society Organisations [CSOs] provides additional insights regarding recommendations, gaps, challenges and disagreements on the Post-2015 Agenda.  For those of us following the work on universal education and poverty, inequality, climate change, etc. there are links to other sources and/ or the full reports.
All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh
UN SD Education Caucus Co-Chairs
Co-Coordinators Climate Change
__________________
Dr. P. J. Puntenney
Environmental & Human Systems Management
1989 West Liberty
 Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA
Cell: +1-(734) 352•7429
Landline: +1-(734) 994•3612
Civil society organizations have responded to the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD3), and have released responses and summaries to the draft outcome document for the UN summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda. Responses address, inter alia: areas of consensus and disagreement on the post-2015 draft; recommendations on improving text related to inequality, climate change, energy, land and other topics; data challenges; the translation of discourse into policy; education; and the role of business.
read more: http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/civil-society-reflects-on-ffd3-issues-recommendations-on-post-2015-agenda/
.
.
——————————————————————————————-
.
.

TWN Info (Finance, Trade, Sus Dev): Addis Ababa Action Agenda on financing for development adopted amidst wide disappointment

TWN News <news@twnnews.net>

Subject: TWN Info (Finance, Trade, Sus Dev): Addis Ababa Action Agenda on financing for development adopted amidst wide disappointment
Date: July 20, 2015
To: TWN Mailing List <news@twnnews.net>

Title : TWN Info (Finance, Trade, Sus Dev): Addis Ababa Action Agenda on financing for development adopted amidst wide disappointment
Date : 20 July 2015

Contents:

Addis Ababa Action Agenda on financing for development adopted amidst wide disappointment

New Delhi, 20 July (Ranja Sengupta) – While the outcome document of the Third Conference on Financing for Development got the official nod on 16 July, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda elicited severe dismay among developing countries and civil society organisations for its failure to offer much in terms of concrete instruments for implementation of development objectives.

While the developed countries and the United Nations secretariat hailed the document, several Member States, including the 134-member strong Group of 77 and China, expressed concerns and reservations during the closing plenary. Venezuela said “this is not a situation where we have cheering and applause. With this document the developed countries are shirking their responsibilities”.

The outcome document had already been endorsed by the Main Committee, tasked with overseeing the actual negotiations and chaired by the Ethiopian Finance Minister, late Wednesday evening (15 July). The Main Committee had met three times during the course of the four-day conference, only to adjourn the first two times after quick process-related discussions and deciding to open up the discussions related only to paragraph 29 on a UN based global tax body. Bilateral negotiations between the G-77 and China (represented by South Africa), Ethiopia, Brazil and India, and the like-minded group of non G-77 countries represented by the European Union, Russia and Japan, came to a close in the form of a compromised text that gave very little additional concession to the G-77’s key demand on an intergovernmental tax body.

(The Addis conference was the culmination of intense negotiations that took place at the UN headquarters in New York over the past few months.)

Soon after, the Main Committee met at 8 pm on 15 July, simply to announce the sealing of the deal and to declare the endorsement of the outcome document by the Main Committee. All that remained was to adopt the document at the closing plenary the next day. Further discussions were not encouraged. According to sources, the Ethiopian government played a crucial role in ensuring that the Addis talks did not fail at any cost.

The four days of the Conference were marked by an intense battle of will and power between the North and the South, where the USA, EU, and Japan allegedly exerted severe pressure on developing countries including several African countries to yield to their demand of sealing the document as it was. In the process, actual negotiations were bypassed and hazy bilateral and plurilateral discussions held sway.  Several negotiators of developing countries expressed the feeling of having come for negotiations but being shut out of actual negotiations with key concerns remaining unaddressed.

(For more detailed information on the events leading to the Main Committee decision please see TWN Info dated 17 July: Outcome document adopted without intergovernmental tax body or new financial commitmentshttp://twn.my/title2/finance/2015/fi150706.htm)

According to experts, a Technology Transfer Mechanism (TFM), a Global Infrastructure Forum and a dedicated Forum for review and monitoring of the financing for development (FfD) process as well as the Means of Implementation and Global Partnership for Development, are the key positives in an otherwise weak and ineffective document.

AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL TAX BODY OR NOT

In preceding negotiations in New York, a 7July version of the draft outcome document had seen critical differences between the developed and the developing countries. However pressures to adopt the document was increased by the EU, USA, Canada and Japan, which threatened to open up the whole document if any part was opened up to negotiations by developing countries in Addis.

But in spite of acquiescence by the G-77 and China on many of the thorny issues contained in the July draft outcome document, remaining differences were mainly on a developing country demand for a tax body under the UN that sees better representation from developing countries.

The demand from developing countries was the upgrading of the current UN Tax Committee of Experts that is dominated and controlled by the OECD, to a full intergovernmental tax body under the ECOSOC. Given that the issue of domestic tax resources has been pushed under the FfD as the main resource for development finance, the developing countries very legitimately wanted to ensure better tax cooperation to stop tax losses due to illicit financial flows and other ways used by transnational corporations to dodge taxes. Losses in tax revenues from illicit financial flows are much higher for the South, on South to North financial flows than the reverse. In this context, the G-77 and China had argued that developing countries need more representation and voice on global tax matters and had proposed the upgrading of the current Expert Committee to a full intergovernmental body.

However the rich nations had decided that OECD “leadership and expertise” was good enough for the developing world, and though the latter had to primarily depend on their own taxes to fund their development, they had to essentially make do with what their rich partners were deciding on their behalf on global tax matters.

Faced with the stiff opposition from the developed countries, some compromise texts surfaced on the last but one day of the negotiations. Some G-77 members had apparently suggested a compromise in terms of insertion of some language on regionally proportionate representation in the current tax body of experts with a 2016 deadline to decide on structural changes.

The final text on paragraph 29 saw very little change, that excluded mention of an intergovernmental body or a timeline of 2016 to decide on new structures, and made cursory reference to a regional representation and selection of experts by the Secretary-General in consultation with Member States. The G-77 and china, in their closing statement, reiterated the “need to fully upgrade the Tax Committee into an intergovernmental body”.

The other thorny issues on the 7July text were related to the mention of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) as an underlying principle, the differentiation between climate and development finance, and the follow-up and review mechanisms for the FfD and the Post-2015 Development Agenda. However the G-77 and China had decided to cut their losses on these issues and persist with their demand only on the tax body.

CONCERNS AND RESERVATIONS EXPRESSED AT CLOSING PLENARY

During the closing plenary on 16 July, Member States put forward their reservations on the adopted text. Below are some highlights.

The G-77 and China, in their statement, acknowledged the importance of the FfD process for development as well as the gains made on the Technology Facilitation Mechanism, Global Infrastructure Forum, and the Review Forum under the ECOSOC. However the G-77 and China went on to stress that “a number of issues of principle that are important to, and fully endorsed by, the Group … have not been adequately addressed in the current text”. These include the explicit reaffirmation of the key principle of CBDR in the context of the Global Partnership for Development. The Group put on record that “an unequivocal affirmation of this principle in the Outcome Document of the Post-2015 Development Agenda is a non-negotiable for the Group”.

The statement also highlighted the “need to maintain the integrity of the FfD3 and the Post-2015 Agenda process as separate negotiation tracks, while acknowledging the need for stronger synergies between them”. The Group also underscored the “need for development partners to meet current commitments and to upscale ODA, with binding timetables, including the reaffirmation that ODA is still the main source of development finance”.

The G-77 and China also drew attention to the need to make explicit references to countries and people living under foreign occupation, and to explicitly address the issue of lifting and terminating coercive measures, including unilateral economic sanctions. It also spoke against references to fossil fuel subsidies and carbon pricing that could prejudge outcomes of the ongoing negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and also, the need to explicitly address that climate financing is new and additional and cannot be counted as ODA, nor mixed with traditional development finance.

The Group described FfD as a process and promised that it will continue to engage constructively on these issues. “Rest assured, the Group is not abandoning its principled positions”, stressed the G-77 and China.

Benin, speaking on behalf of the Least Developed Countries, supported the G-77 and China statement and said that while they felt that general concerns of the LDCS are addressed, this document will allow us to change things if applied in good faith.

Maldives, speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States aligned their statement to that of the G-77. The Group said that “SIDS, through the G77, have engaged actively throughout the negotiation process and welcome the recognition of the special case of SIDS in development, and the specific provisions for its implementation that this recognition entails. Though there is much language that can be strengthened throughout this document, to cater to the needs of the world’s most vulnerable, let us now look to the remaining processes this year, so that no country is left behind and our successes are fructified on the tree of our endeavors”.

Venezuela, in a strong statement said, “our acceptance is in no way an acknowledgement of the contents of this document. This is not a situation where we have cheering and applause. With this document the developed countries are shirking their responsibilities”. Venezuela also said that CBDR is not a mere buzzword but reflects the various models of development where predatory development has exploited resources of the people.

Venezuela went on to put on record its specific reservations on the Addis Outcome Document, on paragraph 31 on fossil fuel subsidies that represent intervention in domestic policy and sovereignty matters; reference to low-carbon economies; on concept on modern energy for all in paragraph 49; to the deletion of references to new development banks such as the Banco de Sur, Banco de Alba etc in paragraph 14; on deletion of references to trade barriers on unilateral measures. It also reminded that Venezuela is not a party to the UN Convention on Law of the Sea.

Bolivia supported the G-77 and China statement and requested to put on record its reservation on innovative financing mechanisms in paragraphs 60-69. Bolivia added that it is reading the last sentence in paragraph 5, which reaffirms the Rio principles, ending as “particularly CBDR” (thus implying a specific reference to CBDR in the affirmation of Rio principles).

Nigeria, aligning itself to the statement of G-77 and China, said “the FfD was a concept meant to be different but not opposed to the spirits of Monterrey and Doha, but to supplement and deepen their impacts with provisions for addressing the questions around sustainable development … By adopting the Addis Ababa Accord we have agreed to give LDCs, LLDCs (land locked developing countries), SIDS and other countries in special or peculiar situations a new lease of life. We are acknowledging that their situations should no longer be hopeless and that vulnerability need not be their constant companion in life”.

In conclusion, Nigeria stressed that it is of the “view that the Addis Ababa Action Agenda may be a non-binding document, however, it has moral imperative of being faithfully implemented by all Member States and actors in the United Nations. It should not be a vain endeavour that resulted after months of careful negotiations”.

Malawi, expressed a strong reservation on paragraph 32 of the Outcome Document, which, it said, does not take into account the impact of tobacco control on tobacco-producing countries’ economies. “Countries whose economies substantially depend on tobacco production … must be supported and compensated for the loss of revenue within the framework of the UN and other international aid agencies as they diversify out of tobacco”.

Nicaragua, after supporting G-77 and China, clarified that CBDR is found in Article 7 of the Rio principles, and since those are in paragraph 5, “we have effectively incorporated CBDR as an integral part of this document”. The statement went on to talk about ODA and the unmet gap in ODA commitments made by developed countries. It also reminded the Conference of its reservation on review on energy policy; that the fund for climate change is additional and not part of ODA; that countries should maintain political space on measures and standards; and that countries should lift coercive measures that violate international law e.g. the embargo on Cuba. Nicaragua expressed solidarity with Palestine and wanted its points to be put on record.

Ecuador said very clearly that any monitoring and review of national energy policy will not be acceptable to it. It also expressed reservation on the first sentence of paragraph 103, and on paragraph 79 related to the meeting of the UN on financial crisis and development. Ecuador had additional reservations on several paragraphs in the document, which it wanted to be put on record.

Interestingly, the USA repeated in its statement the deleted paragraph 134 from the 25 June text that had been opposed vehemently by developing countries. The sentence said, “We affirm that the present Accord is not intended to create rights and obligations under international law.” The USA went on to add that it has “long standing concerns regarding the topic of the right to development. The right to development continues to lack any kind of an agreed international understanding”. It is important to note that developing countries have for long drawn attention to the need to address their right to development which includes the necessary policy space for development supported by a global framework that enables rather that impedes the ability of developing countries to achieve their development objective as a key right.

The USA, probably expressing their wariness of the Technology Facilitation Mechanism, spoke in favour of “strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs), also as part of any international technology cooperation effort … through the facilitation of access to, and dissemination of, such technologies”. It said that references to technology transfer are to voluntary technology transfer on mutually agreed terms and conditions. The USA went onto to say that “the language in the document on technology transfer and on traditional knowledge does not, from the USA perspective, serve as a precedent for future negotiated documents, including any documents related to the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals), or the UNFCCC, or any other negotiation in or outside of the UN system, including bilateral and multilateral agreements.+

.
.
———————————————————————————————–
.
Global Policy Watch Briefing #7: An Action Plan Without Much Action
Global Policy Watch
#7
8 July 2015
An Action Plan Without Much ActionBy Barbara Adams and Gretchen LuchsingerWith pens still hovering over the Addis Ababa Action Plan, the outcome agreement for the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD3), there is already a sense that for all the recent talk at the UN about ambition and transformation, it is falling short. For a financing document, the Action Plan includes an impressive number of references to issues at the core of sustainable and inclusive development, like social protection, essential services, decent work for all and sustainable industrialization. There are multiple references to consumption and production, a rebalancing of which, among the rich and the poor, will determine the future of our world.But how do we get there? The Action Plan has very little in the way of concrete steps and deliverables. It spends a lot of time encouraging and incentivizing, and circling around inherent contradictions. Rather than aiming high, it sets a low bar, perhaps in anticipation of leaving room to maneuver towards the Paris climate change summit at the end of the year.For some observers, this may fit the narrative of UN negotiations as being of diminishing relevance, since they do not do enough to take on weighty issues in the real world that, like debt, trade and private sector activities, have profound impacts on people’s lives. That’s all true. But on another level, deliberations like those at FfD3 very accurately mirror what’s going on in the world today—in terms of the balance of power. For all the rhetoric about leaving no one behind in the post-2015 world, the reality is not about using UN agreements to advance global justice, but about minimizing disturbances of the status quo—which accepts leaving people behind as an inevitable tradeoff.While there is often a temptation to argue that “at least the line was held” or “it could be worse,” the challenges in the world today exceed any justification for the retreat from ambition. With growing inequalities and a planet in crisis, we have run out of time–and we should have run out of tolerance—for tinkering.
Which Assumptions?
Looking beyond particular issues in the agreement, it can be useful to consider some of the assumptions that underpin them. Is the assumption behind the strong emphasis on blended or private sources of finance that the public sector is inherently unreliable or less than fully trustworthy, even though blended and similar instruments have relatively little evidence to support their efficacy? Instead of jumping through hoops to work with corporations with incentive structures that focus more on individual profits than collective well-being, why not just tax them adequately and use the money for social protection, essential services for all and so on?The UK’s Department for International Development (DfID), for one, has championed partnerships with the private sector as an “engine for growth.” Its financing of private sector firms has skyrocketed to an estimated £580 million pounds, up from £68m in 2012. Yet a recent report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact gave the watchdog group’s second worst rating to DfID’s work with businesses, noting that much of it has taken place without much focus on targets or specific benefits for people living in poverty.Most of the document’s references to rights concern property, labour, women, children, migration and trafficking. All valid—and important references in a financing agreement that might in the past have considered rights references as less relevant. But why are there no rights associated with trade and debt? Do these have no implications for the rights of workers, women, children, migrants and so on?Many assumptions are made about existing institutions and systems as adequate platforms on which to base financing for the future. The International Monetary Fund, for example, remains integral to an international financial safety net, despite its less than stellar record in the 2008 global financial crisis. It is asked to take steps such as strengthening analytical tools for sovereign debt management and improving early warning of macroeconomic and financial risks. Developing countries, especially the poorest, are to be assisted in developing capacities to benefit from opportunities in international trade and investment treaties, despite all the evidence that these do not fundamentally work in their favour. What would it mean instead to help these countries develop capacities to question, shape and negotiate/renegotiate treaties with clear benefits in terms of sustainable development and human rights?
Coherence or…
At its very beginning, the Action Plan makes a promising start by committing to policy coherence and an enabling environment for sustainable development. But coherent for what and for whom? One reference is clear on this: “We will continue to strengthen international coordination and policy coherence to enhance global financial and macroeconomic stability.” Stability, while sound in theory, in practice has often been defined—by powerful international institutions—in a manner that ends up to stripping people of jobs and services. Is that coherent with sustainable development? With human rights?The calls for inclusive and sustainable industrialization and promoting small and medium enterprises are good elements. Yet is this coherent with current trade rules, which have done much to block the process of restructuring economies, and to prevent new industries and businesses to emerge and move up global value chains? Trade and investment language has very little to say on what one forthcoming UN report refers to as a spaghetti bowl of bilateral and other agreements deliberately being used by some rich countries to keep themselves high on global value chains, while corporations deploy dispute mechanisms to, for example, shut down the kinds of national industrial policy that allowed the Asian economic “miracles” to happen. Might more “miracles” undercut the steady supply of cheap labour and raw materials on which consumption by the rich everywhere has come to depend?
Who’s Empowered?
The references to the United Nations throughout the Action Plan are encouraging, if mixed. The UN, often sidelined in global economic governance—despite being the only multilateral forum that is universally owned and mandated to uphold internationally agreed principles including human rights—is called to the table on issues such as combatting illicit financial flows, continuing work on standards for credit ratings agencies and coordinating activities related to international trade law. The Action Plan “takes note” of UNCTAD’s principles on responsible sovereign lending and borrowing—if in lower case letters to denote the more diffuse area of work rather than the principles themselves.

But real “empowerment,” as it were, remains with the powerful, including the international financial institutions—and not just in traditional economic arenas. For example, the Action Plan gives the Global Financing Facility (GFF), housed at the World Bank, a key role on health issues, as reported in a recent Global Policy Watch. It is being cited as a model for SDG implementation. The GFF’s working group comprises some UN agencies, as well as twice as many northern as southern governments. All foundations and NGOs involved are from the United States and United Kingdom. Does that pattern bode well for the future? And there is the Bank itself. An independent evaluation of its support for public-private partnerships found that these tended to measure success as profitability, with lesser consideration for social and other safeguards. Or, as one Bank insider confirmed in the case of Tunisia, the Bank was content to lend money before its recent revolution, even knowing that corruption and human rights violations had reached horrific proportions, because the returns were consistently good. 

One of the final sticking points in negotiating the Addis Action Plan involved scaling up the current UN expert body on taxation to a more powerful UN commission. Most countries agree that international tax cooperation is a good idea, but rich countries fought hard against the idea of doing it within the UN, preferring business as usual at the OECD and the IMF. In a side event during the June negotiations, a rich country delegate acknowledged that his government would never go for a commission, because the UN already has too many, it would cost more money, and besides, if the commission became a really robust review mechanism, countries would drop out, as has happened with climate change.

Tax avoidance is now an issue of global proportions. Many countries cannot effectively tax the hugely wealthy transnational corporations that operate within their borders. As stated in the recent report by the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation (ICRICT), half of global trade now occurs within related corporate structures, a strategy companies use in part to avoid taxation. In the Action Plan, three OECD initiatives are singled out in talking about international tax cooperation, despite the fact that its members include some of the world’s foremost tax havens and are home to most of the largest tax-avoiding transnationals. The fox appears not only to be in the hen house, as the saying goes, but also to own it, to set all the rules and to oversee compliance.

What does it mean for the Action Plan to then also promise to “make sure that all companies, including multinationals, pay taxes to the governments of countries where economic activity occurs and value is created, in accordance with national and international laws and policies?” How likely is that to happen, particularly with the amount of corporate money now flooding some political systems?

For developing countries, the initial emphasis in the Action Plan is on modernizing national tax systems and integrating the informal sector—default workplace for the poor. Beyond the obvious equity issues, how much will be collected from them? And, if so many tax issues are outside national borders, how much will “technical improvements” actually achieve? The recent G7 communiqué echoes the same message, with a commitment to helping developing countries build their “tax administration capacities.”

The Action Plan as a whole gives the private sector a major pass, continuing the tradition from earlier FfD rounds. It suggests “regulatory frameworks to better align private sector incentives with public goals,” but this is to be done through incentives, without specifying that these probably need to involve consistent legal requirements backed by stringent enforcement that, at least in the past, have had the most notable impact on shifting corporate behaviour. As it stands, current profitability perspectives are too short-term for change to reliably work any other way. Within a single paragraph, the Action Plan mentions international labour standards and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, both positives, but then also fits in the UN Global Compact, widely viewed as an example of how the UN has allowed itself to be used for corporate publicity objectives, with minimal, if any, meaningful changes in behaviour.

A call for increased transparency and accountability for private philanthropic organizations is nice, but how, exactly? And why just “encourage” philanthropic donors to manage in some cases billion-dollar endowments through impact investing that takes social and environmental considerations on board? Since many benefit from special tax provisions, why not require them to do this? How much policy coherence is involved if a foundation can fund health programmes on one hand, and invest in a global conglomerate producing products undercutting rural livelihoods (while avoiding taxes) on the other?


Who’s Calling for Real Change?
Interestingly, while the current power configuration seeks to maintain its vice-like grip, an end-run around the blockage to progress has gathered momentum, although it is happening in fits and starts, and with no guarantees. Witness the creation of the new Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the staunch opposition by some rich countries, even as others opted to sign up. Or Greece putting debt relief to a public referendum beyond the sole purview of a handful of rich creditors—a move endorsed by UN human rights experts. They pointed out that not only are debt repayment obligations at stake, but so are respect for human rights, human dignity, equality and solidarity, all foundational principles of the European Union.

A court in the Netherlands, based on a suit by a climate change NGO, set a new precedent by drawing a link between poor domestic emissions reduction policy and climate damages, and requiring the state to achieve scaled-up emissions targets. In Indonesia, a court annulled water privatization because excessive price increases would violate of people’s rights to water. And the Pope condemned carbon trading as part of the same market mentality that led to climate change in the first place.

Around the world, some forms of insecurity could be read as protests against a world order viewed as unfair. Upholding the “rule of law” has become an increasingly common refrain, yet better laws, court systems and the like will only go so far as long as the root causes of injustice remain, and as long as the rule of law is applied primarily to individual countries, and not to all the activities that cut across them and deepen inequities.

Inside the UN, during the last round of FfD3 negotiations, as rich countries attempted to join forces around removing a reference to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which has been endorsed by nearly every country, a delegate from a small Pacific country took the floor with an informed and impassioned plea. He reminded delegates that the same conversations had already taken place to negotiate the convention, that tobacco use has a profound impact on health and national health care costs, and that this was about the lowest-hanging fruit around.

His willingness to take such a visible stand required determination. The powerful US Chamber of Commerce is not only a regular contributor in UN “partnership” forums, but also among the last remaining supporters of selling tobacco products outside the industry itself. The United States is one of only a couple of countries that have not signed the convention.


And Who’s Responsible?
One reason for optimism in both FfD3 and post-2015—beyond the fact that the latter really will be transformative if implemented the way it has been intended—has been the consistent call by developing countries to apply the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. Rich countries accept this principle on environmental issues, but no further, arguing that the world has moved on since the principle was agreed at the Rio conference more than two decades ago, that there is more wealth in more countries, and that the old colonial era divides no longer hold. We are all now universally responsible.

But the new wealth remains concentrated in relatively few hands, and it will be states who bear the primary responsibility for financing development. Even countries with now thriving economies face disproportionately large numbers of people whose basic needs and essential services are not being met.

Legal systems often define equality as treating equally those who are similarly situated, and treating differently those who are differently situated. So, either the world is already equal, or we have to respond to its differences. Since the first case is clearly impossible to make—and, interestingly, is never made in terms of the UN Security Council or global economic governance, at least by those who control these and are selectively willing to assume “differentiated responsibility”—only the second case remains.

Responding to current differences requires all efforts to balance needs and responsibilities, and to factor in often big gaps in capabilities—in other words, common but differentiated responsibility. This principle is fundamental to any notion of global partnership, and should be applied on both international and national levels.

Without common but differentiated responsibility, in the context of FfD3, universal “responsibility” essentially gives rich countries an exit from financing commitments. But so far, this does not also involve a retreat from dominance of trade, debt and international economic governance rules and forums that undercut the abilities of developing countries to develop and become “responsible” on the same level.

Up until almost its final draft, the Action Plan ended with a dismaying penultimate paragraph that the agreement does not “create rights or obligations under international law.” UN agreements, no matter how critical their concerns, cannot work without a spirit of common commitment and solidarity. Undermine that, and we are left with a world with even less responsibility and ever deepening divides.


www.globalpolicywatch.org
Follow Global Policy Watch on twitter

Contact
Social Watch
Avda. 18 de Julio 2095/301
Montevideo 11200, Uruguay
socwatch@socialwatch.org
www.socialwatch.org
Global Policy Forum
866 UN Plaza | Suite 4050 | New York, NY 10017 | USA
Koenigstrasse 37a | 53115 Bonn | Germany
gpf@globalpolicy.org
www.globalpolicy.org
.
.
.
—————————————————————————————————-
.
.
.
.
TWN Finance and UN Sust Dev.Info: The new Global Financing Facility a model for financing the Sustainable Development Goals?
Title : TWN Finance and UN Sust Dev.Info: The new Global Financing Facility – a model for financing the Sustainable Development Goals?
Date : 01 July 2015Contents:
Dear friends and colleagues,A new Global Policy Watch brief from Global Policy Watch (an initiative of Social Watch and  Global Policy Forum) highlights the key role that the Global Financing Facility (GFF) is to expected to play as a financing vehicle for Goal #3 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), that of: “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.” Similar to the Global Fund or GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance), the GFF will specifically finance reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health.The briefing note points out that: “Important decisions about the financial support of national health strategies are taken at the sole discretion of the GFF Investors Group. But the GFF Investors Group is a self-selected, exclusive body and not subject to intergovernmental oversight and mutual accountability mechanisms.” The GFF also consolidates the role of the World Bank Group as a dominant financing institution for SDG #3 on health, which will form a core part of the post-2015 development agenda overall.  This bypasses the role of the UN, which includes the World Health Organization.In the latest Financing for Development (FfD) text of 25 June, which is also a highly controversial text that is being contested by the Group of 77 (G77) developing countries, there is a specific paragraph that makes strong reference to the GFF.  The last line in Paragraph 77 of the 25 June FfD text states: “We welcome innovative approaches to catalyze additional domestic and international private and public resources for women and children, who have been disproportionately impacted by many health issues, including the expected contribution of the Global Financing Facility in support of Every Woman Every Child.”The same lack of intergovernmental oversight and mutual accountability mechanisms that characterizes the governance of the GFF is found in the private finance chapter of the FfD text. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are embraced as the central mechanism by which infrastructure projects will be financed. However, the various drafts of the outcome text thus far do not ensure guidelines for private sector financial, social and environmental accountability. This not only endangers the ability of the State to regulate in the public interest and to promote sustainable development, it also introduces the risk that the private sector is endorsed with an open gateway into development and industrial policy, without any checks and balances or impact analyses.Indeed, civil society organisations (CSOs) have been calling for an intergovernmental accountability mechanism for both PPPs as well as for multi-stakeholder partnerships between the UN and the private sector in the context of both FfD and the post-2015 development agenda.CSOs outline that such an intergovernmental accountability mechanism could be aligned with the following key aspects:(a) Such a mechanism must be rooted in the international human rights framework and in all three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social, and environmental);(b) The central objective of the mechanism would be to ensure accountability and ex ante assessment of partnerships;(c) Clear criteria should be applied to determine whether a specific private sector actor is fit for a partnership in pursuit of the post-2015 development agenda (which includes the SDGs) and FfD;(d) UN member states should be at the helm of formulating the framework, including the criteria, the oversight and monitoring process based on due diligence reporting, and independent third-party evaluations.One key objective would be to eliminate potential private donors whose activities are antithetical or contradictory to the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the SDG framework.Below is the Global Policy Forum brief titled: The new Global Financing Facility – a model for financing the Sustainable Development Goals?
With best wishes,
Bhumika Muchhala
Thord World Network


Global Policy Watch #6

30 June 2015
www.globalpolicywatch.org
The new Global Financing Facility – a model for financing the Sustainable Development Goals?

By Jens Martens

While negotiations on Financing for Development and the means of implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within the UN are deadlocked, a new Global Financing Facility (GFF) in support of Every Woman Every Child is going to be established outside of the UN. The creation of the GFF was initiated by the World Bank and the governments of Canada, Norway, and the United States, and announced at the UN General Assembly in September 2014. It will be officially launched in July 2015, at the third Financing for Development Conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

The GFF is expected to play a key role in financing for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (RMNCAH) and will serve as a major vehicle for financing the proposed SDG on healthy lives. It is being positioned as the most important new funding mechanism for the SDGs and the Post-2015 Agenda, similar to the Global Fund or GAVI. According to the World Bank

“(t)he GFF acts as a pathfinder in a new era of financing for development by pioneering a model that shifts away from focusing solely on official development assistance to an approach that combines external support, domestic financing, and innovative sources for resource mobilization and delivery (including the private sector) in a synergistic way.”(1)

Closing the funding gap

The new facility aims to close the financing gap in RMNCAH spending, which is estimated to be around US$33.3 billion in 2015.(2) It aims to mobilize additional funding through the combination of grants from a new GFF Trust Fund, financing from the International Development Association (IDA) and the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the crowding-in of additional domestic resources, particularly from the private sector, and by “generating efficiencies through smart financing.”(3) The architects of the GFF explicitly support the mix of public and private funding of health systems:

“To improve RMNCAH outcomes, we need an integrated health system approach that looks for the best solutions, regardless of whether they are provided by the public, private sectors or both in meaningful collaboration with each other. (…) The GFF can support scaling up efforts of mainstreaming mixed health systems approaches in RMNCAH at the country, regional and global levels.”(4)

A total of 63 low- and lower-middle-income countries are eligible to receive GFF funding. In the first phase four “frontrunner“ countries (DR Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania) will receive funding. In the next phase five to ten additional countries will be selected.(5) According to the GFF Business Plan, the GFF operates at country level through multi-stakeholder platforms, led by the national government but with the full involvement of the private sector, civil society, multilateral and bilateral donors and foundations.6 The existence of such a multi-stakeholder country platform is regarded as an indispensable eligibility criterion.

Club governance outside the UN

The World Bank plays a convening role for the GFF; and the GFF Trust Fund is fully integrated in World Bank operations, with a small secretariat based at the World Bank in Washington, D.C. However, the central decision-making body of the GFF will be the GFF Investors Group, a multi-stakeholder body with 20-25 representatives from participating countries, bilateral donors, multilateral institutions and partnerships, the private sector, private foundations, and NGOs.

The concept of the GFF was developed under the guidance of the GFF Working Group, whose composition indicates what the membership of the GFF Investors Group may look like. The GFF Working Group was chaired by the Government of Norway, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Bank, and had 28 members, including representatives of GAVI, the Global Fund, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the UN Foundation.(7) Only three governmental representatives from the global South were involved (Ethiopia, Burundi and DR Congo).

A smaller GFF Trust Fund Committee is embedded within the GFF Investors Group with decision-making power on Trust Fund allocations. Membership in the Committee will be limited to the donors in the Investors Group and its Chair or Vice-Chair. Current plans do not envisage any role for partner countries or civil society organizations from the global South.

Under the cloak of the EWEC initiative and a multi-stakeholder structure, the governance of the GFF seems to be dominated by traditional donors and private foundations. Important decisions about the financial support of national health strategies are taken at the sole discretion of the GFF Investors Group. But the GFF Investors Group is a self-selected, exclusive body and not subject to intergovernmental oversight and mutual accountability mechanisms.

Nevertheless, the GFF will be instrumental in consolidating the role of the World Bank as a key financing institution for the Post-2015 Agenda, while leaving only a marginal role for the UN. Thus, the GFF in support of EWEC is a particularly striking example of the shift from inclusive multilateral decision-making within the UN to global club governance in exclusive “partnerships”.


Members of the GFF Working Group

International Organizations

  • Dr. Tim Evans, Senior Director of Health, Nutrition, Population, The World Bank Group
  • Suprotik Basu, CEO, UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Financing the Health MDGs and for Malaria
  • Pascal Bijleveld, RMNCH Strategy and Coordination Team, UNICEF
  • Dr. Mickey Chopra, Chief of Health, UNICEF
  • Jacqueline Mahon, Senior Policy Adviser, Global Health & Health Systems, UNFPA
  • Dr. Flavia Bustreo, Assistant Director-General, Family, Women’s and Children’s Health, WHO

Governments – North

  • Dr. Ariel Pablos Mendez, Assistant Administrator for Global Health, USAID
  • Alexia Latortue, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Development & Debt, US Department of the Treasury
  • Dr. Tore Godal, Special Advisor on Global Health, Office of the Prime Minister of Norway
  • Dr. Jane Edmondson, Group Head, Human Development, DFID, UK
  • Diane Jacovella, Assistant Deputy Minister, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, Canada
  • Dr. Christopher MacLennan, Director General, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade & Development, Canada
  • Dr. Anders Nordstrom, Ambassador for Global Health, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Sweden

Governments – South

  • Kesetebirhan Admasu, Minister of Health, Ethiopia
  • Josiane Kamikazi, Technical Adviser, Minister of Finance, Burundi
  • Dr. Albert Welo Kalema, D้l้gu้, Democratic Republic of the Congo

Foundations

  • Kathy Calvin, President & CEO, United Nations Foundation (US)
  • Kate Dodson, VP of Global Health, United Nations Foundation (US)
  • Dr. Mariam Claeson, Director, Maternal Newborn and Child Health, The Gates Foundation (US)
  • Michael Anderson, CEO, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK)

Partnerships

  • Hind Khatib-Othman, Managing Director, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance
  • Marijke Wijnroks, Chief of Staff, GFATM
  • Dr. Carole Presern, Executive Director, Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health
  • Nana Taona Kuo, Sr. Manager, Every Woman Every Child, United Nations

NGOs

  • Joanne Carter Executive Director, Results (US)
  • Michael Klosson Vice President, Policy & Humanitarian Response, Save the Children (US)
  • Joanne Manrique, President, Center for Global Health and Diplomacy (US)
  • Ann Starrs, President & CEO, Guttmacher Institute (US)

Footnotes

(1) Cf. World Bank (2015), p. i.
(2) Cf. ibid., p. 2.
(3) Cf. ibid.
(4) Cf. World Bank (2014), p. 35.
(5) Cf. World Bank (2015), p. 1 and 27.
(6) Cf. ibid. pp. 22.
(7) Cf. World Bank (2014), Annex 1.

References

World Bank (2015): Business Plan for the Global Financing Facility in Support of Every Women Every Child. Washington, D.C.www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/HDN/Health/Business-Plan-for-the-GFF-final.pdf

World Bank (2014): A Global Financing Facility in Support of Every Woman Every Child. Concept Note. Washington, D.C.www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/HDN/Health/ConceptNote-AGlobalFinancingFacilitySupportEveryWomanEveryChild.pdf

Copyright Third World Network - www.twnnews.net All Rights Reserved
.
.
———————————————————————————————
.
.
.
Join us to collaborate on SDG monitoring
Jack Cornforth <jack.cornforth@civicus.org>
Date: Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:18 AM
Subject: Join us to collaborate on SDG monitoring

Dear colleagues,

We are writing to invite you to a conversation on the role of civil society in monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

As we all know, the SDGs will be agreed by world leaders at the Post-2015 Summit this September. These goals will guide the world’s priorities and actions on sustainable development for at least the next decade. To enable and drive progress on the SDGs, a ‘data revolution for sustainable development’ has been called for to ensure we have the information needed to make the best policy choices, hold decision makers to account on their commitments and track SDG progress at the local, national, regional and global levels. We in civil society have an opportunity, as well as a responsibility, to ensure the SDGs, and the data revolution, spur the transformational changes that are required to tackle the huge global challenges, but also leverage the exciting opportunities, that we face.

One concrete way we can do this is by harnessing civil society and citizen-generated data to monitor, promote and demand SDG progress.  A huge amount of civil society data already exists – be it data that currently supports the implementation of sectoral programmes, data generated to monitor and evaluate the impact of interventions, or data that is collected periodically to understand the communities in which we work.  At the same time, civil society and citizens are leveraging technology to generate and use new data in creative ways.  This data – generated by people and their organisations – is a critical complement to official sources of data. It provides people-centred perspectives, is often more context-specific and localised, can be real-time, can be used to fill gaps in official data and can be triangulated with official data sources where concerns around the quality of that data exist.

While the current zero draft of the post-2015 outcome document is weak on the role of third party data sources for SDG monitoring (see our new DataShift blog on the zero draft and our briefing note on citizen-generated data and the SDGs – both also attached), we believe that we need to go ahead with these efforts – whether there is space for civil society and citizen-generated data to be used in official SDG monitoring processes, or via some form of shadow monitoring initiative which needs to be put in place.

The DataShift team at CIVICUS is setting up a conference call to brainstorm ideas for a more coordinated approach to drawing on civil society and citizen-generated data in the context of SDG monitoring.  The call will be on Thursday 9th July at 09:00 EST.  We would very much like it if you, or a relevant person from your organisation, would join us.  This is an open invitation so please feel free to pass it on to colleagues from other organisations who you think would be interested in participating.

It would be appreciated if you could RSVP to me at Jack.Cornforth@civicus.org by Tuesday 7th July.

We hope you will join the conversation!

Regards,

Jack

Ps – We are cognisant that a broader conversation on civil society collaboration after September 2015, ‘So Now What? How civil can work together on the post-2015 agenda after September’ is being convened by an informal working group of civil society organisations from across all regions (more information is available here). We will certainly endeavour to coordinate and collaborate with these discussions as they move forward!

Jack Cornforth

Senior Project Officer

Big Development DataShift

T: +44 207 733 9696

E: jack.cornforth@civicus.org

@JackCornforth

Skype: jack.cornforth (London)

.

DataShift Response to Zero Draft – 23 June web

.

CGD and a transformative post-2015 agenda – final

.

.
.
.—————————————————————————————————————————————
.
.
FfD3 Outcome Drafts: Comparative Analysis
Dear colleagues,
Regions Refocus 2015 is pleased to share with you an updated version of our UN Language Map comparing the Zero Draft of the Addis Ababa Accord to the 7 May revised draft. This document, which we hope will be useful to you in your analysis of the process towards the Third Conference on Financing for Development, is attached and available at http://bit.ly/FfD3LangMap.
Peace,
Kathryn

Kathryn (Katie) Tobin 

Policy Coordinator

Regions Refocus 2015

team@regionsrefocus.org

daghammarskjold.se/regions-refocus

@ReFocus2015 / @uncharteredKT

Office +1 646 847-9488

 
Thank you Kate. It is very helpful.
Elsa
Elsa Muttathu PBVM

ECOSOC NGO Representative at the United Nations
International Presentation Association

211 East 43rd Street, Suite 1207, New York, NY 10017
Phone/Fax: 212 370 0075
 
The mission of IPA is to channel our resources so that we can speak and act in partnership with others for global justice.

 

——-

Winifred Doherty, Main NGO Representative to the United Nations
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1438
New York, NY 10165
Phone/Fax 1 212 599 2711  E-mail winifreddohertyrgs@gmail.com
Cell: 1 917 868 1843
The Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd is an NGO in special consultative status with ECOSOC, UN
“We commit ourselves to work zealously with women and children, especially those who are trafficked, forced to migrate or oppressed by abject poverty”
‘Discover the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors website’
Global Coalition 4Social Protection
Visit the new website:
Add your signature in support of the Social Protection Floor Initiative
Follow us on Twitter:    www.twitter.com/socprotection  @socprotection
.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
.
TWN Finance and UN Sust Dev. Info: Will FfD further the right to development or will it be a vehicle for the privatization of development financing?
: TWN Finance and UN Sust Dev. Info: Will FfD further the right to development or will it be a vehicle for the privatization of development financing?
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015
From: Third World Network <twnet@po.jaring.my>
To: Third World Network-2 <twnet@po.jaring.my>
Dear friends and colleagues,
The second drafting session of the lead-up to the Third International Conference on Financing for Development was held on 13 – 17 April at the UN headquarters in New York.
The conference will take place 13 – 16 July 2015 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
We are pleased to share with you a report by Bhumika Muchhala on the recently drafting session
With best wishes,
Third World Network
[Financing] for Development: Will it further the right to development or
will it be a vehicle for the privatization of development financing?
By Bhumika Muchhala (New York, 30 April 2015)
Table of Contents:
A. Overview of FfD issues
B. The great clash in priorities for FfD
C. International public finance
• ‘The world has changed’ narrative
• Salvaging official development assistance
D. Domestic public finance (formerly known as mobilizing domestic resources)
• Intergovernmental committee on tax: key deliverable or elusive dream?
• Prescriptive measures, but only for the South
A.  Overview of FfD issues 
The second drafting session in the lead-up to the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (Ffd), to take place in July 2015 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, was held from 13-17 April at the United Nations headquarters in New York.  The intergovernmental discussions displayed the deep fractures on the critical FfD themes among UN Member States.
From functional issues such as defining the role and purpose of the FfD conference in its own right and as it contributes to the post-2015 development agenda and the mechanism through with the FfD should be followed-up, reviewed and implemented, to conceptual issues such as domestic and international public finance and private finance as well as systemic, debt, trade and governance issues, the divides are increasingly pronounced.
(This third FfD conference follows a trajectory that began in the late 1990s in recognition of the need for global attention and action to address and overcome systemic inequalities and the achievement of development.)
The FfD Co-Facilitators (from Norway and Guyana) have set the dates for “additional sessions for consultations” on 11-15 May and 26-29 May, with provision also for 1-5 June. Prior to the session on 11-15 May, the Co-Facilitators will circulate a revised Draft Outcome Document as the basis for Member State discussions. The revised draft will be based on views and comments from the second drafting session in April, the joint session with the post-2015 process on means of implementation and the written inputs that have been received.
The meaningful function of the third FfD outcome document is to serve as a normative agreement among governments that addresses the financing of sustainable development goals and targets in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as well as to build the momentum for reform and change in systemic areas such as debt, trade, global economic governance as well as the areas of international private and public finance.  This very ability of the FfD to produce a text that embodies a political agreement among governments is in jeopardy on the levels of both the means of implementation (the means by which the SDGs is to be achieved) as well as systemic reforms.
The central, although not sole, reason for this is the unwillingness of the developed countries, such as the European Union (EU), the United States (US), Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, to agree to the rather small handful of substantive measures in the FfD zero draft that was published on 16 March.  This includes, for example, a decision to upgrade the UN tax committee into an intergovernmental body, ensuring that ODA commitments will be scaled up and that new and additional international public financial resources will be made available for sustainable development financing, developing the ongoing discussions in the UN regarding a multilateral and legal debt restructuring mechanism and agreeing to regular allocations of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
These are just some of the key elements in the current zero draft. Also critical is the recognition, and integration, of the Rio Principle ofcommon but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) which stipulates that the universality of the post-2015 development agenda and its concomitant means of implementation (MOI) be defined by the imperative of developed countries’ responsibilities to provide both financial resources and technology transfer and development to developing countries. This understanding is being rejected by developed countries, and in particular the European Union, who has clearly stated that “resource mobilization” are needed from all due to the “evolving national capabilities and changes in the global economy.” This quickly growing argument has been duly countered by developing countries, some of whom have gathered figures and data to show how the inequality gap between developed and developing countries not only remains but has even been growing in some cases.
Establishing an independent follow-up process, and governing body, for the FfD is also vital, but developed countries are asking instead that the follow-up of both the post-2015 development agenda and the FfD be combined into the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF).  This is problematic in light of FfD being an independent process from the post-2015 development agenda in its substantive inclusion of systemic issues in the international financial and trade architectures. The HLPF is also currently structured in an inadequate manner that lacks a substantive and regular modality and is not equipped with financial and staff resources within the UN.
Both the FfD and post-2015 development agenda need to be built on the foundation of the global partnership for development, which is a recognition of the principal partnership between governments of developed and developing countries, with the developed countries taking the lead in providing resources and the means of implementation. The global partnership for development encapsulates the framework for international development cooperation that recognizes the critical importance of North-South cooperation and the global drivers and determinants that shape national policy space for development.
This foundation of a meaningful global partnership for development is being destabilized by the overwhelming emphasis in the zero draft on private finance, public-private partnerships (PPPs) and multi-stakeholder partnerships with the private sector. Indeed, the interventions of developed countries focused so heavily on the role of the private sector to provide the necessary financing that many Member States and civil society organizations have characterized the FfD process as one that is outsourcing financing to the private sector. The zero draft in particular endorses private financing mechanisms such as blended finance, pooled financing platforms and the ‘catalytic’ use of ODA vis-à-vis financial leveraging.
This is problematic on several counts. The socialization of risks and costs and privatization of resources and wealth is demonstrated by the track record of most private sector partnerships. Ample evidence demonstrates the lack of development impact through blended finance and the absence of accountability, transparency as well as the risk of dangerous speculation through pooled financing platforms. More fundamentally, partnerships in the UN would embrace a voluntary (rather than legally binding) and seld defined responsibility-based (rather than commitment-based) “partnership” approach with the private sector.
The larger implication is that developed countries seek to avert, or ‘cop out,’ of their government responsibilities for financing the SDGs and for financing development overall. The budget crunch resulting from the recent global financial crisis is invoked, as is the public debt problems many developed countries face. However, even if the private sector is to be considered for part of the financial resources, in the absence of criteria, ex-ante assessment, monitoring mechanisms and transparency to ensure private sector accountability and genuine development impact, there is a grave risk that the private sector will undermine rather than contribute to sustainable development. This concern has been growing amidst proliferation of corporate influence and agenda setting in the UN over the last many years. In fact, this trend has come to a point where some developed country governments are openly advocating for the rights of the business sector and creating an enabling domestic environment to facilitate the ease of doing business, particularly in the area of investments, that trumps national public policy space. Developed countries, particularly the EU, want even more favorable language towards the private sector in the zero draft. Meanwhile, many developing countries, as well as progressive civil society organizations stress the urgent need for governments to be able to regulate large corporations to both achieve the SDGs and to fulfill the human, economic and social rights of people.
This disjuncture is most conspicuous in the sharp asymmetry between the set of enforceable legal instruments that governments have been establishing over the past several decades to protect and promote the interests of transnational corporations, especially through Free Trade Agreements, Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investor to State Dispute Settlement Mechanisms, and the lack of binding instruments to hold corporations accountable for their violations and transgressions against people and the planet. The private sector cannot be upheld as the singular engine of growth and innovation, and private finance is not the primary fuel for development. The history of development, where developed country economies were able to grow and diversify as a direct result of strategic choices and tools provided by the state, clearly shows otherwise.
B.  The great clash in priorities for FfD
The Group of 77 group of developing countries, comprising 134 countries, emphasized that the integrity of the FfD as a separate process from the post-2015 development agenda and the SDGs must be maintained in order for it to continue to be an over-arching process to address financing issues, especially for developing countries. The G77 called for the chapeau of the FfD zero draft to focus on the economic pillar, the economic system and systemic issues. The issue of policy space for national governments must also be respected in synergy with an enabling global environment that makes it possible for developing countries to meet SDG goals and targets.
The G77 proposed that the vision encapsulated in the Chapeau of the Monterrey Consensus should be upheld by the current FfD zero draft.  The Monterrey Consensus stated, “Our goal is to eradicate poverty, achieve sustained economic growth and promote sustainable development as we advance to a fully inclusive and equitable global economic system.”  This language, conspicuously absent from the current text, needs to be reaffirmed and included up front. The G77 asserted that the current chapters of the FfD zero draft of 16 March lacks precise, actionable goals, meaning that it is unclear how developing countries would benefit from the current zero draft. It would therefore be critical to raise the level of ambition in terms of the goals member states want to set for their ability to attain financing for development.
The African Group stressed the integration of the CBDR principle and the need to highlight poverty eradication throughout the document. Africa’s efforts to build a regional development agenda through regional integration for inclusive growth and development in Africa, as well as the critical role of national development strategies, industrialization and diversification of Africa’s economies also needs to be highlighted in the zero draft, the African Group said.
The Least Developed Countries (LDC) group said that the zero draft does not adequately address LDC needs and situation.  The framework for financing sustainable development and mobilizing the means to implement the post-2015 development agenda needs to be strengthened. The LDC group suggested five additional proposals. First, the need to address increased inequalities. Second, the global partnership for development between developed and developing countries, which needs global support and appropriate mechanisms.  Third, necessary emphasis on productive capacity building as a development multiplier in LDCs, for which multiple and reliable energy sources are needed. Fourth, LDCs are deeply concerned about the recent decline of ODA which requires a strong commitment by OECD ministers. The LDC group stated that they could not emphasize enough the urgency for a complete commitment by development partners. And fifth, that LDCs require additional preferential, differential, access to markets, and differential and preferential treatment in trade.
The group of Latin American and Caribbean countries, CELAC, stated that achieving the internationally agreed SDGs require a strengthened and invigorated partnership for development. This in turn requires a commitment to maintain the policy actions in the Monterrey Consensus, including systemic issues such as sustainable debt and debt restructuring. Adequate financing for development strategies need to involve elements such as the improvement of market regulation, combating illicit financial flows and tax evasion; ensuring corporate responsibilities as well as the right of the state to regulate, and strengthening international development cooperation.  In order to address growing inequalities and poverty, further investments are needed with the scope of a new financial strategy. The measurement of multidimensional poverty also needs to be included.
Small Island Development States (SIDS) stated that the FfD zero draft has much improvement to do to highlight the special challenges faced by SIDS, including small domestic markets and resulting difficulties in mobilizing domestic resources, vulnerabilities to climate change and lack of productive capacity.  SIDS stated that prioritizing the commitment of ODA and maintaining climate finance as new and additional ODA is imperative, and as such climate finance under the UNFCCC must not be double-counted as ODA.
India said that the universality of the post-2015 development agenda and the need for developed countries to also commit to action is a missing link in the current zero draft.  Poverty eradication and sustainable development are not different silos but rather interconnected and a realizing the need to pursue development as a holistic integration should be reflected in the text.  The zero draft fails to name the principle of CBDR in paragraph 8 and seems to invent new ones that are not acceptable and barely understandable. Sustainable patterns of consumption in developed countries, and the urgent need to address this is missing in the current zero draft. The follow-up of the FfD process also needs to be substantially strengthened.
China said that the principles of the Monterrey Consensus and Doha Declaration for Development need to be upheld by the zero draft, including CBDR and the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental). A far more equal and balanced global partnership for development is the core to maintaining North-South development cooperation. South-South cooperation is complementary and supplementary, but not a substitute. National strategies for development priorities should be prioritized, and FfD should focus on highlighting systemic issues, such as increasing the representation and voice of developing countries in international financial institutions (IFIs), strengthening multilateral trade and building regional development and cooperation.
Nicaragua said that the eradication of poverty with an integration of gender equality and the rise in inequalities needs to be reflected in the zero draft text. The Addis Ababa conference must not regress from the Monterrey Consensus and the Doha Declaration for Development and should in fact go beyond.  A universal agenda should clearly integrate CBDR, and the third FfD conference should be a separate process of FfD in its own right, with a document that carries its own legitimacy coming out of the July summit, while at the same time contributing to sustainable development financing in the post-2015 development agenda.
Ghana reminded other Member States and the Co-Facilitators that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) did not have their own financing framework, which led to serious gaps and unmet goals.  There is now an opportunity to develop a concrete financing framework that can make the SDGs a reality for all countries.
The European Union proposed adding a new chapter on domestic enabling environment, as well as strengthening the policy text under each section on this issue. Domestic enabling environment, according to the EU, can highlight the full range of non-financial MOIs and ensure that they are framed as both the means for the mobilization of resources and as an end in themselves. The EU continued to emphasize the domestic enabling environment and non-financial MOI in its interventions, including proposing to accept the chapter on international systemic issues provided that this additional chapter is introduced, suggesting language for enabling private sector investments in the private finance chapter and in the trade chapter proposing language that makes the link between a conducive domestic enabling environment as the single biggest factor in realising the potential of trade.
The EU stated that this new chapter would include language on good governance and effective and inclusive institutions, sound policy and regulatory environments, including effective legislative and regulatory frameworks, policy levers such as sustainable public procurement, gradual elimination of environmentally harmful subsidies and promoting solutions that are climate-smart and contribute to poverty eradication. This proposed chapter on domestic enabling environment would also include the importance of decent work, including implementation of labour standards, adequate social protection floors and investment in human capital.
[Such a chapter not only corresponds to the World Bank’s Doing Business Indicators on deregulation, tax incentives for the private sector and labor market flexibility, which counters the necessary regulations and domestic resource mobilization required for sustainable development, but it also imposes policy conditions on developing countries (which the FfD agenda, unlike the international financial institutions, has the responsibility to avoid) and goes against the very ethos of an enabling international environment for development as a prerequisite for domestic efforts to mediate necessary policy changes.
Language on sustainable policy procurement may sound benign; however, it runs the risk of discriminating against domestic firms, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that do not have the capability or the technology to be as sustainable as firms in developed countries. The gradual elimination of environmentally harmful subsidies, while being appropriate for the environmental pillar of sustainable development, poses challenges to low-income populations in developing countries that rely on subsidies. Such language should always include concomitant language on protecting the poor and disadvantaged communities through compensations and financial assistance, particularly through means of implementation.
The EU continued to ignore the imperative of the CBDR principle, proposing instead that the principle of shared responsibilities be highlighted.  Not only is “shared responsibilities” not an actual principle, but if all actors are to take action and contribute their share to reaching global goals in line with respective capabilities, this will result in far lower contributions by developing countries, who have far less financial resources and technological capabilities than developed countries. The EU’s language threatens the explicit and urgent asymmetry between developed and developing countries that must be addressed by CBDR.]
The United States offered sparse comments, saying only that climate change should be a crosscutting issue in the FfD zero draft and that sustainable development must be climate resilient.  The US stressed development cooperation and development effectiveness, and emphasized that the FfD zero draft should not prejudice or influence other negotiations forums such as the World Trade Organization (WTO). The absence of substantive comments by the US at the outset of discussions signals the countries lack of interest and lack of priority to the FfD process. As in the SDG negotiations, the US consistently raises qualms with the role of the UN in addressing policy issues in financial, trade and systemic governance, saying that these issues belong in the Bretton Woods Institutions, the WTO and so on.
C.  International public finance
‘The world has changed’ narrative
The EU expounded its ‘the world has changed’ narrative, saying that the zero draft’s section on international public finance fails to properly reflect the fact that the world has changed since Monterrey. Much of the zero draft text is still premised on an outdated North-South construct, which does not reflect the complexity of today’s world.  Germany supported the EU’s position, adding that the G77 statement does not reflect the fact that emerging economies are now capable of taking on some of the financing burdens and mobilizing funds. Germany clarified that the SDGs cannot just be funded by developed countries.
In response to the use of this narrative of ‘the world has changed’ to pressure middle-income countries, particularly China, Brazil and India, to provide financial resources alongside developed countries, India provided a response supported with powerful statistics. India pointed out that the 30 richest countries of the world account for only 17% of the global population, but over 60% of global GDP, more than 50% of global electricity consumption and nearly 40% of global CO2 emissions. The UN report on “Inequality Matters – World Social Situation 2013,” said that in 2010, high-income countries generated 55% of global income, while low-income countries created just above 1% of global income even though they contained 72% of the global population.
India clarified that the rapid growth in developing countries should be a cause for celebration not trepidation. However, despite the relatively faster rates of growth in developing countries, international inequality has not fallen. The above UN report on inequality shows that that excluding one large developing country (e.g. China), the Gini coefficient of international inequality was higher in 2010 than as compared to 1980. India concluded that these figures attest to the fact of the North-South gap, saying that member states will be doing themselves a disservice if reality is misrepresented.
The long-existing UN discourse on “South-South cooperation” has been distorted to become one of the several mechanisms through which developed countries downplay their commitments and shift some of them on to developing countries. The zero draft welcomes the “increased contributions of Southern partners to sustainable development and looks forward to a further strengthening of South- South cooperation and triangular cooperation, including through multilateral efforts in new institutions.”
South-South and triangular cooperation, while increasingly important in the reform of the architecture of international relations, should never substitute or downplay the importance of historical responsibilities and agreed commitments of North-South development cooperation. This position is held by developing countries as a whole, and is wholly supported by civil society. China emphasizes that South-South cooperation is complementary and supplementary. India said that there is a clear lack of focus on inadequate North-South aid and inversely too much focus on South-South cooperation. Uruguay highlighted that the rationale of South-South cooperation must be preserved, to ensure that it doesn’t substitute for other development principles and mechanisms.
Civil society groups cautioned that South-South cooperation should not be prescriptive, as it is voluntary and based on solidarity (not obligation). If the FfD outcome imposes conditions and obligations on South-South cooperation this will be counter-productive in generating disincentives to those who would otherwise expand South-South cooperation.Salvaging official development assistance (ODA)
The other key position of developed countries when it comes to the central question of mobilizing financial resources is that public domestic financing should be the primary financing mechanism in the FfD. The G77 rebuked this position, saying that the primary financing mechanism for FfD should be first and foremost international public financing. ODA represents the major source of financing for the development of many LDCs and other developing countries, and unfulfilled ODA commitments on the unfinished (MDGs) should be carried forward and the impact of the “ODA deficit” be assessed and estimated in the context of the review of the implementation of the Monterrey Consensus and Doha Declaration, as a matter of urgency.
The G77 emphasized the importance of new and additional, as well as scaled up and predictable, financial commitments for sustainable development, so that the new financing required for the SDGs does not come out of funds that need to go to other priority needs.  The decline of ODA in LDCs also needs to be highlighted and these figures need to be lifted up in accordance with targets and timetables.  The modernization of ODA through the concept of total official support for development assistance (TOSDA) is a point of disagreement for the G77, and alternative language is to be proposed.
China stated that international public finance is the major source of FfD, and ODA is the key source of this international finance. Brazilwarned that there should not be a hierarchy placing domestic resources as the “crux” of financing for development as it states in the zero draft. Developing countries are united in holding a strong view that ODA plays a central role for developing countries especially those in special circumstances. There is also a need to review and follow up ODA commitments at the UN; otherwise they remain only rhetorical promises.
The EU defended itself saying that they are not shying away from their ODA commitments and are determined to fulfil them, even if they have not yet been able to fully deliver them due to an unexpected – and major – global financial and economic crisis. However, the EU again put pressure on middle-income countries to deliver financial resources by stressing universal commitments (rather than a universal agenda). The EU said they “expect others to contribute their fair share, by which we mean universal commitments in line with capabilities.” Germany again supported the EU, saying that while they understand concerns that developed countries have not lived up to commitments and that this gap will become worse with an ambitious new development agenda, it is “crucial that developed and emerging countries increase support,” and that the overarching FFD process should support early movers.
The US welcomed the use of ODA and public finance to serve as a catalyst for private finance, saying that such approaches would “remove constraints to sustained inclusive growth.” The US also welcomed measures to better measure all global flows, including through the OECD’s initiative to redefine the measurement of ODA through the total official support for development concept, which measures various types of public financing flows not just ODA. Civil society articulated strong critiques on both of these issues in its analysis and recommendations to the zero draft.
Civil society highlighted the problem of the catalytic role of ODA. Utilizing ODA through market-based interventions such as pooled financing and leveraging raises concerns about both the evidentiary basis to support these interventions and the development impact. Conversely, there is also recognition of the role that ODA can play in supporting better domestic resource mobilisation including improving tax collection. The UN should not support such an ambiguous approach. The UN should be consistent with the call for ODA to be focused on the poor and the most in need, and ODA must target development outcomes directly with recipient countries and not through private sector blending. The OECD’s attempt to institutionalize the concept of the total official support for development is out of place and seems to be used as a way to either redirect or artificially increase the volume of aid, said civil society, clarifying that this is not a UN agenda but rather the OECD agenda.
Furthermore, civil society stressed that the FfD zero draft should contain stronger language on ODA, such as “committing” (rather than merely “urging”) developed countries to meeting the 0.7% ODA deadline by 2020 through “binding” timetables in order to enforce and hold accountable ODA delivery.
D.  Domestic public finance (formerly known as mobilizing domestic resources)
Intergovernmental committee on tax: key deliverable or elusive dream?
The key action of the FfD zero draft’s section on domestic public finance is the decision in paragraph 28 to upgrade the UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters, including on double taxation treaties, transfer pricing, exchange of information, the taxation of extractive industries and capacity building, to an intergovernmental committee. This involves further enhancing the voice and participation of developing countries in norm setting for international tax cooperation. As a longtime priority of most developing countries, theG77 strongly supported this paragraph and suggested that it could be shifted to systemic issues section of the FfD zero draft.  This would maintain the significance of international tax cooperation as a systemic and international issue, and not simply as a means of mobilizing domestic resources.
The EU, supported by Germany and the US, were in direct opposition to the G77. They stated that they “cannot agree to the upgrading of the UN Tax Committee. For the EU, the current format of a committee of independent experts, chosen on a broad international basis, is appropriate.” The EU referred to the decision as “institutional proliferation,” saying that they would rather improve cooperation among existing bodies.
Going a step beyond the G77 and in direct opposition to the EU, civil society lent its strong support to this vital decision, in that it would be one of the key deliverables of the third FfD conference. However, additional language is necessary, said civil society, to ensure that the decision to establish an intergovernmental body will occur before the current tax committee expires in 2017, is well-resourced and expands the membership of the committee, with an objective of including more developing countries. The tax committee currently includes only 25 countries.
Prescriptive measures, but only for the South
Another key content area of the domestic public finance section of the FfD zero daft is paragraph 19, which contains a directive to countries with government revenue from taxation below 20% of GDP agree to progressively increase tax revenues, with the aim of halving the gap towards 20% by 2025.
The G77 stated that the outcome document should not impose on developing countries how much to raise in taxes, particularly when international tax cooperation on tax evasion, avoidance and transfer mis-pricing issues are still inadequately addressed.  While there can be support to increase the tax base, there is no need to pin down specific numbers. This goes too far, and should thus be deleted.
The EU unsurprisingly welcomed the language and expressed interest in exploring a “proportion of a country’s budget funded through tax” target. In fact, the EU expressed that UN member states should be more ambitious quantitatively. Halving the gap to 20% by 2025 will for some not be enough, and thus qualitative ambition is also needed. There should be stronger text on public financial management and anti-corruption at both national and international levels.
The EU again stressed the importance of the domestic enabling environment, saying that domestic policies and reforms should create favourable conditions for macroeconomic stability, inclusive growth and sustainable development. This implies putting the right emphasis on an environment conducive to private sector development, investment, trade, as well as science, technology and innovation. Conversely, international enabling environment for sustainable development, namely through international systemic reforms, is absent from their discourse.
Furthermore, the EU emphasized their own language in the zero draft where domestic resource mobilization is named the “crux” of financial resources. The EU posited that domestic public finance is by far the largest source of financing directly available to governments for investment in sustainable development, and that domestic resources are not as volatile as international flows and are an important component of the social contract that underpins government accountability.
Given the glaring absence of any meaningful measures to facilitate the structural transformation of developing country economies towards equitable, dynamic and employment-based growth and development, the emphasis on domestic public finance is heavily contested by developing countries.  It becomes yet another financial obligation on developing countries who also bear the adverse impacts of international rules and frameworks that are prejudiced against their right to development.
Civil society analyzed the above paragraph on tax revenue and found it overly prescriptive, recommending that it be removed. They impose an obligation on developing countries since most developed countries already have high tax to GNP ratios.
Without due considerations to equity, equality and progressive taxation, taxes can increase inequalities. From an equity and human rights perspective, the tax base should be expanded in a progressive manner, which implies reforms in tax structures to shift the burden to progressive direct taxes, such as income taxes, wealth taxes and corporate taxes, and to avoid gender bias in tax structures. Civil society recommended that a target is therefore needed for progressive taxation and national assessment of resource needs to meet the SDGs.
The instrumentalization of women’s economic and social rights is a recurring theme in the FfD zero draft, and should be duly avoided. The language here frames women as the source of taxes, while paying little attention to direct tax resources from profitable economic and industrial sectors. The recommendation to promote social infrastructure and policies that enable women’s full participation in the economy and in the labour force should thus be detached from the previous sentence.
Another prescription, found in paragraph 33, is to “gradually eliminate harmful subsidies,” which include fossil fuel subsidies for production and consumption. The G77 highlighted the fact that poorer segments of developing country populations depend on such subsidies.  Civil society said that fossil fuels should not be selectively mentioned; there are other subsidies too such as agricultural subsidies in developed countries that are harmful. Furthermore, financing to offset this harm should also come from international financing if a developing country requires this, since it is an international public good to reduce subsidies that are harmful to the environment. +
.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Arab States Debate Self-Determination, Intra-Regional Trade, and Financing for Development Priorities at Sustainable Development Forum

.
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
.
PGA Hearing Programme; IAEG-SDGs Mtg registration info; SDGs Indicator Website
TO UN DESA NGO MAJOR GROUP & OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

From: Fabia Yazaki <yazaki@un.org>
Date: Tue, May 19, 2015
Subject: Re: Fw: SIgn-on Letter of appreciation & recommendations for MGoS participation in IAEG-SDG
To: Jeffery Huffines <jvhuffines@gmail.com>

Dear Jeff,

Regarding the IAEG-SDGs process, I am pleased to share with you our new SDGs indicator website, which contains the available information and the latest updates: http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/

For the upcoming first meeting of the IAEG-SDGs, to be held in NY on 1-2 June 2015, please note that due to space limitation, registration for civil society attendance at the meeting (including academia, think tanks and institutes) will only be considered for NGOs accredited to the United Nations. UN-accredited entities should fill out this online registration form:  https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1FfhmVuDaciwZx6dnetjXW8S7WePpSGhAQBLOpzzKBy4/viewform?c=0&w=1

They will receive a confirmation email and please note that attendance will be on a first come, first serve basis, even if they receive the confirmation email.  More information on the 1-2 June meeting is posted under:   http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/first-iaeg-sdgs-meeting/ Feel free to share this links with others.  

As soon as we have more information, it will be posted on our website, and please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any specific questions.

Regards,

Fabia
Fabia Yazaki | Statistician
United Nations Statistics Division| Department of Economic and Social Affairs
United Nations | Email: yazaki@un.org |  www.un.org/desa

         
—– Forwarded by Francesca Perucci/NY/UNO on 18/05/2015 09:52 AM —–From:        Jeffery Huffines <jvhuffines@gmail.com>
To:        schweinfest@un.orgperucci@un.org
Cc:        Lotta Tahtinen <tahtinen@un.org>, Judy Kuriansky <DrJudyK@aol.com>, Ed Barry <ebarry@populationinstitute.org>, “savio.carvalho” <Savio.Carvalho@amnesty.org>, Klaus Lehn Christensen <christensen.klaus@gmail.com>
Date:        17/05/2015 10:14 AM
Subject:        Fwd: SIgn-on Letter of appreciation & recommendations for MGoS participation in IAEG-SDG

Dear Stefan & Francesca –

Following up on your last briefing for civil society in April, an increasing number of NGOs have asked about when your next briefing will be taking place. In particular, an update on the establishment of the IAEG and its modalities would be most appreciated.

Very best, Jeff


From: Jeffery Huffines <
jvhuffines@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 7, 2015
Subject: SIgn-on Letter of appreciation & recommendations for MGoS participation in IAEG-SDG
To: 
schweinfest@un.orgperucci@un.org
Cc: “Nikhil Seth (
seth@un.org)” <seth@un.org>, Nikhil Chandavarkar <chandavarkar@un.org>, Lotta Tahtinen <tahtinen@un.org>, Judy Kuriansky <DrJudyK@aol.com>, Ed Barry <ebarry@populationinstitute.org>
Dear Stefan & Francesca –

As we discussed at your briefing of civil society on 20 April, please find attached a letter of appreciation addressed to the post-2015 co-facilitators signed by over 150 NGO signatories, including all 9 Major Groups and other stakeholder constituencies, that includes a number of recommendations for stakeholder engagement with the Inter-agency Expert Group on SDG indicators (IAEG-SDG) that had been proposed by Ed Barry of Sustainable World Initiative. Dr. Judy Kuriansky and I had the opportunity to present the letter to the post-2015 co-facilitators after the Interactive Dialogue on 23 April.

We very much appreciate your support and look forward to speaking with you soon about the status of the IAEG as it develops its working modalities.

Best regards, Jeff

– 

Jeffery Huffines
NGO Major Group Organizing Partner

CIVICUS UN Representative (NY)
Cell: 
+1 646-707-1060
Email: 
jeffery.huffines@civicus.org
Twitter: @JefferyHuffines
Skype: jefferyvhuffines

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
PO BOX 933, Southdale 2135, JHB, South Africawww.civicus.org               

Jeffery Huffines
NGO Major Group Organizing Partner
CIVICUS UN Representative (NY)
Cell: +1 646-707-1060
Email: jeffery.huffines@civicus.org
Twitter: @JefferyHuffines
Skype: jefferyvhuffines

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

PO BOX 933, Southdale 2135, JHB, South Africa
 .
.
————————————————————————————————————————————————
.

Programme for interactive hearing; Preliminary impressions on follow-up & review; Revised themes for Post-2015 Summit interactive dialogues

 

TO UN DESA NGO MAJOR GROUP & OTHER STAKEHOLDERS — FYI


Jeffery Huffines
NGO Major Group Organizing Partner
CIVICUS UN Representative (NY)
Cell: +1 646-707-1060
Email: jeffery.huffines@civicus.org
Twitter: @JefferyHuffines
Skype: jefferyvhuffines

CIVICUS  CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

PO BOX 933, Southdale 2135, JHB, South Africa

Proposal for themes of the interactive dialogues REV 2

.

———————————————————————————

.

Arab States Debate Self-Determination, Intra-Regional Trade, and Financing for Development Priorities at Sustainable Development Forum

Dear colleagues,
From 5-7 May, the Second Arab High-Level Forum on Sustainable Development was held in Bahrain. Regions Refocus 2015 participated in this forum and we are pleased to share with you our recap of the major themes of the discussion, particularly as related to the preparatory process towards the Third Conference on Financing for Development.
Our articleArab States Debate Self-Determination, Intra-Regional Trade, and Financing for Development Priorities at Sustainable Development Forum, is available at http://bit.ly/ArabHLForum
As a background document, we put together one of our UN Language Maps with traffic light analysis of Arab States positions on FfD: http://bit.ly/ArabStatesFfD
As an important input into the Second Arab High-Level Forum, at which civil society participation especially from the region was woefully inadequate, Arab NGO Network for Development and UN-ESCWA organized a civil society pre-meeting in Beirut, Lebanon on 30 April. Please find the outcome of this event, Alternative Development Strategies for Post-2015: Exit from the Current Policy Approach, at http://www.annd.org/english/data/folders/214.pdf.
Thanks for reading. Keep up to date with Region Refocus 2015: Like us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter, and sign up for our email listserv here.
Peace,
Katie
.
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
.

DESA News February 2015: New UN Forest Director, Youth 2015, Social development

DESA News March 2015: New ASG Lenni Montiel, Sustainable data, 600 million jobs

.

DESA News May 2015: Financing for development, Forum on forests, Indigenous youth

.

——————————————————————

.
TWN Finance and UN Sust Dev.Info: Financing for Development and post-2015 development agenda are distinct and complementary, says South

APRN Members] TWN Finance and UN Sust Dev.Info: Financing for Development and post-2015 development agenda are distinct and complementary, says South

Mon, 27 Apr 2015  / Third World Network <twnet@po.jaring.my>


Financing for Development and post-2015 development agenda are distinct and complementary, says South
By Ranja Sengupta, New York (24 April 2015)*
In a joint meeting of the intergovernmental negotiations on the preparatory processes of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development and the post-2015 Development Agenda, Member States were particularly divided over how to deal with the outcomes from the two processes.
The meeting took place on 21 – 24 April at the UN headquarters in New York.
The developing countries led by the Group of 77 and China stressed the need for the outcome of the Financing for Development (FfD) conference in July this year in Addis Ababa to be linked to, but as complementary to and independent of, the Means of Implementation Goal and targets in the Post-2015 Agenda (referring to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals that include the stand alone Goal 17 on MOI).   This was further supported by several groupings such as the Least Developed Countries, the Alliance of Small Island States, the Caribbean Community, the African Group and the Pacific Small Island Developing States.
On the other hand, the general view of developed countries was to import the FfD outcome document in toto into the post-2015 Agenda as the Goal on MOI. The MOI discussions, especially in the context of the FfD process, has perhaps been one of the most contentious in the ongoing General Assembly discussions on the post- 2015 Development Agenda, which is to be adopted at the General Assembly Summit in September this year.
The developing countries have also argued that the FfD document does not address non-financial MOI, which is critical for the post-2015 agenda. The discussion on technology is also weak in the FfD document, they stress. After repeated requests from developing countries, the April MOI session had included a one-day discussion on a Technology Facilitation Mechanism, an issue that has seen bitter battles and deep divisions in the past. The monitoring and review mechanisms for these two processes, whether separate or joint, was also an area of contention.
(See separate report on “Will ‘the wall’ be broken? – Discussion begins on Technology Facilitation Mechanism in Post-2015 Agenda”.)
In sum the developing countries expressed concern that fully overlapping the two outcomes (FfD and MOI of the post-2015 agenda) as per the developed countries’ recommendation will dilute and bring down the ambition level of the MOI of the post-2015 agenda. At the same time it will render the FfD as nothing more than the 15-year framework of the post-2015 agenda whereas the FfD has not only a longer, but also a different, even though overlapping, mandate.
The 21 – 24 April session was led by the Co-facilitators Ambassadors David Donoghue of Ireland and Macharia Kamau of Kenya, who were joined by the Co-facilitators of the FfD process, Ambassadors George Talbot of Guyana and Geir Pedersen of Norway. The week’s discussions were preceded by the second drafting session for the FfD on 13 – 17 April.
At the beginning of the session, the four Co-facilitators addressed the Member States. Ambassador Donoghue talked about the ambition of the post-2015 agenda and the notion of “universality with differentiation”, given the different country contexts that underpin the post-2015 agenda. He also suggested that the Addis Ababa conference should build on the ambition of the SDG targets and the post-2015 agenda. He highlighted the need for an enabling policy environment, new institutions, new commitments, global partnerships as well as review and monitoring,  which will all be needed to implement this new framework and to drive it forward.
Ambassador Kamau highlighted how he felt ambition and universality represented itself in the world we live today.  It is about ending poverty, inequality and promoting shared prosperity, he said. Drawing attention to the tragic death of 900 migrants while crossing the Mediterranean as covered in that day’s news Kamau reminded everyone of the real issues that the UN membership was seeking to address: inequality and poverty, and terrorism. The task is, he said, how are we going to put together a post-2015 agenda that seeks to address these issues and that we also need to find the means of implementation for it. We recognize that we have the FfD and MOI challenge that we have to overcome before September, he pointed out.
Ambassador Kamau also stressed that the ambition in the SDGs actually surpasses the development financial flows today and achieving the SDGs will mean going from millions to billions in resource flows. This requires a financial framework working at both national and global levels. But we must recognize that this is doable and it requires political will and technical capacity. The Ambassador hoped that “we never again have to hear about the number of goals and targets of the SDGs”.Ambassador Talbot said the week gives us the opportunity to step back and re-focus. He suggested that the group is here for “you and your families.” He said that if we see our agenda in terms of people, ourselves, and those connected to us, we will all become champions and accept the mantle of responsibility to bring change. While agreeing that this is a doable challenge and failure is not an option, he also cautioned that the process will not be smooth and there will be issues to work out. Talbot said we have to build mutual understanding and confidence and demonstrate to each other and to the world that we are committed to this transformative ambitious universal agenda. The FfD and post-2015 development agenda are very connected in that process of transformation, he said. We have to match the ambition level of the SDGs on the financing track.
Talbot went on to say that the (FfD) Zero Draft seeks to provide a framework building on the outcomes of Rio+20 but it also seeks to build a platform for specific deliverables, which this week allows us to think about. The specific deliverables are: what are the critical investments that must be made; what are the critical lead actions that we as a global community take and support; and, how will we unfold the work on implementation. The fourth dimension needed here is political will, he highlighted. Critical investments should be made in key sectors such as health and education and energy. He drew attention to technology as a key focus area and said that we need to made significant transitions in technology.
Ambassador Pedersen stressed on the need for urgency as we have a shorter time compared to the Monterrey consensus (from the first FfD conference in 2002). This is an enormous task but it is doable and political will is needed in the FfD process. In 12 weeks we need to find solutions like we have never done before, he emphasised.
The G77 and China, in the first statement of the session presented by South Africa, said that this joint meeting enables the Member States to look at possible linkages and synergies of the FfD process and that of the post-2015 Development Agenda and is timely in the context of the recently held second drafting session of the FfD process the week before (12 – 16 April).
The Group reaffirmed the holistic scope of the Monterrey Consensus and the Doha Declaration on Financing for Development. “In this regard, the Group’s position is to maintain the balance of the 2002 Monterrey Consensus and the 2008 Doha Declaration as reflected in their structures and should be the basis for the development of the Addis Ababa Outcome Document” the Statement said.
(The second FfD conference in 2008 held in Doha reviewed the implementation of the Monterrey Consensus.)
The G77 and China reiterated the following key points based on their February 2015 position paper.
First, the UN Member States have agreed that the OWG-SDG report would be the “main basis” of the post-2015 Development Agenda intergovernmental negotiations as it integrates the Means of Implementation (MOI) both as a stand-alone goal and also within goals. In this regard, the Group underlines the need for stronger synergies between the Post-2015 Development Agenda and the FfD Conference.
The Group also appreciated the scheduling of discussion on the Technology Facilitation Mechanism (TFM) and looked forward to a constructive deliberation on specific aspects related to the establishment of a TFM for the implementation of the SDGs.
Second, while the focus of the FfD conference should primarily be on its core mandate and scope, it should consider specific MOI for SDGs,taking into account and building on the MOI goal and targets in the OWG Report and “without prejudging or precluding discussions on the MOI under the post-2015 Development Agenda track”.
Third, the Group highlighted the complementarity of, as opposed to exact overlap between, the MOI under the Post-2015 agenda and the FfD process. “The FfD process should complement and support the elaboration of the post-2015 agenda. As such, it should provide a set of tools that will support the implementation of the Post-2015 development agenda. However, FfD is a separate process and its scope goes beyond merely financing the SDGs. In a similar manner, the post-2015 Development Agenda will draw from the means of implementation contemplated in the FfD outcome in light of its adequacy and relevance towards the implementation of its goals and targets, but this will not exhaust its means of implementation, which go beyond those elaborated by the FfD outcome document” the statement said.
Fourth, the G77 and China also called upon developed countries “to agree and commit to a new phase of international cooperation through a strengthened and scaled-up global partnership for development, which should be the centerpiece and anchor for both completing the unfinished business of the MDGs and implementing the post-2015 Development Agenda, taking into account the lessons learnt from the gaps in the implementation of MDG8 (on global partnership for development). The international community should provide enhanced and adequate means of implementation to developing countries, including through quantitative time-bound financing targets besides those established for ODA, debt relief and debt restructuring, trade, technology transfer and greater participation of developing countries in global economic governance”.
Next, the Group acknowledged the discussion of financing for climate change in the FfD but said “the FfD process must recognize UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) as the main multilateral platform for discussions on climate finance. Climate finance must not be double counted as ODA and therefore must be considered as separate from and additional to ODA.”
Finally, the Group pointed to the urgent need to achieve an appropriate balance between the roles and the responsibilities of the public and private sectors, in these two processes. The Group expressed concern over efforts to skew the balance heavily in favour of the role of the private sector in supporting development, describing these as “unacceptable”, as they effectively amount to trying to privatize delivery on the global development agenda. “In the context of a much-needed strengthened and scaled up global partnership for development, the private sector has a complementary role to play in supporting the implementation of the development agenda,” said India.
This has also been a continuous and consistent demand from civil society groups  worldwide.
On follow up and review, the G77 and China acknowledged the distinct nature of the two tracks and reiterated its firm view regarding the need for an intergovernmental follow up for the FfD process under the auspices of the General Assembly. On the other hand the Group recalled the central role of the High Level Political Forum (HLPF) in the follow up and review of the post-2015 Development Agenda, including commitments emanating from the Conference on Financing for Development, as complementary means of implementation for the SDGs. The G77 and China expressed their firm support to a follow up and review of the post-2015 Development Agenda “that encompass all the 17 Sustainable Development Goals in a balanced and integrated manner, while giving priority for the implementation of Goal 17 and the MOI, specific targets under the other SDGs, as their cross-cutting nature is critical to the implementation of the entire framework of goals”.
The G77 and China statement was later endorsed, by among others, the LDCs, CARICOM, AOSIS, as well as several Member States including Brazil, Nigeria, Costa Rica and Lebanon, who spoke on the first day.
CARICOM, represented by Belize, said that the post-2015 agenda and FfD are distinct in themselves, but should be understood together as sustainable development should be their purpose with the common point being the MOIs. The FfD should ensure that it addresses the mobilization of resources across the three dimensions of sustainable development keeping resource mobilization aligned to development objectives and it should integrate the principle or universality of the post-2015 agenda.
With particular reference to SIDS, the FfD outcomes should address the vulnerabilities and challenges of SIDS with special regard to resource mobilization. Appropriate emphasis is needed on a global partnership, balanced with the need for domestic resource mobilization. Climate finance requires its own MOIs, according to CARICOM, emphasizing the need for adequate financing for climate change and climate resilient development and the special needs of SIDS. CARICOM asked for distinct follow up and review mechanisms for the two processes.
Ecuador, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin America and Caribbean Countries CELAC), said the Member States should commit to having sound policies such as in international tax cooperation, debt relief, capacity building, and technology transfer. The MOIs are a vital cross cutting aspect of the post 2015 agenda and this requires investment and coordinated efforts by Member States. CELAC stressed the need for a responsible approach in terms of partnerships, particularly in participation by the private sector. There must be transparency, monitoring, and accountability by all actors.
CELAC stressed that innovative financing for development is a complement to and not a substitute for financing for development. It believes in “investment in science and technology and in building capacity with women and men involved”. Underlining the importance of technology and infrastructure in sustainable development, CELAC said that technology transfer, knowledge building and capacity building are important.  Middle-income countries continue to have high levels of poverty and persistent inequality, and needs economic opportunity for which strategies must be developed within this framework.The Maldives, on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said that special focus must be placed on the diversity and particular needs of SIDs in all processes. “We recognize that challenges require a global partnership for development, trade, technology transfer”, the Group said.  While acknowledging that finances from all sources are important the Group underscored the critical importance of global international financing because the private sector, being under-developed in SIDs, is unable to provide adequate financing. Access to modern technology is also important so as to build knowledge capacity and increase the countries’ involvement in international trade. The statement also mentioned the particular challenge faced by SIDs in climate change and capabilities of data collection.
Benin, speaking on behalf of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), underscored the need to reach meaningful deliverables so as to achieve meaningful results ad so the means of implementation must work with the ambitions of the development agenda. The LDCs made the very important point that we cannot go to Addis just to reconfirm commitments made years ago. In particular, the LDC’s recommended: 0.25% of ODA for LDCs, reserving 50% of aid for trade for LDCs, a debt moratorium for LDCs, allocation of 0.1% of ODA for the technology bank. In addition they asked for specific strategies to build the capacity of LDCs such as investment in infrastructure, an international support center for investment in LDCs, institution building and reform.
TONGA speaking on behalf of Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDs) said that while the FfD and MOI tracks must be considered together, they are yet distinct. The FfD text should be explicit about what is being supported and in particular, the MOI for the targets. The Group asked for special considerations for SIDS and underscored the need for a global partnership.
Zambia, on behalf of the Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) said that the FfD should not limit the post-2015 agenda but rather reinforce MOI in the latter. A complementarity between the two processes is critical to the attainment of targets of LLDC States.
The FfD process, as one of the many components, should feed into MOI and should reflect specific needs of LLDCs which need financial and technical assistance and technology facilitation in order to overcome needs, for example, to include secure transport infrastructure for reducing trade costs. The LLDCs also need to build diverse production, build resilience to climate change and other economic and social shocks. MOI should cater to the specific needs of LLDCs such as timely predictable ODA, increased aid for trade and market access, increased foreign direct investment, increased technical assistance, innovative sources of funding, and increased public-private partnerships.
Brazil stressed on the need to ensure adequate means to implement the SDGs which are “balanced and indivisible”. It is important to note that Brazil, throughout the Session, and in presentations made at other parallel smaller meetings, has been highlighting the indivisibility of the SDGs and therefore the need to ensure that all goals and targets, including the MOIs, are implemented and none left behind. It emphasized that Goal 17 (stand alone on MOI) and MOI specific targets are part and parcel of the SDG framework and must not be left behind like Goal 8 of the MDGs.
Brazil also said that for an effective integration of FfD and the P2015 agenda, two elements are needed, namely, a clear understanding of what MOI are needed for the new agenda; and concrete mechanisms and policies such MOIs provide. The Addis Conference is not just a pledging process and must try for indicative pledges.
Brazil also stressed that the FfD and post-2015 processes must complement but not compete with other pledges in other processes. So for example, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) under the UNFCCC has renewed call for $100 billion per year by 2020, but these pledges must not count as ODA. Brazil highlighted the non-financial aspects of MOI ad said that MOI also goes beyond finance to cover technology development and dissemination. Need to deepen discussion on issues. Brazil pointed to the need for review and monitoring of both the frameworks under the High Level Political Forum (HLPF – the institutional follow up of Rio+20 that replaced the Commission on Sustainable Development). The new agenda includes important new aspects of sustainable development, such as health and sustainable production & consumption, it said.
Nepal asked for a complementarity between post-2015 and the FfD. Increased resource requirement will also lead to increased taxes and increased cost of development, which needs to be balanced by ODA and trade, it said. Access to markets and capacity building for market linkages and value chains must be supported at all levels. On climate change, Nepal has negligible contribution to causes of climate change but is facing impacts such as snow and glacier melting. Therefore Nepal should not be asked for internal resources and ODA for climate impact support.
Nicaragua said that the two processes should be made complementary. It pointed out that national development strategies are crucial for developing countries as they need additional resources and an international environment favorable to development, and that ODA must be marked specifically for LDCs and SIDs. Implementing the Monterrey consensus is essential. Real changes in the financial system, transfer of technology, capacity building and debt issues must be part of the post-2015 agenda. Developing countries need space to address social infrastructure. The new framework should be aligned to the needs of developing countries and look at resource mobilization and take account of shared responsibility.
The European Union (EU) statement pointed to the different views shared by several developed countries. The EU said the Addis work should be comprehensive and be able to address the full MOI for the SDGs and the post-2015 agenda. (This was in stark contrast to the position taken by the developing countries.)
The EU also agreed to the need to move from FfD to “financing for sustainable development” and said there is a need to clarify the relationship between Addis and the post-2015 development process, again saying that the Addis outcomes should be framed as the comprehensive MOI for the SDGs. The EU also expressed its support for a single process for review and monitoring of the two frameworks.
According to the EU, the Addis outcome should include the FfD framework covering all the goals and targets, including non-financial means. It recommended that the Addis outcome should be drafted in a way in which it can easily fit and be included in the post-2015 agenda. Another option is to agree in Addis that a condensed version of the outcome document be included in the post-2015 package, the EU suggested.
The United States of America (USA) said the FfD and post–2015 agenda have the same purpose which is to end poverty and the promotion of sustainable development as common goals. It said that previous week’s discussion (the second drafting session of the FfD) re-affirms the Monterrey Consensus and the Doha Declaration, and has also provided an agreement on domestic mobilisation and the combat of illicit finance. The USA argued that ODA must focus on those most in need and underscored the importance of capacity building, need for inclusion and gender equality. It acknowledged the wide calls for science, technology and data as key enablers for development to trigger the growth of knowledge based economies, and also pointed out that there are areas that need improvement.
Australia said that the Addis outcome must build on the Monterrey framework in order to succeed and must have a defined outcome on how to attain financing goals. In order to achieve the SDG outcomes, the Addis outcome document must have the MOIs, a simple monitoring and follow-up mechanism, and strengthen global partnership. Australia acknowledged that ODA has an important role to maximize impacts catalytically. A global partnership includes other actors, founded on mutual respect, trust, and to capitalize on expertise. Strong coordination and sequencing between the post-2015 and FfD-Addis process must form the MOI outcome, it said.
(Several other Member States presented their views on the first day of the joint post-2015/FfD session, which is covered by this article. The next few days covered discussions on technology and other content and process issues related to MOI and the Global Partnership for Development. See separate report on “Will ‘the wall’ be broken? – Discussion begins on Technology Facilitation Mechanism in Post-2015 Agenda”.)
(*With inputs from the Women’s Major Group at the UN.)
Paul Quintos
IBON International
3rd Flr., IBON Center
114 Timog Avenue,
Quezon City 1103
Philippines
Telefax: +63 2 9276981Skype ID: paul.quintosWebsites: iboninternational.orgpeoplesgoals.org
.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
.
meeting with Financing for Development co-facilitators: Friday, 17 April 9:00-9:45am Conference Room A at UNHQ
Susan Alzner <alzner@un.org>
Date: Thu, Apr 16, 2015
Subject: meeting with Financing for Development co-facilitators: Friday, 17 April 9:00-9:45am Conference Room A at UNHQ
To: info@un-ngls.orgDear Colleagues,On Friday, 17 April from 9:00-9:45am, the co-facilitators of the process for the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD3), Ambassadors Geir O. Pederson of Norway and Ambassador George Talbot of Guyana, will meet with stakeholders in Conference Room A at UN Headquarters. Susan Alzner of UN-NGLS and Daniel Platz of DESA FFDO will facilitate this dialogue in the context of the 13-17 April drafting session for the outcome document of the FfD3 Conference.The drafting sessions are taking place each day this week at UN Headquarters, and can be viewed live on UN Web TV: http://webtv.un.org/The zero draft of the outcome document is available here: http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/overview/third-conference-ffd/pre-conference-documents.htmlCivil society statements from the 9 April UN General Assembly interactive hearings in preparation for the FfD3 Conference are available here.For more information on the FfD3 Conference process, please visit:
http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/overview/third-conference-ffd.htmlBest regards,
UN-NGLS

Susan Alzner
Officer in Charge, New York Office
United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS)
www.unngls.org
Twitter | Facebook
NGLS email list: Sign up
——————————————————————————————————————————————

FfD3 Geopolitical Analysis by Regions Refocus 2015, Third World Network, & DAWN

Dear colleagues,

As a follow-up to this week’s release of the Zero Draft for the Third Conference on Financing for DevelopmentRegions Refocus 2015Third World Network,

and Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) are pleased to share our Geopolitical Analysis of FfD3

We are also releasing a companion document produced by Regions Refocus 2015, the Zero Draft Language Map, which identifies the level of progressivity of each proposal of the Zero Draft according to our “traffic light” exercise.

These resources are intended to support advocacy at national, regional, and global levels.

Click here to access A Geopolitical Analysis of Financing for Development: http://bit.ly/FfD3GeopoliticalAnalysis.

Click here to access its companion piece, the Regions Refocus Language Map for the Zero Draft: http://bit.ly/RRZeroDraftLanguageMap.

We hope you find these resources useful, and encourage you to share them with your networks.

Best regards,

Regions Refocus 2015          Third World Network           DAWN

Keep up to date with Region Refocus 2015! We invite you to Like us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter, and sign up for our email listserv here.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

El pedido de ALC para FpD / LAC priorities for Addis

Queridxs todxs:
Es un placer compartirles dos artí­culos de la Consulta Regional de la CEPAL sobre Financiamiento para el Desarrollo realizada en Santiago el 12-13 de marzo pasado: uno sobre las sesiones oficiales y otro sobre el evento paralelo — un constructivo diálogo entre gobiernos y sociedad civil — que co-organizamos la Red Latinoamericana sobre Deuda, Desarrollo y Derechos (Latindadd), la Asociación Chilena de Organismos No Gubernamentales (ACCIÓN), el Centro de Pensamiento Estratégico Internacional (CEPEI) y Regions Refocus 2015, ambos escritos con la ayuda de colegas de la sociedad civil. Mil gracias a Aldo Caliari, Verónica Serafini, Oscar Ugarteche y Renaud Fossard por sus enriquecedores aportes.
- Consulta de América Latina y el Caribe sobre Financiamiento para el Desarrollo llama a eliminar asimetrías en la arquitectura financiera internacional: http://bit.ly/ECLACFfDEsp – Evento paralelo entre gobiernos y sociedad civil exhorta a Conferencia de Adís Abeba a revertir los desequilibrios macroeconómicas globales:

​ 

http://bit.ly/ECLACFfDSideEventEsp
Esperamos que sirvan para fortalecer la posición latinoamericana y caribeña de cara a Adís Abeba y para seguir avanzando en propuestas transformadoras para FfD.
Saludos,
Regions Refocus 2015
—————
Dear all,
We are pleased to share two articles on the ECLAC Regional Forum on Financing for Development that took place on 12-13 March in Santiago de Chile: one on the intergovernmental sessions and another one on a side event — a fruitful dialogue between governments and civil society — that was co-convened by the Latin American Network on Debt, Development and Rights (Latindadd), ACCION-Chilean Association of NGOs, the Centre for International Strategic Thinking (CEPEI), and Regions Refocus 2015. Thanks to Aldo Caliari, Verónica Serafini, Oscar Ugarteche and Renaud Fossard for your substantive contributions to these articles!
- Latin American and Caribbean Forum on Financing for Development Calls for Eliminating Asymmetries in the Global Financial Architecture:

​ ​

http://bit.ly/ECLACFfDEng – Government-Civil Society Side Event Calls for Addis to Redress North-South Macroeconomic Imbalances: http://bit.ly/ECLACFfDSideEventEng
We hope this analysis will serve as a contribution to strengthen the Latin American and Caribbean position ahead of Addis, as well as to advance transformative proposals for FfD.
Best,   Regions Refocus 2015


——————————————————————————————————————————————-

FfD3 Geopolitical Analysis by Regions Refocus 2015, Third World Network, & DAWN

.

Dear colleagues,

As a follow-up to this week’s release of the Zero Draft for the Third Conference on Financing for DevelopmentRegions Refocus 2015Third World Network, and Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) are pleased to share our Geopolitical Analysis of FfD3

We are also releasing a companion document produced by Regions Refocus 2015, the Zero Draft Language Map, which identifies the level of progressivity of each proposal of the Zero Draft according to our “traffic light” exercise.  These resources are intended to support advocacy at national, regional, and global levels.

 

Click here to access A Geopolitical Analysis of Financing for Development: http://bit.ly/FfD3GeopoliticalAnalysis

 

Click here to access its companion piece, the Regions Refocus Language Map for the Zero Draft: http://bit.ly/RRZeroDraftLanguageMap

 

We hope you find these resources useful, and encourage you to share them with your networks.

Best regards,

Regions Refocus 2015          Third World Network           DAWN

Keep up to date with Region Refocus 2015! We invite you to Like us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter, and sign up for our email listserv here.

——————————————————————————————————————————————
.

 8-9 April, 2015  UNGA Hearings on Financing for Development: Apply for civil society Steering Committee & speaking roles

TO UN DESA NGO MAJOR GROUP & OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

  Lotta Tahtinen <tahtinen@un.org> Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015
Subject: 8-9 April UNGA Hearings on Financing for Development: Apply for civil society Steering Committee & speaking roles To: Lotta Tahtinen <tahtinen@un.org> Cc: Susan Alzner <alzner@un.org>
Dear All,
Please find below a message from NGLS regarding the upcoming General Assembly hearings in preparation of the third International Conference on Financing for Development. Apologies for cross-posting,  Kind regards, Lotta
Lotta Tahtinen  Major Groups Programme Coordinator Division for Sustainable Development/DESA United Nations, S-2619 E-mail: tahtinen@un.org Tel: +1 (917) 367-2212 

Apply for civil society Steering Committee and speaking roles:  8-9 April UN General Assembly Hearings in preparation for the  Third International Conference on Financing for Development 
At the request of the Office of the President of the General Assembly, the co-facilitators of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD3), and the UN DESA Financing for Development Office (FFDO), UN-NGLS is conducting an open, transparent and participatory process to identify civil society speakers for the 8-9 April UN General Assembly hearings in preparation for the FfD3 Conference. Representatives of civil society organizations may now apply to serve on the civil society Steering Committee for this process, or to speak during the hearings, following the guidelines at the links below.
Apply for the civil society Steering Committee for the FfD3 hearings here:  http://bit.ly/FfD3-SC-Apply  Deadline: 10 March
Nominate speakers here:  http://bit.ly/FfD3-hearings-CSO-speaker-apply  Deadline 15 March
   For more information about the FfD3 Conference process, please visit:  http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/overview/third-conference-ffd.html

Susan Alzner  Officer in Charge, New York Office  United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS)  www.unngls.org  Twitter | Facebook

 

 ———————————————————————————————————————————–

DESA News January 2015: USG interview, WESP 2015, Synthesis report

click here to see it in a web browser

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Feedback invited: format of the 4-5 March Financing for Development conference hearings for civil society and the private sector

Subject:        Feedback invited: format of the 4-5 March Financing for Development conference hearings for civil society and the private sector 

Dear Colleagues,


As part of the preparatory process for the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD3), hearings with civil society and the business sector will be held at UN Headquarters on 4-5 March 2015. The Office of the President of the General Assembly, the Financing for Development Office (FFDO), and UN-NGLS would like to hear your views on your preferred format for these hearings. The business sector is also being consulted separately on this subject by FFDO and Global Compact.
There are 4 options being discussed. You can view the options and indicate your feedback here by 9 January:
http://bit.ly/FfD-Hearings-Format-Feedback 
All civil society inputs publish online immediately here:
http://bit.ly/FfD-Hearings-Feedback-Received
Information about the preparatory process for FfD3 is available here:
http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/overview/third-conference-ffd/preparatory-process.html
In particular, please see the letter from the President of the General Assembly presenting the proposed road map for the preparatory process and tentative programme of work for the substantive informal sessions:
http://www.un.org/pga/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/131014_financing-development.pdf (The hearings are indicated within this document as tentatively scheduled for January, but they were subsequently moved to 4-5 March.)

Warm regards and happy holidays,
Susan (NGLS) and Daniel Platz (FFDO)
Susan Alzner Officer in Charge, New York Office United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS)
www.un-ngls.org NGLS on Twitter @unngls

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Action – A Call For Participat​ion

TO UN DESA NGO MAJOR GROUP AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

1) We had previously informed you of the draft decision on modalities for the post-2015 negotiations found here:  http://www.un.org/pga/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/12/081214_intergovernmental-negotiations-post-2015-development-agenda.pdf

2) In response, participating Major Groups, Beyond 2015 and GCAP wrote a letter to the co-facilitators requesting a meeting with the co-facilitators to ensure their commitment to open, transparent and inclusive negotiations.

Please feel free to share the attached letter widely through your own networks. We advise that this is a corrected version of the letter, so circulate this letter rather than the one sent out by Leida Rijnhout earlier.

3) We invite all NGO representatives to sign up and circulate widely the “Call for Participation” launched by Beyond 2015 that features an open letter to governments for a strong civil society participation in the post-2015 negotiations. For more information see below. The deadline is 15 December. 


From: Naiara Costa <ncosta@beyond2015.org> Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:58 PM Subject: [B2015 UN WG] ACTION- A call for participation/ Llamado a la participación/ Appel à participation/ Chamado à Participação To: beyond2015unwg@googlegroups.com

 

Dear Beyond 2015 UN Working Group,

I trust that you’ve already seen the “Call for Participation” that we’ve just launched for the Campaign.

We count on your URGENT support to sign up and to mobilize as many organizations, networks and coalitions as possible.

Please, circulate the message below to your mailing lists. It would be great if those that have national and regional offices could also request them to sign as it will show the diversity and complexity of civil society engagement in this process.

The deadline is December 15.

Please, do not forget to tweet about it!

Thanks and best regards,

Naiara Costa

Beyond 2015 Advocacy Director

Mob. +1 917 470 0764

Email: ncosta@beyond2015.org

Skype: naiaracc (New York, USA)

@naiaracc

www.beyond2015.org

Follow Beyond 2015 on Twitter @Beyond2015 and Facebook

WM Beyond 2015 logo

Beyond 2015 thematic groups are open to all organisations participating in the campaign. Join a group! Click here to find out which working groups and task forces are currently active.

You work at the regional level? Check out our regional hubs in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Pacific here.

You work at the national level? You can find details of our national hubs across the world here.

Check out what the Executive Committee has been up to, here.

 

(1) English – A call for Participation FINAL    /   (2) Stakeholder Letter – Post2015 Modalities-FINAL2    /     (3) Portugues – Um chamado a participacao FINAL    /     (4) Francais – Un appel a participation – FINAL    /        (5) Espanol – Un llamado a la participacion -FINAL

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

DESA NGO News – 28 August  2014

UN Links — Save for Future Reference –DESA NGO News

web version

Our monthly newsletter is currently available online in English, French and Spanish. You can also visit our website for up-to-date information in FrenchSpanish and Arabic.

NEWS

Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States

Governments, businesses and civil society organizations are preparing to galvanize action through new and innovative partnerships at the Third Conference on Small Island Developing States (http://www.sids2014.org), which will be held in Apia, Samoa, from 1-4 September. The conference will be an opportunity to highlight the significant vulnerabilities that islands face while also bringing to the spotlight the ways in which this group of countries is making progress addressing global issues such as climate change, access to sustainable energy and environmental degradation.

The Conference will also seek to be a platform to establish new, genuine and durable partnerships between small island developing states and the rest of the world on various issues including sustainable economic development, oceans, food security and waste management, sustainable tourism, disaster risk reduction, and health and non-communicable diseases, youth and women.

Registration deadline extended for the High-level meeting of the General Assembly on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Registration for accredited NGOs for the High-level meeting of the GA on the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the CRC (http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_73962.html), which will take place on 20 November 2014 in New York, has been extended until 12 September.

Registration is open to civil society organizations with ECOSOC status or those that are in a collaborative relationship with UNICEF. Kindly note that due to space constraints, a maximum of 3 representatives of each organization is permitted. Please register here: http://bit.ly/1vojfjN

EVENTS

27 – 29 August: 65th Annual UN DPI/NGO Conference

A major civil society gathering at the UN, the Conference will provide an opportunity for civil society, international networks and activists to develop an “Action Agenda” to mobilize messaging, advocacy strategies, partnerships and accountability frameworks in the lead up to the launch of intergovernmental negotiations at the beginning of the 69th Session of the General Assembly for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda, due to culminate at a summit in September 2015.

http://csonet.org/?page=view&nr=259&type=13&menu=14

28 August – 4 September: UN Conference on Small Island Developing States, Apia, Samoa

The Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States will be held from 1 to 4 September 2014 in Apia, Samoa, to be preceded by activities related to the conference from 28 to 30 August 2014, also in Apia, Samoa. The conference will focus the world’s attention on a group of countries that remain a special case for sustainable development in view of their unique and particular vulnerabilities.

http://csonet.org/?page=view&nr=213&type=13&menu=14

5 September: Panel Discussion – Child, Early and Forced Marriage Worldwide, including the Elaboration of the Post-2015 Development Agenda

In its resolution 68/148, the General Assembly decided to convene a panel discussion on child, early and forced marriage worldwide, including the elaboration of the post-2015 development agenda. The panel discussion will build on the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on preventing and eliminating child, early and forced marriage, which was prepared pursuant to the Human Rights Council’s resolution 24/23, and the related summary report of the panel discussion convened by the Council on 23 June, 2014 during its twenty-sixth session. As is the usual case, ECOSOC accredited NGOs will be accommodated in the third floor gallery of the Trusteeship Council Chamber on a first-come basis.

http://csonet.org/index.php?page=view&nr=271&type=13&menu=14

9 September: High-level forum on Culture of Peace

The one-day High-level Forum will take place on 9 September, 2014 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. It will comprise of an opening segment and two multi-stakeholder interactive panels and a brief closing segment. The two panels will focus on: (1) the role and contributions of women and the young to the Culture of Peace; and (2) global citizenship as a pathway to the Culture of Peace.

http://csonet.org/?page=view&nr=266&type=13&menu=14

10 September: Interactive Meeting with Civil Society for the High-level Stocktaking Event on the Post-2015 Development Agenda: Contributions to the Secretary-General’s Synthesis Report

This interactive meeting will provide civil society, including NGOs, the media, the private sector and other relevant stakeholders with the opportunity to reflect upon the various post-2015 development-related processes which have occurred during the current session of the General Assembly with a view to providing them with an opportunity to identify possible inputs to the Synthesis Report of the Secretary-General; to the work of the 69th session of the General Assembly; and to the elaboration of the Post-2015 Development Agenda itself.

http://csonet.org/index.php?page=view&nr=267&type=13&menu=14

15 – 26 September: Committee on Enforced Disappearances, 7th Session

At its forthcoming 7th session in September 2014, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances will examine the efforts of Belgium and Paraguay to implement the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

http://csonet.org/index.php?page=view&nr=260&type=13&menu=14

17 – 18 September: First Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III)

The Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) and its preparatory process welcome the participation and contributions of all relevant stakeholders, including parliamentarians, civil society organizations, regional, local government and municipality representatives, professionals and researchers, academia, foundations, women and youth groups, trade unions, and the private sector, as well as organizations of the United Nations system and intergovernmental organizations.

http://csonet.org/index.php?page=view&nr=269&type=13&menu=14

22 September: Special Session of the General Assembly on ICPD Beyond 2014

The Review will identify progress and achievements towards the goals set out in the landmark International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), when 179 governments committed to a 20-year Programme of Action of delivering human rights-based development. The ‘Beyond 2014’ Review process will engage world leaders from governments and civil society and create a renewed consensus and global commitment to create a more equal and more sustainable world.

http://csonet.org/?page=view&nr=214&type=13&menu=14

22 – 23 September: World Conference on Indigenous Peoples

The high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly will meet on Monday, September 22 and Tuesday, September 23, 2014, in New York. http://csonet.org/?page=view&nr=215&type=13&menu=14

20 October – 7 November: 59th Session – Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

The Committee will meet in Geneva and will examine the reports of the following countries during its 59th session: Belgium, Brunei Darussalam, China, Ghana, Guinea, Poland, Solomon Islands and Venezuela.

http://csonet.org/index.php?page=view&nr=270&type=13&menu=14

10 – 13 November 2014 : Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction – Prepcom II

The Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction and its preparatory process welcome the participation and contributions of all relevant stakeholders, including parliaments, civil society, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, non-governmental organizations, national platforms for disaster risk reduction, focal points for the Hyogo Framework for Action, local government representatives, scientific institutions and the private sector, as well as organizations of the United Nations system and intergovernmental organizations.

http://csonet.org/index.php?page=view&nr=262&type=13&menu=14

20 November 2014: High-level meeting of the General Assembly on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. On this occasion, the General Assembly passed a resolution to organize a high-level meeting. This is a critical moment to take stock of progress, suggest ways to bridge implementation gaps and make a strong call for make the vision of the Convention a reality for all children, as well as to highlight innovative approaches that can transform the lives of children everywhere.

http://csonet.org/index.php?page=view&nr=268&type=13&menu=14

USEFUL LINKS
DESA NGO Branch http://csonet.org

ECOSOC Main page http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc

Daily updates on Twitter  http://twitter.com/un_ngo

ECOSOC on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/unecosoc

NGO Liaison Office, United Nations Office at Geneva http://unog.ch/ngo

United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS)  http://www.un-ngls.org

UN Department of Public Information, NGO Relations  http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection

OHCHR Civil Society Section  http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/CivilSociety.aspx

OHCHR Civil Society Update Subscription  http://conta.cc/can6Gf

AT YOUR SERVICE

Committee on NGOs Home Page

http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=80
How to Apply for Consultative Status  http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=100

How to Submit a Quadrennial Report http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=99

How to obtain a UN Grounds Pass  http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=86

Ask a question on my organization’s status  http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=82

ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31  http://csonet.org/content/documents/199631.pdf

Learn how to participate in the work of the United Nations

http://bit.ly/i6Wi0D
CONTACT US / (UN-)SUBSCRIBE
You have received this message because you have registered or accepted our invitation to receive e-mail from DESA NGO Branch.

We are located at S-2586, UN Secretariat, New York, New York. Tel: 1-212-963-8652, Fax: 1-212-963-9248.

Please DO NOT respond to this message for questions. If you have a question about your organization’s status, please see the links “At Your Service” above or the “Contact Us” at our website, http://csonet.org .

We will respond within 48 hours to your query. At your service: in New York: Alberto Padova, Nahleen Ahmed, Diego Rumiany, Elena de Jesús, Maria Marchione-Novoa, Hanna Denekew, Erdwine Antoine, Irma Perez, and Carlos Gusukuma.

In Geneva: Sandrine Burel, Ricardo Espinosa, Adriana Fuentes, Nathalie Dérudet. 
Subscribe or see archives of this newsletter here. © 2014 UN DESA. All right reserved. United Nations, New York, NY, 10017.
Connect with us: Facebook | Twitter | SlideShare | RSS

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Subject: [NGO News]: DESA NGO News – 18 March 2013
Ravi Karkara <
ravkarkara@gmail.com>
DESA NGO News – 18 March 2013
Web version | Version Française

You have received this message because you have registered or accepted our invitation to receive e-mail from DESA NGO Branch.

We are located at S-2586, UN Secretariat, New York, New York.
Please DO NOT respond to this message for questions.
If you have a question about your organization’s status, please see the links “At Your Service” above or the “Contact Us” at our website, http://csonet.org .
We will respond within 48 hours to your query. At your service: in New York: Andrei Abramov, Joop Theunissen, Nahleen Ahmed, Diego Rumiany, Maria Marchione-Novoa, Erdwine Antoine, Irma Perez, Carlos Gusukuma, Mark Hintzen. In Geneva : Sandrine Burel, Ricardo Espinosa, Adriana Fuentes, Nathalie Dérudet.
——————————————————————————————————————————————

 Sovereign debt restructur​ing: UN takes a big step forward

Dear colleagues, 

The UN General Assembly has passed a landmark resolution that mandates the UN to create a “multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring”. Promoted by the G77 countries and triggered by the aggressive vulture funds lawsuits against Argentina, this resolution could be a game changer for the way future debt crises are managed. First and foremost, it has shifted the forum for political debate away from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) towards the UN.  However, shamefully the EU’s vote was split over this crucial decision.

The path towards a real debt restructuring regime

It is certainly not news that the lack of a legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring – a state insolvency regime – has been a gaping hole in the international financial architecture. Prominent economists such as Joe Stiglitz, senior officials such as the IMF’s former Deputy Director Anne O. Krueger and civil society campaigners have pointed again and again to this deficit.

However, governments from both debtor and creditor countries have so far been reluctant to put their political weight behind any meaningful initiative. The most relevant political commitment is probably the Monterrey Consensus’ vague commitment to “consider” new debt workout mechanisms. The most relevant practical work, on the other hand, was the IMF’s concept for a Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism, which was shelved 11 years ago when it faced a political deadlock in the US and EU-dominated IMF Executive Board.

Never miss a good crisis

Remarkably, even the global financial crisis has not led to any meaningful political initiative by governments since 2008. It was civil society campaigns that kept the flame burning until the issue was picked up last year by the staff of international organisations, when the IMF issued a staff paper and the UN set up expert groups on new debt workout mechanisms at the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA).

Then came the rather surreal vulture fund lawsuit of NML Capital vs Argentina at a provincial court in the US state of New York, and Judge Thomas Griesa’s ruling to pay out the vultures in full. He interpreted the pari passu (equal treatment) clause in an extraordinary way and – probably as an unintended side-effect – kicked the whole contemporary sovereign debt restructuring non-regime into the dustbin.

Basically all the experts agree that debt restructurings as we knew them, which used to depend on the voluntary participation of creditors, simply don’t work anymore if holdout creditors can achieve full payment through litigation. Restructuring decisions must be binding for all creditors and must be enforceable, hence the need for a multilateral legal framework.

Debtor countries drive the issue forward

Argentina’s bold move of proposing a UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution – and successful mobilisation of the whole G77 as well as China to back this Resolution – represents a long overdue political breakthrough. Finally, a critical mass of governments is willing to act. Most remarkably, while governance reform processes in the area of sovereign debt restructuring used to be dominated by creditor nations, or creditor-dominated institutions such as the IMF, debtor nations have now finally taken the driving seat. The Resolution was voted on yesterday, on 9 September 2014, and was passed with a large majority: 124 UN Member States voted in favour, 41 abstained, and only 11 voted against.

UN takes centre stage

When looking at the debate that took place around the vote, it becomes clear that any conflict was not so much about whether there should be a legal framework or not. Only the USA, one of the few ‘no’ voters, stated that this was counter-productive. For the other countries that spoke out, the question was more whether the UNGA should be mandated to take it on, or if this should be left to the IMF.

Developing countries made it clear that the UNGA, as the most inclusive forum, is the right place for political debate and decision-making to take place. Debt restructuring is simply too important to be left to the IMF, in whose board developing countries do not have a significant stake, and which, as a major creditor, would face an impossible conflict of interest.

All BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) voted in favour of the Resolution, another expression of their dissatisfaction with the stalled governance reform at the IMF. Of the five countries that have the largest share of voting rights and their own Executive Director at the IMF, four voted no (USA, Japan, Germany and the UK). The EU vote was split; the majority of European nations abstained. The EU speaker, Italy, stated the key reason for abstaining was that the G77 initiative was simply too rushed.

European governments’ voting behaviour is shameful, as this continent is currently the most vulnerable to debt crises. As things stand, Europe is in most urgent need of a better state insolvency regime. However, at the next stages of this process, EU leaders will have the opportunity to engage constructively and to listen to their citizens. Ahead of the vote, a large coalition of European civil society organisations, including Eurodad, called on European governments to vote in favour of the Resolution. This might have helped to shift some European votes from ‘no’ to abstention.

The next steps

In any case, the G77’s support was sufficient to help the Resolution pass. However, this represents just the beginning, not the end, of a process leading to a multilateral framework for sovereign debt restructurings. The next step will be that the UNGA decides on the modalities of the intergovernmental negotiations.

The character this new multilateral framework will take will be subject to political power plays in the future. For us as civil society organisations campaigning for just solutions to debt crises, it is key that a legal framework does not only make binding and enforceable decisions, but that it also reduces the human suffering that debt crises cause, and also addresses the question of illegitimate debts.

We therefore share the view of the UN Special Rapporteur on Debt and Human Rights that “international  human  rights  law  should  be  considered  as applicable  law  in  the  context  of  debt restructurings”. On 25 September 2014, the UN Human Rights Council will vote on a complementary resolution that places debt restructurings firmly in the context of human rights. We hope that Europe will take a more constructive position when it gets its second chance later this month.     

Bodo Ellmers Policy and Advocacy Manager – Debt and Responsible Finance

wm eurodad logo  Eurodad, European Network on Debt and Development

Tel: + 32 2 894 46 51

Skype: eurodad-bodo

Email: bellmers@eurodad.org Rue d’Edimbourg, 18-26. Brussels 1050. Belgium

  2015IC_Concept_Note -FINAL

——————————————————————————————————–

DESA News May 2014: Islands 2014, Indigenous Peoples, Sustainabl​e cities

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/newsletter/desanews/2014/05.html

———————————————————————————————————————————

 Call for nominations, see details below.  Please share with your colleagues and networks.  Let us know if you are interested.

Dr. P. J. Puntenney
Environmental & Human Systems Management
1989 West Liberty
 Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA
Cell:  (734) 330-0238
Voice/Fax: (734) 994-3612

Nomination​s for PGA’s 21-22 May High-level Event on North-Sout​h, South-Sout​h, Triangular Cooperatio​n, and ICT for Developmen​t

DEADLINE: MONDAY, 28 APRIL 12 NOON EDT NY TIME
At the request of the Office of the President of the General Assembly (OPGA), UN-NGLS, in cooperation with DESA-DSD, is facilitating a process to obtain nominations from civil society networks for speakers during the President of the General Assembly’s 21-22 High-Level Event on the “Contributions of North-South, South-South, Triangular Cooperation, and ICT for Development to the Implementation of the Post-2015 Development Agenda”  taking place at UN Headquarters in New York. The concept note for this event is available here.
For this thematic debate, OPGA is seeking nominations for 7 civil society speakers:  Category 1: 1 Keynote speaker Category 2: 3 discussants for Panel #1  Category 3: 3 discussants for Panel #2 Criteria for each of these speaking roles is outlined below. We invite NGOs to submit 1 nominee per category outlined above (i.e. 1 for keynote, 1 for Panel #1 discussants, and 1 for Panel #2 discussants). Travel funding will be provided to the keynote speaker only if necessary. Please read this entire email if you will participate, as the process has a few steps and specific requirements.
Timeline for participation in the nomination process  (Full description and instructions below.) By Monday, 28 April, 12 Noon EDT:  Submit nominations to NGO Major Group Organizing Partners Travel funding Travel funding will be provided for the CSO participant selected for the Keynote speaker of this High-level Event, if other sources of support are not available for the participant. There is space for the participation of six civil society discussants in this HLE, however, OPGA is not in a position to provide travel funding for discussants.  
Visa arrangements OPGA will provide an invitation letter for the selected civil society speakers. The speakers will be responsible for obtaining their own visas for travel. Please confirm with candidates you are considering for nominations that the US Embassy/consulate in their home country will be able to issue a visa for travel to the US within 2 weeks.
Instructions for submitting nominations to NGO Major Group Organizing Partners NGO Major Group Organizing Partners have created an online nomination form for each of the 3 nomination categories; links are provided below. Based upon the NGO nominations received by 28 April, the NGO Major Group Organizing Partners will submit one nominee per category for consideration by the OPGA.  We invite your Major Group to submit one nominee per category. You may submit a nomination for one or more of the 3 categories. All nominations will automatically load into a google doc spreadsheet, published here. Please note this spreadsheet has separate tabs for each speaking role. Before submitting a nominee, please confirm:
1) The nominee is a representative of a civil society organization, and officially authorized by their organization/network to speak on the organization/network’s behalf.
2) The nominee is a good public speaker. 3) The candidate is available to be at UN Headquarters in NY at 8:30am on the day of their speaking role, and for travel if necessary. As indicated above, the nominee must have a visa, or be able to obtain one within 2 weeks, for travel to the US.
4) The nominee has not already spoken at one of the previous PGA events on the post-2015 agenda.
  Please consider the content of this event’s concept note and background note when selecting candidates to nominate, available here. The 3 categories for speaking roles, specific criteria per role, and links to submit nominations: 
1) Keynote Speaker for Opening Ceremony Submit nominations for keynote speaker here  The speaker must be: a) female; b) a high-level representative of a civil society organization headquartered in the global South; c) able to address the overarching theme of the High-level Event.
2) Discussants for Panel #1 - Submit nominations for Panel #1 Discussant here Panel focus:  “How can all forms of cooperation, namely North-South, South-South and Triangular Cooperation, be strengthened to promote economic growth, employment and decent work for all?” The speaker must be able to address some of the following topics: – Given that the overarching objective of the post-2015 development agenda is the eradication of extreme poverty, how should the various forms of international cooperation be strengthened to contribute to the achievement of sustained and inclusive economic growth?  – What forms of cooperation can best be utilized to help countries develop inclusive and robust economies and societies that provide employment and decent jobs for all? – Can domestic resource mobilization, increased and smarter aid, domestic private finance and external private finance underpin a global partnership for development? – How can sustained and inclusive national and international economic growth support improved domestic resource mobilization and management?  – How can the means of implementation of the post 2015 development agenda be strengthened by further progress on development-supportive trade reforms within an open, rules-based multilateral trading system?  – How can the post-2015 development agenda give special to the needs of countries in special situations, African countries, LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS? What are the opportunities and challenges facing middle income countries? How can the UN development system be enhanced to support development efforts of all developing countries?  – How can South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation play a complementary role in a global partnership for development beyond 2015?
3) Discussants for Panel #2 Submit nominations for Panel #2 Discussant here Panel focus:  “How can all forms of cooperation, namely North-South, South-South and Triangular Cooperation, as well as ICT for development, be utilized to achieve effective means of implementation for the post-2015 development agenda?” The speaker must be able to address some of the following topics: – How can the various forms of international cooperation enhance the means of implementation, including trade, financing for sustainable development, capacity building, and development and transfer of environmentally sound technologies? – How can the various forms of international cooperation contribute to a strengthened global partnership that is critical for sustainable development? – What mechanisms are available both nationally and internationally to help increase and improve the effectiveness of official  development assistance and its impact in lifting people from extreme poverty, improve health-care and education?  – How can the achievement of existing goals and targets on ICT for development, such as the international commitment to significantly increase access to telecommunication services and strive to provide 100 per cent access to the Internet by 2020 to Least Developed Countries contribute to the post-2015 development agenda?  – How can the post 2015 development agenda integrate the notion of resilience and which specific instruments and forms of cooperation, including through the implementation of the Hyogo Framework of Action for Disaster Risk Reduction, can help safeguard hard-earned development gains?  Description of the Nomination Process For this nomination process, UN-NGLS is contacting a total of 22 constituencies:
1) 8 Major Groups: NGOs, Women, Children and Youth, Indigenous Peoples, Workers and Trade Unions, Farmers, Technological and Scientific Community, and Local Authorities. (OPGA is conducting a separate process for business and industry/private sector.)
2) 7 international civil society networks: Beyond 2015, Global Call to Action Against Poverty, Third World Network, Social Watch, Campaign for People’s Goals for Sustainable Development, Center for Economic and Social Rights/Post-2105 Human Rights Caucus, and LDC Watch.
3) 7 groupings of regional, South-based networks from Africa, Arab States, Asia, Latin America, and the 3 Small Islands Developing States (SIDS) regions. For the list, please contact UN-NGLS. Each of these 22 constituencies can submit one nominee for each speaking category outlined above (up to 3 nominees total).
UN-NGLS is allowed to send through 6 final nominees per role to OPGA, for a total of 18 nominees. To determine the 6 final nominees per role, UN-NGLS will facilitate a selection committee conference call on 30 April from 8:00-10:00am EST, involving one designated representative from each of the 22 constituencies.  UN-NGLS will send a subsequent email seeking a focal point for the call from your network.
   By 5 May, OPGA will select the final speakers from amongst the 6 nominees submitted for each speaking role.  OPGA will prioritize civil society speakers from the global South for this event, and will ensure gender and geographic balance within the overall programme, which will also include speakers from governments, academia, and the private sector. UN-NGLS and DESA-DSD are not involved in the final speaker selection process. The remainder of the nominees will serve as alternates.
For more information about the PGA’s post-2015 events, including how to attend as an observer, please see the PGA’s Frequently Asked Questions web page. –
Jeffery Huffines NGO Major Group Organizing Partner CIVICUS UN Representative (NY)
Cell: +1 646-707-1060 Email: jeffery.huffines@civicus.org Skype: jefferyvhuffines CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO
BOX 933, Southdale 2135, JHB, South Africa www.civicus.org
Follow threats and take action to protect civil society – join Civil Society Watch at www.cswatch.org

 

————————————————————————————————-

MY CONTRIBUTION AT THE CONFERENCE ON THE EUROCRISIS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN,
NOVEMBER 2013(and other papers on the EU-Crisis)
 or
Department of Economics,
University of Vienna Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1,
A-1090 Vienna, Austria
Phone:+43 1 4277 374 ext. 18 (direct) or 01 or 05
———————————————————————————————————————————–

From: Paul Quintos <pquintos@iboninternational.org> Date: Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:05 PM Subject: A Global Partnership of Solidarity or Global Partnerships for Wealth? To:

Please circulate widely….
Dear All,
Today there will be a Thematic Debate on “The role of partnerships in the implementation of the Post-2015 Development Agenda” organized by the Office of the President of the UN General Assembly.
In a statement released yesterday, the Campaign for Peoples Goals for Sustainable Development along with other civil society groups and social movements warn that “The privileging of the private sector’s role in partnerships poses the danger of corporations and their lobby-groups gaining unchecked influence over the agenda-setting and political decision-making by governments. If left unmanaged and unsupervised, these partnerships are likely to evolve to further serve corporate interests resulting in the privatization of public services to the detriment of the peoples’ right to basic services and universal social protection. Indeed it is strange to think that while governments deliberate over a new set of “sustainable development goals”, other negotiations are taking place that will further cement the ‘sovereign rights’ of corporations over state jurisdictions .” If you want to sign-on to this statement, please send your organization’s name and country to secretariat@peoplesgoals.org

-- 
Paul Quintos
IBON International
3rd Flr., IBON Center
114 Timog Avenue,
Quezon City 1103
Philippines
Telefax: +63 2 9276981

Skype ID: paul.quintos
Websites: iboninternational.org
peoplesgoals.org
Jeffery Huffines NGO Major Group Organizing Partner CIVICUS UN Representative (NY) Cell: +1 646-707-1060 Email: jeffery.huffines@civicus.org Skype: jefferyvhuffines CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, Southdale 2135, JHB, South Africa www.civicus.org Follow threats and take action to protect civil society – join Civil Society Watch at www.cswatch.org

Sign on Statement.Global Partnership.final 2014Apr8

——————————————————————————————————————————-

TO UN DESA NGO MAJOR GROUP

All Major Groups and other stakeholders are invited to a General Information meeting taking place today, 5:30 pm – 6:30 pm. Take elevator at UN lobby to 27th floor, Room 2727.

Agenda
  • OWG phase 2 (March-July)
  • Regional Commission meetings
  • Major Groups position papers and thematic papers
  • HLPF meeting – date/theme/consultation
  • Update on SIDS Conference
  • Major Groups governance / Call for Organizing Partners


Jeffery Huffines
NGO Major Group Organizing Partner
CIVICUS UN Representative (NY)
Cell: +1 646-707-1060
Email: jeffery.huffines@civicus.org
Skype: jefferyvhuffines

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

PO BOX 933, Southdale 2135, JHB, South Africa
www.civicus.org

Follow threats and take action to protect civil society – join Civil Society Watch at www.cswatch.org

——————————————————————————————————————————————

TO UN DESA NGO MAJOR GROUP — FYI — OWG 10 and SIDS Zero Draft

The OWG co-chairs released the following documents (also attached) in preparation for OWG 10 taking place 31 March – 4 April.

The  zero draft of the 3rd SIDS Conference is online for consultation. 

Please read and react at http://www.sids2014.org/index.php?menu=1494  Registration for ECOSOC-accredited NGOs will be open by the end of the week for the Conference and last PrepCom. Shortly UN DESA will also open a special accreditation process for non-ECOSOC accredited NGOs interested in participating.

From: Jones, Debra <Debra.Jones@savethechildren.org>
Date: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:33 PM
Subject: OWG Revised Focus Areas Document and Programme of Work for OWG 10
To: “beyond2015unwg@googlegroups.com” <beyond2015unwg@googlegroups.com>

 

Dear all,

Please find attached the following documents which have just been released by the OWG Co-chairs today:

1.       Letter from the Co-Chairs, 18 March 2014 – Noting that they have made light revisions to the Focus Areas document reflecting the views at the last OWG session;

2.       Revised Focus Areas Document – 19 focus areas are still identified; we will provide a summary of the changes made between the previous Focus Areas document and the revised version in our NY Office post-2015 update at the end of the week;

3.       Annex Document of Interlinkages – Separating out the interlinkages for the 19 focus areas (these were included in the original Focus Areas document); and

4.       Programme of Work for the next session of the OWG (31 Mar-4 Apr).

In preparation for the next session of the OWG, the co-chairs propose to engage in a structured discussion by grouping the 19 focus areas into the following clusters:

Cluster 1        Poverty eradication, Promote equality

Cluster 2        Gender equality and women’s empowerment, Education, Employment and decent              work for all, Health and population dynamics

Cluster 3        Water and sanitation

Cluster 4        Economic growthIndustrializationInfrastructureEnergy

Cluster 5        Sustainable cities and human settlements, Promote Sustainable,                         Consumption and Production, Climate

Cluster 6        Conservation and sustainable use of marine resources, oceans and seas                      Ecosystems and biodiversity

Cluster 7        Means of implementation/Global partnership for sustainable development

Cluster 8        Peaceful and non-violent societies, rule of law and capable institutions

——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Dear  colleagues,

INVITATION  Feb 5th, 2014

The Permanent Mission of Germany to the UN,
The Permanent Mission of the Republic of South Africa to the UN,
The Office of the High-Commissioner for Human Rights, and
The United Nations Development Programme

cordially invite you to a

Briefing on the Global Thematic Consultation on Governance and the Post-2015 Development Framework

on the margins of the 8th Session of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals

DATE: Wednesday 5 February 2014
TIME: 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm
VENUE: Trusteeship Council ChamberUnited Nations Headquarters, New York


From October 2012 through March 2013, the Post-2015 Governance consultation provided a platform to discuss governance and accountability bottlenecks in the context of the MDGs. The consultation consisted of a series of regional meetings in Africa, the Arab region, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia, as well as an expert meeting on measurement, e-discussions, and a final meeting at the Pan-African Parliament in Johannesburg, South Africa. Throughout the consultation, a strong consensus emerged among participants on the relevance of governance as a foundation for sustainable development. The Briefing will present the consultation’s outcomes at the UN Headquarters in New York, as a contribution to the intergovernmental processes on Sustainable Development Goals and the Post-2015 development agenda.

MODERATOR:

  • Ms. Radhika Balakrishnan, Executive Director, Center for Women’s Global Leadership, Rutgers University

 

SPEAKERS:

  • H.E. Mr. Hans Peter Wittig, Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations
  • H.E. Mr. Jeremiah Nyamane Kingsley Mamabolo, Permanent Representative of the Republic of South Africa to the United Nations
  • Mr. Jeffery Huffines, United Nations Representative, CIVICUS
  • Mr. Craig Mokhiber, Chief, Development and Economic and Social Issues, OHCHR
  • Mr. Olav Kjørven, Special Advisor to the UNDP Administrator on the Post-2015 Development Agenda

For further information and inquiries, please contact

Serge Kapto
+1 212 906 6431
serge.kapto@undp.org

Nouhoum Sangare
+1 212 963 6136
sangaren@un.org


Jeffery Huffines

NGO Major Group Organizing Partner
CIVICUS UN Representative (NY)
Cell: +1 646-707-1060
Email: jeffery.huffines@civicus.org
Skype: jefferyvhuffines

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
PO BOX 933, Southdale 2135, JHB, South Africa
www.civicus.org

Follow threats and take action to protect civil society – join Civil Society Watch at www.cswatch.org

 Please don’t print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you.

 

                                   

 

 

 OWG8 Governance Briefing in NY – Concept Note

 

 Invitation – Gov2015 Briefing-5Feb2014

 

 Agenda- Gov2015 Briefing-5Feb2014

 

————————————————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————————————————-

TO RIO+20 NGO MAJOR GROUP

Happy New Year! NGO Organizing Partners Leida Rijnhout <Leida.rijnhout@eeb.org> and Jeffery Huffines <jeffery.huffines@civicus.org> look forward to welcoming members of the NGO Major Group who have registered to attend the Open Working Group taking place at UN HQ (NY) 6 – 10 January 2014. This session will review: sustainable cities and human settlements, sustainable transport (2 days); sustainable consumption and production (including chemicals and waste) (1.5 days); and climate change and disaster risk reduction (1.5 days).

After each OWG afternoon session, Organizing Partners will host evening planning meetings for all Major Group constituencies (Conf Rm will be announced later). Moreover,each Major Group, including the NGOs, will meet just before the Morning Hearings from 9-10am prior to the start of the OWG session.

The Morning Hearings are an opportunity for Major Groups and other stakeholders to have a direct dialogue with the Co-Chairs on the SDGs and have experts in the field engage with the process prior to the start of the formal meetings. Attendance at these sessions will provide supplemental perspectives on the OWG themes from a civil society vantage point. As an OWG registrant, you are highly encouraged to attend. Subject matters for each of the sessions are listed below:

Major Groups interventions at the OWG sessions themselves are solely coordinated through the Organizing Partners. NGOs interested in making 2 minute interventions during the OWG itself should contact Leida Rijnhout (leida@anped.org) and Jeffery Huffines (jeffery.huffines@civicus.org). Preference will be given to NGO representatives who represent the views of international networks and coalitions. Given the high demand for intervention, especially within the NGO Major Group, interventions are not guaranteed as they are selected by the OWG Co-Chair.

All registered NGOs should have received the attached updated confirmation letter, providing specific details about the meetings, and offering some lessons learned from past sessions. Also attached is a security note, outlining procedures for acquiring UN passes to the event. Please ensure that you are familiar with security procedures before arriving at UN Headquarters to make registration quick and simple prior to the start of the meeting. All the details, including the time during which you can pick up your UN passes, can be found in the security document. Please note that UN DESA will only be registering participants during the outlined times.


Jeffery Huffines
Rio+20 NGO Major Group Organizing Partner
CIVICUS UN Representative (NY)
Cell: +1 646-707-1060
Email: jeffery.huffines@civicus.org
Skype: jefferyvhuffines

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

PO BOX 933, Southdale 2135, JHB, South Africa
www.civicus.org

Follow threats and take action to protect civil society – join Civil Society Watch at www.cswatch.org

————————————————————————————————————————————–

Seventh Session of the Open Working Group (OWG) of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

6-10 January 2014 | UN Headquarters, New York, United States of America

 http://www.iisd.ca/sdgs/owg7/

The seventh session of the UN General Assembly’s (UNGA) Open Working Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will convene from 6-10 January 2014, at UN Headquarters in New York, US.

This will be the seventh formal meeting of the group since the UNGA’s adoption of Decision 67/555, which established the composition of the OWG and thus followed-up on the outcome of the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20). OWG 7 will focus on the following topics:

*Sustainable cities and human settlements, sustainable transport

*Sustainable consumption and production (including chemicals and waste)

*Climate change and disaster risk reduction

IISD RS will produce daily web coverage and a summary and analysis from this session. Kindly return to this site on Monday, 6 January 2014, for more information.

Daily and summary coverage is available at http://www.iisd.ca/sdgs/owg7/

———————————————————————
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone (new!): +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree

Where: NYC

Notice:This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged
and/or copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the author.

————————————————————————————————————————————–
Rio+20 Ed Report-FIN.pdf 9660 kB   Download 
Letter from UNEP ED on restructuring, October 2013.pdf 78 kB  Download  
Alexander Juras Chief The Major Groups and Stakeholders Branch United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) P.O. 30552 Nairobi, Kenya
 
President of the General Assembly, H.E. Vuk Jeremic, on 12 and on 16 May 2013.
This is a HTML formatted document. Press here if you have problems viewing this email
Info DESA:
Last Thursday the decision was made to release the May dates for  CSD20. ECOSOC will decide on the new  date,
most likely before the HLPF meeting but details will be posted at
I invite you and your colleagues to contribute online to the Major Groups Work Space on the hlpf and the SDGs
Participation of all interested stakeholders is very important to ensure enhanced Major Groups and other
stakeholders participation in the sustainable development governance beyond 2013.
On the HESI, I refer you to my colleague Beppe who is following up.  Thanks for your continued support to
sustainable development governance    Mrs.  Chantal Line Carpentier, Ph.D Sustainable Development Officer &
Major Groups Programme Coordinator UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Sustainable
Development 760 United Nations Plaza,
Room S2683 NY, NY 10017 
Dr. P. J. Puntenney
Environmental & Human Systems Management
1989 West Liberty,  Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA , E-mail:  pjpunt@umich.edu
Cell:  (734) 330-0238 , Voice/Fax: (734) 994-3612
——————————-
Please note that the deadline is 15 May 2013 for NGO registration to participate inthe informal
interactive hearings on 15 July and the High-level Dialogue itself (3-4October 2013).
The 46th session of the Commission on Population and Development (CPD), to be held at UN Headquarters from
22 through 26 April. The theme of this session of the CPD is “New trends in migration: demographic aspects”;
the discussions on migration held in the CPD will form a substantive input into the High-level Dialogue. More
information can be found here:
———————————————————————————————————–

 

The portal can be accessed at: http://www.unsdn.org. Civil Society and Outreach Unit (CSOU) Division for Social Policy and Development (DSPD) Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Email: ngo@un.org Website: http://social.un.org United Nations Social Development Network (UNSDN): http://unsdn.org

———————————————————————————
DESA NGO News – 17 April 2013  

NEWS   General Assembly, in special debate, aims to boost interaction between UN and G20 On 15 April, the United Nations General Assembly held a thematic debate with the Group of 20 major economies, or G20, to strengthen interaction between the two bodies and to improve global economic governance. “Since the outbreak of the world economic, financial and debt crisis, the ongoing discussions about how to improve global economic governance have grown in significance, drawing increased public attention across the planet,” General Assembly President Vuk Jeremic said in his opening address to the thematic debate, ‘UN and Global Economic Governance.’ The one-day debate takes place just ahead of the spring meetings of finance ministers and central bank governors set for 18-19 April in Washington DC. The debate also takes place during the 1,000 day countdown to the 2015 deadline for the anti-poverty targets known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the shaping of the post-2015 agenda. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44657&Cr=mdg&Cr1=

Second session of Open Working Group on SDGs opens The second sesion of the OWG on Sustinable Development Goals is expected to break ground on a new set of global development goals for the future as it meets from 17 to 19 April. A work programme, as well as background notes on poverty eradication and conceptual issues related to Sustainable Development Goals are available from the link below.   http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1549

Young creative minds raise awareness of critical forest-related issues
They are gifted storytellers who are using stunning visual imagery and powerful narratives to raise awareness of
the challenges affecting forests and those who dwell within them, as well as to spur action to protect this vital
resource. They are international award winners, and they are all under the age of 30. They are recipients of
awards handed out this week in Istanbul during the tenth session of the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF10).

MDG Momentum – 1,000 Days of Action On 5 April, the UN and partners worldwide observed the 1,000-day mark to the 2015 target date for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs are the most successful global anti-poverty push in history. Governments, international organizations and civil society groups around the world have helped to cut in half the world’s extreme poverty rate. There are 1,000 days to accelerate action on issues such as hunger, access to education, improved sanitation, maternal health and gender equality. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

“Do One Thing to support Cultural Diversity and Inclusion”
The United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) in partnership with UNESCO, and various other partners
from corporations to civil society, is launching the world campaign “Do One Thing for Diversity and Inclusion”,
aimed at engaging people around the world to Do One Thing to support Cultural Diversity and Inclusion.
Following the adoption in 2001 of the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, the UN General Assembly
declared 21 May as the World Day for Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development. This Day raises
awareness on the richness of world cultures and the opportunities that cultural diversity can bring to societies.

The UN Post-2015 Development Agenda – an backgrounder What is the “post-2015 UN development agenda”? What will become of the MDGs? What is the link to ‘SDGs’ and to the followup to the Rio+20 Conference? Who is involved in the consultations on the post2015 development agenda? What is the High-Level Panel? How will the voices of the poorest and most vulnerable people be included? What happens next? Click on the page below to get started, including on a FAQ sheet, and all of the websites you need to know about, such My World, the World We Want, the Panel’s website, the Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, and many more. http://csonet.org/index.php?page=view&nr=160&type=230&menu=14

Make sure to submit your quadrennial report in time Many organizations in consultative status with ECOSOC have received a notification by email to remind them of their obligation to submit a brief report of activities to the Committee every four years. If you have not received such a notification, it is advisable to review the lists of organizations that have a report due or overdue. Not submitting the report in time has lead to suspensions and withdrawals of status. http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=85

UPCOMING EVENTS 17-19 April: Second session of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals

The intergovernmental Open Working Group on sustainable development goals called for in the Rio+20 Outcome Document will convene its second meeting on 17-19 April 2013. The meeting will be broadcasted through United Nations webcast. http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1549

22-26 April: 46th session, Commission on Population and Development
The 46th session of the Commission will be held from 22 to 26 April 2013. Its theme will be “New trends in migration: demographic
22 April – 3 May: Second Preparatory Committee for the 2015 NPT Review Conference, Geneva The Preparatory
Committee for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will hold its
first session from 22 April to 3 May 2013 at the United Nations at Geneva.  This meeting is the second of three sessions that will be held
prior to the 2015 Review Conference. http://www.un.org/disarmament
22 April: Third Interactive Dialogue of the General Assembly on Harmony With Nature
To commemorate International Mother Earth Day, the UN General Assembly will host an interactive dialogue on harmony with nature.
22 April: ECOSOC chamber reopens with debate on financing for development and the post-2015 development
agenda The special high-level meeting of ECOSOC with the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Trade Organization and the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development will take place on Monday, 22 April 2013, from 09:30 to 13:00 and from 15:00 to 18:00,
in the Economic and Social Council Chamber. The meeting will start at 09:30 with a special ceremony to inaugurate the renovated
Economic and Social Council Chamber. The special ceremony and the high-level meeting will be chaired by the President of the Council,
His Excellency Néstor Osorio (Colombia). The Secretary-General of the United Nations, His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, will address the
events. The overall theme of the meeting will be “Coherence, coordination and cooperation in the context of financing for development
23 April: Lessons learned on external debt sustainability and development Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 67/198
(A/RES/67/198), the President of the Council, His Excellency Néstor Osorio (Colombia), will convene a one-day meeting of the Council
on “External debt sustainability and development” to consider lessons learned from the debt crises and the ongoing work on sovereign
debt restructuring and debt resolution mechanisms. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, 23 April 2013, from 10:00 to 13:00 and from
15:00 to 18:00, in the Economic and Social Council Chamber.  http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/ecosoc/debt/2013/index.htm
24 April: Partnering for innovative solutions for sustainable development
 A special event of the Economic and Social Council on “Partnering for innovative solutions for sustainable development” will be held on
Wednesday, 24 April 2013, from 10:00 to 13:00 and from 15:00 to 18:00. The meeting is organized by the Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, in collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF),
the United Nations Global Compact, the United Nations Office for Partnerships (UNOP) and the Global Partnerships Forum.

20-31 May 2013: 12th session, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues The twelfth Session of the Permanent Forum will be held at UN Headquarters, New York in May 2013. It will be a review year of the Forum. A provisional agenda of the session is posted on the page below. 

http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples/UNPFIISessions/Twelfth.aspx   20-29 May 2013: 2013 Resumed session, Committee on NGOs The 2013 resumed session of the Committee on NGOs will meet from 20 to 29 May 2013. It is expected to adopt its report in early June 2013.

http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=80

1-4 July: AMR: Science, technology and innovation (STI) and culture for sustainable development and the MDGs In 2013, the Annual Ministerial Review of ECOSOC will put a spotlight on the role of science, technology and innovation, and the potential of culture – and related national and international policies – in promoting sustainable development and achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Indeed, science, technology and innovation can play a critical role in each and every MDG. A set of regional preparatory meetings is being organized to prepare for the session.

 http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/newfunct/amr2013.shtml

15 July: Informal Interactive Hearings on Migration and Development
As part of the preparatory activities for the General Assembly High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development to be
held 3 and 4 October 2013, the President of the General Assembly will hold one-day informal interactive hearings with
representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations and the private sector at the United Nations
headquarters in New York on 15 July 2013. The objective of the informal interactive hearings is to provide an opportunity for NGOs,
civil society organizations and the private sector to interact with Member States and to provide inputs for the High-level Dialogue.

1-25 July: Substantive Session, Economic and Social Council One of the principal organs of the United Nations, ECOSOC holds several short sessions, ad hoc meetings, round tables and panel discussions throughout the year, to prepare for its four week substantive session in July. The July session is held annually in alternative years in New York and Geneva.

The substantive session is organized in five segments: The High-level Segment; Coordination Segment; Operational Activities Segment; Humanitarian Affairs Segment; and the General Segment. The 2013 session will be held from 1 to 25 July in Geneva. http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/about/substantive.shtml

USEFUL LINKS :  DESA NGO Branch http://csonet.org

ECOSOC Main page http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc

Daily updates on Twitter http://twitter.com/un_ngo

ECOSOC  Facebook http://www.facebook.com/unecosoc

NGO Liaison Office, United Nations Office  Geneva http://unog.ch/ngo

United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS) http://www.un-ngls.org

UN Department of Public Information, NGO Relations http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection

OHCHR Civil Society Section  http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/CivilSociety.aspx

OHCHR Civil Society Update Subscription http://conta.cc/can6Gf

AT YOUR SERVICE How to Apply for Consultative Status http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=100

How to Sumit a Quadrennial Report http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=99 Committee on NGOs Home Page http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=80

How to obtain a UN Grounds Pass http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=86 Comment obtenir un badge ONG aux Nations Unies http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=86 Ask a question on my organization’s status http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=82

ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 http://csonet.org/content/documents/199631.pdf  Learn how to participate in the work of the United Nations http://bit.ly/i6Wi0D

CONTACT US / (UN-)SUBSCRIBE You have received this message because you have registered or accepted our invitation to receive e-mail from DESA NGO Branch.

We are located at S-2586, UN Secretariat, New York, New York.

Tel: 1-212-963-8652, Fax: 1-212-963-9248.

Please DO NOT respond to this message for questions. If you have a question about your organization’s status, please see the links “At Your Service” above or the “Contact Us” at our website, http://csonet.org .

We will respond within 48 hours to your query. At your service: in New York: Andrei Abramov,  Mr. Joop Theunissen, Nahleen Ahmed, Diego Rumiany, Maria Marchione-Novoa, Erdwine Antoine, Irma Perez, Carlos Gusukuma, Mark Hintzen. In Geneva : Sandrine Burel, Ricardo Espinosa, Adriana Fuentes, Nathalie Dérudet.

Subscribe or see archives of this newsletter here. © 2012 UN DESA. All right reserved.

 

—————————————————————————–

 

Article on dept situation  World Wide (Development Countries)

 

Dear colleagues,
a few days ago, we have launched our german flagship publication, the debt report 2014 (“Schuldenreport” in German).
We have translated the main chapter, which is about indebted countries worldwide (developing countries), into English, as we thought this could also be useful for others working on debt.
We have analysed IMF reports and World Bank debt statistics and put together a kind of global debt map. Please feel free to distribute the article through your channels. We would also be very happy about feedback.
Best, Kristina erlassjahr.de

Global debt map_2014.pdf
1.6 MB                    Global debt map 2014
 ———————————————————————————————————————————

 

CIEPR_2013_RevisitingSovereignBankruptcyReport.pdf 1228 kB   Download 

 

A Renewed Proposal for a Sovereign Debt Forum – 22Aug2012.pdf 79 kB  Download 

 

http://www.slettgjelda.no/

 

http://www.nsdcindia.org/knowledge-bank/index.aspx

Regards Md. Quamruzzaman Deputy Director NSDC-Secretariat.

Ministry of Labour and Employment

Web: www.nsdc.gov.bd

 

http://www.unevoc.unesco.org/go.php?q=e-Forum+-+Message+Board&skin=efor&lang=en&action=threadlist&thread=2392

 

http://www.unevoc.unesco.org/e-forum/Green%20Day.doc

 

————————————————————————————————

Comments are closed.