Did the Addis Ababa Summit deliver finance for
development?
María José Romero, Eurodad
TUDCN Open Coordination Meeting
24 September 2015, Brussels
Structure
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
The context
What was at stake in Addis Ababa?
The negotiations and the Summit
The outcome and CSO response
Next steps and CSO work
A. The context
-
The importance of FfD in the UN
-
Follow-up to Monterrey (2002) and Doha (2008)
-
FfD3 in Addis Ababa (2015) was broader in scope than previous
conferences:
- Review of outcome Monterrey and Doha
- Address challenges and ways to mobilise resources to finance the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
B. What was at stake in Addis Ababa?
- While a UN FfD conference does not produce legally binding outcomes, it
does shape the overall development financing narrative, set common goals
and targets, and mandate follow up processes.
- FfD3 was identified as an opportunity to give a greater voice to developing
countries / push for more inclusive decision-making, e.g. by strengthening
the role of the UN
2015 is a crucial year: Ambitious outcomes in the conferences on the post2015 development agenda (25-27 September, New York) and the Conference
of Parties (COP) 21 on Climate (December, Paris) are expected to depend on
success of FFD3.
C. The negotiations and the Summit
- The process:
- Negotiations in New York gathered momentum in April and became
heated in the last month before Addis.
- Co-facilitators of the process (Norway and Guyana) had a prominent
and controversial role.
- Content:
- lack of ambition
- many words with different meanings “transformative,” “ambitious,” “rule
of law”, “enabling environment”
The fact that Ethiopia was the conference
host gave the Northern countries an
additional leverage during the last
month of negotiation.
Within the broad range of issues discussed the
last hours of negotiations were dedicated to
a global tax body
C. The outcome and CSO response
C. The outcome and CSO response
-
The outcome document does not contain the necessary leadership,
ambition and practical actions. A conference on financing failed to
scale up existing sources and commit new financial resources.
-
It places strong optimism on the role of the private sector, without
parallel recognition of the developmental role of the State.
-
Blended finance mechanisms and public-private partnerships (PPPs)
were endorsed without tangible commitments to make them work for
development purposes (P48).
-
It brings no progress on private sector accountability. However, a
reference to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights was finally included (P37)
-
A global infrastructure forum was created, “building on existing
multilateral collaboration mechanisms, led by the multilateral
development banks” = business as usual
D. Next steps and CSO work
 The good thing going forward: “a dedicated and strengthened follow-up
process” was agreed. A annual Economic and Social Council forum on FfD
follow up will be launched soon.
While the AAAA does not specify how to allocate the up-to-five FfD days at
ECOSOC, it provides an important opportunity to structure in-depth
discussions.
 An encouraging sign is the growing role played civil society in the process.
CSO work ended up being reinforced by FFD3.
 Possible actions will likely be issue-based, e.g. a campaign for an
intergovernmental tax body to be established at the UN General Assembly
in September 2016, a group of likeminded countries to move forward the
discussions on private sector accountability??? Ideas are welcome!
 Stay tuned!