Did the Addis Ababa Summit deliver finance for development?

María José Romero, Eurodad

TUDCN Open Coordination Meeting

24 September 2015, Brussels

A. The contextB. What was at stake in Addis Ababa?C. The negotiations and the Summit D. The outcome and CSO responseE. Next steps and CSO work

Structure

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 post-2015 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!