Busan Outcomes Elements for discussion

Download Report

Transcript Busan Outcomes Elements for discussion

BUSAN OUTCOMES

ELEMENTS OF ANALYSIS

TUDCN General Meeting Florence (IT) 12-14 December 2011

Overall assessment

• • •

GEOPOLITICS OVERSHADOW DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

• CHINA and INDIA (voluntary commitments) • • DONORS HIDE BEHIND BRICS TO LOWER ENGAGEMENTS • => OVERALL LACK OF COMMITMENTS

THE PARADIGM SHIFTED TOWARDS BRICS «MODEL» : «DOING BUSINESS»

• ECONOMIC GROWTH AND “STEERED” «INCLUSIVENESS» • • PRIVATE SECTOR AS DRIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STRONG STATE AS “ENABLENER” • BRASIL, MEXICO (full support for BOD) NATIONAL FRAMEWORKS AND OBJECTIVES

WHAT CAN WE DO BETTER THAN ACCRA AND HOW?

• IMPLEMENTATION WAS AND REMAINS THE PROBLEM • • COMMITMENTS AND STRATEGIES MOVING FROM AID TO DEVELOPMENT (FROM AID TO RIGHTS)

GENERAL OUTCOMES

• The answers given are uncertain and remain to be concretised (in-country partnerships and building blocs) • The commitments of the private sector are not tangible and the terms of engagement are weak • The overall architecture remains voluntary and undefined • The multistakeholder dimension is insufficiently recognised. The focus remains largely intergovernmental.

=>>>

The follow up process will be crucial

BOD Preamble

1.

2.

3.

All partners, including civil society (?) The China/India voluntary commitments (sic) Recognising

INEQUALITY, DECENT WORK

and

PROMOTE HR, DEMOCRACY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

AS PART OF THE DEAL 4.

5.

6.

7.

Missing out UN-EMPLOYEMENT Diversification of actors Differentiation of commitments Embracing diversity 8.

9.

Common principles but diverse ways of implementing Sustainable development (including social protection) 10.

Funding for development: privatisation ????

BOD Common goals & commitments

11.

Consistence with

internationally agreed commitments on HR, DECENT WORK, gender, …

• Ownership, results (reducing inequality), inclusiveness, transparency and accountability 12.

Shared principles •

DEMOCRATIC ownership

• Capacity development • South South and triangular • Diversity of funding 13.

Implementation at country level

Operational paragraphs

14.

Mexico para on diversity 15.

Paris and Accra: Quo Vadis ?

16.

South-South 17.

Lessons learned from Paris evidence….???

18.

Development ownership but joint risk management; and very limited monitoring and assessment systems limited to country priorities only! Untying of aid reaffirmed.

19.

Country systems by default but donor decides unilaterly on the use…contradiction 20.

Gender : country priorities (!) and decent work is out 21.

Parliaments and local governments

Operational paragraphs

22.

Civil society §: adds to Accra with legal framework for enabling environment and acknowledge Istanbul Principles and Framework 23.

Transparency: improved, standard accepted to be defined by December 2012 and implemented by 2015 24.

Predictability: Indicative tables by 2013 for AAA partners 25.

Reduce fragmentation • Country-led arrangements by 2013 26.

Fragile states (new deal) 27.

Societies at risk

Operational paragraphs

28.

Aid to development effectiveness: growth?

29.

Effective institutions: capturing on CSOs?

30.

South South 31.

South South 32.

Private sector • Trade unions as partners in enabling environment • • Private sector as partner in design of policies Innovative financial expenses • Aid for trade • Advancing both development and business outcomes, mutually reinforcing 33.

Corruption (missing tax heavens) 34.

Climate change financing (UN)

Architecture and follow up

35.

Continuity of commitments PD, AAA, GPED • National frameworks • Selective and relevant set of indicators and targets to measure progress • National/regional monitoring exercises 36.

Institutional framework • • • • Unclear references to regional organisations and UNDCF “regular review of progress” Working arrangements to be clarified by July 2012 OECD and UNDP to support the functioning of the GPED

Our assessment

• The overall focus confirms the trend towards privatisation and embracement of development by market driven goals, responding to the credo’s of neoliberal politics • • • Free game and support for private sector Small states (but effective – sic) Weakening of international commitments to optimise in-country “effectiveness” • Donor and (international) corporate driven • Broadening the agreement is positive and increases legitimacy • But weakens the overall strength of commitments • We are far from a standards based binding set of commitments (eg “convention”)

Our assessment

• The in-country emphasis takes the burden from the donor behaviour (PD and AAA) toward to countries responsibility itself (undeclared donor objective: the problem is theirs) • We are far from a standards based binding set of commitments (eg “convention”) • We have good wording on decent work, social inclusion etc…and on certain points the language is better than AAA • However, it is very likely that donor resources will drive the agendas of the building blocks • Much remains to be made concrete in the action plan but the potential is there to influence some of it in a positive way.

Our commitments

• ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR • • • We pushed for recognition as social partners BIAC did not endorsed the demand for time reasons Should we pursue this in order to have a seat on the table together with BIAC • Should we engage with the Private sector Building Block and under what conditions • ON DECENT WORK AND SOCIAL PROTECTION • No building blocks besides the Private sector and “results” • Rights Based Approaches Building Block may be a good way to promote DW and SP • Indicators on Decent Work to be included in the overall results assessment framework

Future CSO architecture

• Now: BetterAid and Open Forum • Challenges: it is now about implementation in-country • • • Building blocks But also CSO effectiveness etc Two parallel structures are not useful nor workable • We could favour a multi polar architecture based on 1 unique governance framework • • REGIONS, SECTORS & COMMON THEMES (BB) & SUPPORT ITUC WOULD BE ONE OF THE SECTORS • • • PARIS OFFICE WOULD BE UNDER SUPPORT ENABLING ENVIRONMENT COULD BE A COMMON THEME INTEGRATED OR IN PARRALEL TO RBA 1 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE (COORDINATION GROUP)