Women’s working Group Reaction To The 7th OF July Draft Addis Action Agenda and Key Messages

Women’s Working Group on Financing for Development – July 2015

 REACTION TO THE 7 OF JULY DRAFT ADDIS ACTION AGENDA AND KEY MESSAGES

 

The Women’s Working Group on Financing for Development (WWG on FfD) would like to

highlight key concerns regarding the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) that is currently

under negotiation and is expected to be finally adopted during the Third Financing for

Development Conference in Addis Ababa taking place from 13 to 16 of July 2015.

We believe that the latest set of negotiations has seriously reduced the integrity of the

Financing for Development agenda, can result in a retrogression from previous FfD

commitments and, thus, limit the possibility to remove the global obstacles to development

as well as setting the right priorities, policies and rules for financing the Sustainable

Development Goals/Post 2015 Development Agenda and the full implementation of

internationally agreed development agendas, including those critical for women’s rights such

as the Beijing Platform for Action and the Cairo Programme of Action on Population and

Development.

The global partnership between developed and developing countries established in the

Monterrey Consensus is at risk of being weakened by the way multi-stakeholder

partnerships are getting promoted, and the lack of commitment by developed countries to

address systemic issues in the United Nations (UN), to recognize and respect the principle

of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) and to strengthen the FfD follow up

mechanism. While the draft Action Agenda, importantly, includes in the first paragraph a

commitment to respect all human rights, including the right to development, and that

member states will ensure gender equality and women’s and girls’ empowerment, the draft

lacks an integrated, consistent and explicit human rights based approach. The references to

women’s rights and gender equality in the current text rely on previously agreed language,

some consolidate regressive formulations and others rely heavily on private sector

contribution to achieving gender equality.

The WWG on FfD calls government’s attention on the following key issues at stake and

continues to demand for structural changes in the global economic governance and

development architecture in order to move:

  1. From systemic imbalances towards creating a rights-based pro-development

multilateral economic and financial governance.

  1. From making the business case on women’s empowerment to respecting, protecting

and fulfilling women’s human rights and fixing the structural conditions to realize

them.

  1. From creating an enabling environment to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

and to promote Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) towards safeguards and

investment frameworks that have binding norms, including for Transnational

Corporations, that are consistent with human rights.

  1. From global trade imbalances to respect developing countries policy space for

productive diversification, decent work for women, and sustainable industrial policy.

  1. From taxing women in the informal economy to progressive taxation and international

tax cooperation.

  1. From using Official Development Assistance (ODA) and development cooperation to

leveraging private finance and donor priorities towards untied, additional and

predictable ODA and development cooperation that contributes to the respect,

protection and fulfilment of gender equality, human rights and sustainable

development.

  1. From “new social compacts” towards the implementation of comprehensive and

universal social protection systems and public services

  1. From reducing FfD agenda to the Means of Implementation of the Post 2015

Agenda, towards strengthening FfD mandate and follow up mechanism to remove

global obstacles for the implementation of all the internationally agreed development

agendas

From systemic imbalances towards creating a rights-based pro-development

multilateral economic and financial governance

 

The current Addis Ababa Action Agenda draft does not adequately address the failures of

the systemic issues in the international financial and monetary system that underpin poverty,

inequalities, asymmetries and mal-distribution of power and resources in the global political

economy.

The systemic issues we face today are symptomatic of the financialization of

economies and nature, where the financial sector has become increasingly important in the

generation of profits and more powerful in economic governance. At the bottom, a majority of

women must bear the burdens of care work amidst market and state failures.

The enormous, negative impacts of crises caused by the international economic and

financial rules, on development, social justice and human rights, particularly women’s human

rights, are not adequately addressed. The necessary countercyclical and social policies to

respect women’s human rights and to avoid transferring the costs deriving from austerity

measures, privatization, cuts in cash transfers and social services, food and job insecurity to

women through further increases in their unpaid work are not even mentioned. Thus,

governments are relying on women’s unpaid care work to continue to acts as a stabilizer and

shock absorber of the economic and financial crisis. We are deeply concerned that the draft

Addis Action Agenda falls short in providing alternatives to the status quo.

Governments are still failing to provide sufficient political leadership to strengthen the role of

the UN to lead the necessary human rights-based, pro-development reforms of the global

economic and financial systems. The recommendations and commitments of the outcome of

the Conference of the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its impacts on Development

should have been the foundation of the Addis Action Agenda not only to prevent future

multiple crises but to revert the financialization process that is leading to greater global

inequality, instability and prevents the reorientation of finance to sustainable and equitable

development sectors.

For instance, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) need not be promoted as the permanent

international safety net. The Addis Action Agenda must welcome instead all independent

and autonomous efforts at providing liquidity arrangements that benefit systemically

insignificant, open economies whose currencies are not necessarily preferred for use in

international payments nor for reserves purposes. While dialogue may be encouraged

between the IMF and other regional or bilateral liquidity arrangements, rule-setting must not

be exclusively set by the IMF. The Special Drawing Rights carry high potential as a reserve

asset and this potential to benefit small open economies must be explored fully.

Only by ensuring full and equal representation of developing countries in in setting the global

rules on finance, macroeconomic, trade, investment, debt and tax policies the trend of

transferring resources from developing countries to developed countries can be reversed.

Addressing systemic issues at the UN is a precondition for the achievement of the SDGs,

the realization of the Post-2015 agenda and the full implementation of internationally agreed

development agendas, including those critical for women’s rights such as the Beijing

Platform for Action and the Cairo Programme of Action on Population and Development.

From making the business case on women’s empowerment to respecting, protecting

and fulfilling women’s human rights and fixing the structural conditions to realize

them.

 

In paragraph 6 of the preliminary section, the Addis Action Agenda “reiterate[s] the need for

gender mainstreaming, including targeted actions and investments in the formulation and

implementation of all financial, economic, environmental and social policies.” In the year of

Beijing+20, reiterating the need is not enough. Moreover, while the Doha Declaration called

for gender mainstreaming in development policies, including financing for development

policies (Para 4, Doha Declaration), the draft Action Agenda is shifting this understanding.

While it expands the scope from FfD policies towards environmental and social policies it,

negatively, drops the development policies reference and refers to “investments” instead of

“dedicated resources”.

Moreover, the Addis draft reaffirms language agreed in Rio+20 (Para 240, Future we want)

where governments state that “We are committed to women’s and girls’ equal rights and

opportunities in political and economic decision-making and resource allocation”. However,

specific mention of commitment to resource allocation should be linked to the realization of

women’s human rights and advance gender equality otherwise it is not clear to which

purpose the resources will be allocated. Dedicated, “adequate and sufficient” resource

allocation for gender equality and women’s human rights should be guaranteed, including by

international public finance.

It is worth noticing that agreed commitments (Para 31, the Future We Want) and Targets 5.c,

5.5 and 5.1 of the Open Working Group SDG report are reaffirmed: “We recommit to adopt

and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation and transformative actions for the

promotion of gender equality and women’s and girls’ empowerment at all levels, ensure

women’s equal rights, access and opportunities for participation and leadership in the

economy and to eliminate gender-based violence and discrimination in all its form” (Para 6,

AAA draft). 

 

In the final stages of the negotiations, the reference to promote the

empowerment of all women and girls at all levels was removed from the Domestic Resource

Mobilization section towards the preamble, weakening actual government’s obligations to

adopt and strengthen policies and laws that are essential for women’s human rights and

gender equality. Under domestic resource mobilization governments agree to “promote and

enforce non-discriminatory laws, social infrastructure and policies for sustainable

development, as well as to enable women’s full and equal participation in the economy, and

their equal access to decision-making processes and leadership” (Para 21, AAAA draft),

weakening the scope of policies to the ones who are able to promote at the same time

sustainable development and enable women’s participation in the economy.

Moreover, after strong debate in the negotiations, paragraph 240 of the Future We Want that

states to “resolve to undertake legislation and administrative reforms to give women equal

rights with men to economic resources, including access to ownership and control over land

and other forms of property, credit, inheritance, natural resources and appropriate new

technology” was incorporated into the Draft Action Agenda. “Full” should be included along

with “equal rights”, while an explicit reference needs to be made to guaranteeing women’s

and girls economic rights” in order to recognize inherent entitlements of women as full and

equal citizens that are subjects of human rights. Instead of “access to ownership”,

governments should guarantee women’s and girl’s rights to full and equal access to,

ownership and control over resources including the right to inheritance and land titling.

The references of some women’s rights in the draft get undermine by a framework that

shows a strong tendency towards the instrumentalization and commodification of women,

where women’s empowerment, and women’s full and equal participation and leadership in

the economy are vital to significantly enhance economic growth and productivity or to

promote market access for financial services. Different references in the draft Addis Action

Agenda on addressing gender equality and women’s empowerment seem to speak more the

IMF and World Bank language on “Gender Equality as Smart Economics” rather than to

women and girls’ entitlement to social and economic rights which are at the foundation of the

UN.

For instance, financial inclusion is promoted as “key for social inclusion”. However,

microfinance should be qualified given evidence that microfinance has not only be positive. It

has also contributed to exacerbating gender inequalities, and created dangerous levels of

indebtedness among many poor women, particularly when provided by for-profit financial

institutions or intermediaries. Microfinance should not be provided without effective

regulation, recourse mechanisms and consumer protection agencies to prevent predatory

lending and ensure greater financial literacy of consumers. Moreover, while financial

inclusion is overemphasized, little attention is given to structural barriers for women´s

economic rights and access to, ownership and control over economic resources: ie, the

unequal distribution of unpaid care work, the little access to care services, the persistent

gender discrimination in the labour market (through vertical and horizontal segregation2,

over-representation of women in precarious and low-paid jobs, and inadequate and

insufficient social protection).

From creating an enabling environment to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and

to promote Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) towards safeguards and investment

frameworks that have binding norms, including for Transnational Corporations, that

are consistent with human rights.

 

The draft Action Agenda strongly relies on private sector contribution to financing for

development and women’s empowerment, diverting attention away from the role of states in

removing the global obstacles to development, mobilizing official development assistance

and adequate domestic public resources.

The need to provide an enabling environment for business is emphasised, while evidence

shows that the private sector often contradicts and undermines the possibility to respect,

protect and fulfil human rights.

Moreover, the Addis Action Agenda fails to challenge the asymmetry between the set of

binding juridical instruments states have been establishing over the past 40 years to protect

and promote the interests of transnational corporations – especially through Free Trade

Agreements, Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investor to State Dispute Settlement

Mechanisms – on one hand, and the lack of binding instruments to hold corporations

accountable for the human rights violations of people.

The draft Action Agenda fails to agree on mandatory rules and accountability mechanisms to

ensure private sector compliance with human rights, including women’s and indigenous

people’s rights. Instead, its promotes voluntary Global Compact principles on gender

equality that have proven to be wholly inadequate and inappropriate to respond to women’s

human right abuses, especially from transnational corporations. Emblematic cases of human

rights violations and the denial of reparation and compensation for victims – such as the

Rana Plaza building collapse in Bangladesh killing over 1,000 factory works (mostly women)

and the 20 year litigation of 30,000 affected by Chevron intentional pollution of the

Ecuadorean Amazon – exposes how insufficient the existing juridical frameworks are to

ensure the protection of people.

Furthermore, based on the current draft, governments also have failed to acknowledge, let

alone endorse, the critically important process unfolding in the UN Human Rights Council to

develop an international legally binding instrument on Transnational Corporations and other

Business Enterprises that is based in the international human rights framework.

FfD3 needs to address the duties and responsibilities of States to protect people from harms

caused by the private sector, and of businesses to respect human rights in their activities.

This includes that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) needs to meet the decent work agenda as

defined by ILO conventions, with particular emphasis also on sub-contractors compliance

with human rights and women’s rights. Also, effective implementation of a ‘country by

country reporting’ obligation for multinational corporations to publicly disclose as part of their

annual reports for each country in which they operate and effective accountability

mechanisms for corporations, states and individuals at all levels. To facilitate this, a UN

global inter-governmental system for automatic exchange of information on tax should be

established.

Moreover, private sector activities including public-private partnerships are promoted with no

sufficient safeguards to ensure accessibility, affordability and quality of the services and

infrastructure that they are expected to deliver, or to ensure that they do not create

unacceptable contingent liabilities for governments.

FfD3 also needs to ensure that any private sector or PPP project has in place accountability

mechanisms in compliance with human rights standards and norms, including environmental

and social safeguards. Agreed timelines for reporting and evaluation must be agreed ex-ante

and with full participation of the affected communities, including women and girls, indigenous

communities and people facing structural discrimination.

From global trade imbalances to respect developing countries policy space for

productive diversification, decent work for women, and sustainable industrial policy.

 

The Addis Ababa Action Agenda wrongly characterises international trade as an unqualified

good, claiming at the outset that international trade is an engine for poverty reduction and

sustainable development. This is despite the evidence that the benefits of trade liberalisation

have been distributed extremely unevenly between and within countries, the exploitation of

women’s cheap labour and precarious employment as a source of competitive advantage to

attract foreign investment, the displacement and appropriation of indigenous people’s

knowledge, the confinement of developing countries to low value-added niches within global

value chains that restrict skills transfers and technology spill-overs that are necessary for the

development of domestic industry.

The reference to trade and “appropriate supporting policies” to assist and promote decent

work and women’s empowerment is misleading, especially when governments have failed to

agree to include mandatory ex-ante and periodic human rights impact assessments of all

trade and investment policies and to protect policy space specially for developing countries

to implement policies such as protection of infant-industries, female-job intensive sectors,

small women’s producers, indigenous and traditional knowledge or access to medicines. It

fails to adequately recognize the gendered impacts of the model of trade liberalization

promoted by the WTO and multilateral preferential trade and investment agreements,

including the increase of women’s burden of unpaid care work through privatization that

makes social services such as water and health less accessible.

Moreover, the Draft Action Agenda does little to challenge the expansion of trade and

investment agreements that aggressively pursue regulatory harmonisation and empower

foreign investors to sue governments for implementing domestic regulation relating to wage

policy, environmental protection, public health, affirmative action and macro-prudential

policy.

It also fails to challenge the closed and secretive nature of the negotiation of these

agreements, which undermine the right of all citizens to participate in public affairs. The

deletion of a provision calling for the proper review of investor-state dispute settlement

clauses is an enormous missed opportunity to ensure that these clauses do not undermine

the right of states to regulate, especially in areas such as health, environment, water and

sanitation, employment, micro, small and medium enterprise development and infrastructure,

which are all critical for gender justice and women’s human rights. Moreover, the

development impact of Aid for trade programs including those who claim to improve women’

access to global market has been difficult to assess, while criticism about policy

conditionalities to trade liberalization increase. Aid for trade promises can’t be used to

shifting ODA funds priorities that can be dedicated to fulfil women’s human rights and

poverty eradication to leverage the private sector and promote trade liberalisation.

From taxing women in the informal economy to progressive taxation and international

tax cooperation.

 

It is extremely concerning that the reference to “promote equity, including gender equality as

an objective in all tax and revenue policies” was removed from the document. Governments

draft agree to “work to improve the fairness of our tax systems”, but the Draft Action Agenda

might be promoting the contrary when it proposes simultaneously “broadening the tax base

and continuing efforts to integrate the informal sector into the formal economy in line with

country circumstances”. Tax policy is not gender neutral and domestic resource mobilization

policies need to be reviewed for their impact on women’s income, work, including unpaid

labour and unpaid care, and property and assets ownership. Regressive tax policies that for

example rely disproportionately on indirect taxation are likely to affect women living in

poverty more heavily because of women’s socially constructed roles as primary caregivers

and their responsibility for providing goods and services for their families. Expanding the tax

base through “formalization of the informal economy” can translate into negatively affecting

self-employed women including small-scale market vendors, farmers and fisherpeople and

those in micro and small-scale enterprises, who would likely bear a disproportionate high tax

burden, while further enabling big corporations and rich individuals to continue to benefit

from tax avoidance. The disproportionate burden of taxation on women and all people living

in poverty must instead be reversed, as part of a broader shift in fiscal policy at the national

level to address inequalities. Taxation reform should garner additional and sufficient

resources to comply states’ obligations to commit the maximum available resources to

fulfilling women’s human rights. The resistance from developed countries to ensure greater

international tax cooperation through the creation of a UN tax body that is urgently required

by all countries to truly combat illicit financial flows and tax evasion, and to address

inequalities within and between countries, is unacceptable.

For governments to be able to mobilize domestic resources, it is central to consider domestic

policy space and how the international institutional environment supports or undermines the

capacity of national governments to implement macroeconomic, productive, labor and social

policies towards equitable and sustainable development patterns. Specific commitments

should be taken in key policy areas of domestic public resources mobilization to contribute to

sustainable development. Priority must be given to productive diversification policies in

sustainable and job-intensive sectors (particularly for women), along with complementary

macroeconomic, trade, investment, labor and social policies that remove obstacles for

equitable development strategies.

Finally, while we acknowledge that the Action Agenda draft includes a commitment to

“increase transparency and equal participation in the budgeting process, and promote

gender responsive budgeting and tracking” (Para 30, Draft AAA), “promote” is not strong

enough to guarantee that women’s rights are getting fullfiled, nor that specific actions are

taken to remove structural obstacles for gender equality.

From using Official Development Assistance (ODA) and development cooperation to

leveraging private finance and donor priorities towards untied, additional and

predictable ODA and development cooperation that contributes to the respect,

protection and fulfilment of gender equality, human rights and sustainable

development.

 

The draft Addis Action Agenda “urges” countries to meet the 0.7% of GNI as ODA, rather

than requiring a commitment to 0.7% which is substantiated by a clear and binding

timetable. The inclusion of “We strongly encourage all donor countries to establish, by the

end of 2015, indicative timetables to illustrate how they will increase their assistance and

reach their goals” from the Zero draft is now gone. In order to tackle volatility of ODA flows

and ensure additionality, the commitment should be accompanied by binding timetables by

region to illustrate how and where ODA will be increased and ensure that systems and

accountability mechanisms regarding goals achieved are in place. The increase in ODA

should not lead to a cycle of debt for the recipient country. Rather the major increase in ODA

should be felt in the grants component of assistance rather than in the loan component. ODA

must not be used to exercise power over recipient countries, for example through the

imposition of policy conditionalities. Neither should ODA be linked to trade negotiations.

We welcome the specific mentions of ODA to Middle income countries (MICs) in Paras 71

and 72, however, the Action Agenda focuses on MDBs not in all donors to develop

graduation policies that are sequenced, phased and gradual (…) and to explore ways to

ensure that their assistance best addresses the opportunities and challenges presented by

the diverse circumstances of MICs. It is crucial that the text includes all donors, including

bilateral and multilateral donors from the OECD DAC which still account for the majority of

funds for gender equality and women’s rights.

Moreover, they are imperative to protect the human rights of affected communities. The

World Bank’s safeguards revision process has already raised grave concerns about the

consistency of the new framework with existing human rights obligations and international

law, including in relation to resettlement policy, the rights of indigenous peoples and

women’s human rights.

In relation to Multilateral Development Banks, (Para 75, AAA draft), we note that the Action

Agenda mentions that the Member states will “encourage all development banks to establish

or maintain social and environmental safeguards systems, including on human rights,

gender equality and women’s empowerment, that are transparent, effective, efficient, and

time-sensitive”. While this is positive, it only encourages, but it does not include concrete

plans and mechanisms to hold them accountable and monitor to such safeguard systems.

without an explicit commitment to set up an intergovernmental accountability and follow up

mechanism, this remains rhetoric. MDBs must ensure that their safeguards are consistent

with the extraterritorial human rights obligations of governments, and existing obligations

under international law.

Furthermore, all the efforts to include a specific Plan of Action as proposed by Mexico and

supported by CELAC and G77 were removed from the final Action Agenda. Without a

concrete plan on financing and meeting the needs of MICs, there will be weak actions and

diluted responsibilities. We would like to see first the political will to agree on such an action

plan and the appropriate technical environment to map out its specificities, with the inclusion

of Civil Society. Developed countries still have responsibilities towards middle income

countries and thus, middle income countries must be considered ODA recipients. Given the

fact that MICs have the largest number of the people living in poverty, the majority of whom

are women.

We note positively the specific mention to “urge countries to track and report resource

allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment”, however, tracking and reporting

alone is not enough. The Action Agenda should call upon donors to adequately fund gender

equality, and women’s human rights and empowerment. It is unacceptable that developed

countries are not committing to scaling up the share of ODA for achieving gender equality,

women’s empowerment and women’s human rights. ODA must be used to promote

development while reducing structural inequalities including gender inequality. It must this

uphold the obligations of all governments to fulfil existing internationally agreed development

agendas and goals related with women’s human rights included in the Beijing Platform for

Action, the Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and

Development, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against

Women, among others, without resorting to impositions and policy conditionalities within the

narrow framework of aid giving. Furthermore, ODA should be provided in a way that

effectively supports longer term structural change for example through sustained support to

civil society organizations and especially women’s rights organizations.

ODA continues to play a key role in support of gender equality and women’s human rights

and empowerment. However, the OECD DAC GENDERNET analysis of donor’s financial

commitments in this field showed that there is a big gap between the official rhetoric and

actual practice. While there has been an overall upward trend in the amounts of aid focused

on gender equality in education and population services, gender focused aid in other sectors

has remained stalled and insufficient. The share of ODA for achieving gender equality and

women’s human rights should be scaled up ensuring that there are year to year increases by

some agreed upon level and new and additional official funding should be secured to

implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDG Gender equality standalone

goal on women’s rights and gender equality must have stand-alone funding to fulfil its

ambition.

We call for caution on the multi-stakeholder partnerships in specific areas such as health,

education and food that are included in the draft Action Agenda. These partnerships with the

private sector are not discussed and approved by governments in an intergovernmental

space at the UN. The multi-stakeholder partnership approach can have severe

consequences for the implementation of the development agenda for the next decades since

it relies on siloed approaches without a clear link to human rights obligations and

comprehensive development agendas, and national strategies. For example, the “Every

Women Every Child” initiative has a mother-child approach in relation to sexual and

reproductive health, and it does not clearly outline its contribution and articulation with the

comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights policies of the Program on action

of the ICPD. Furthermore, their funding is unpredictable and volatile as they depend heavily

on voluntary commitments from the private and corporate sector. Before promoting these

voluntary initiatives, governments should establish an open, transparent, and participatory

UN led intergovernmental space for oversight, monitoring and review of any partnerships

developed or promoted within the framework of the United Nations.

For instance, in the case of Adult Education, the tendency to promote the privatization and

marketization of education coupled with the scarce financing of public education

jeopardize the right to education and the possibilities for young and adult women and men to

have free access to education. Women are key to the realization of the right to food for all,

they have unequal access to food and unequal access to resources for food.

Moreover, any multi-stakeholder process needs to start with the role of States as guarantors

of the rights of communities and individuals and all governments need to ensure democratic

ownership so that all people’s voices and their concerns be the primary basis for national

development plans, policies and processes. Democratic ownership of development

strategies by the people through representative, transparent and accountable institutions is

the main mechanism for achieving the governance needed for achieving sustainable,

inclusive and just development that reaches all people. A true implementation of the principle

of democratic ownership requires the necessary democratic policy space, and insists that

national parliaments and civil society, including women’s rights organizations, must have a

say in defining development strategies. The role of civil society in development processes

should be ensured in line with the right to participate in public decision-making, which should

be reflected in substantive inclusion of civil society, including feminists and women’s rights

organizations, in development processes.

From “new social compacts” towards the implementation of comprehensive and

universal social protection systems and public services

 

While the Monterrey Consensus recognized the vital importance of investment in economic

and social infrastructure, social services and social protection, including education, health,

nutrition, shelter and social security programmes, which take special care of children and

older persons and are gender sensitive (Para 16, Monterrey Consensus), and the Doha

Declaration advanced “universal access to basic economic and social infrastructure and

inclusive social services” (Para 13, Doha Declaration), the Addiss Action Agenda draft

emphasizes the commitment to new social compacts (Para 12, AAA draft), which obscures

the fact that States are already under the obligation to fulfill the human right to social security

established in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant

on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Therefore, the commitment should be

stronger in ensuring progressive financing to build comprehensive systems of social

protection that provide universal access to quality social services.

Specific commitments should be made to include care as a core axis of social protection,

and a high priority. There is a strong need for policies, regulations and services to transform

current patterns of sexual division of labour, including the unequal distribution of unpaid care

work, through improving social infrastructure, expanding universal care services and

promoting the transformation of gender roles that reinforce an unfair social organization of

care. The aim of “generating full and productive employment and decent work for all” (Para

16, AAA draft) is unachievable unless States assume concrete and effective commitments to

transform these structural barriers. Unfortunately, the mention to reduce and redistribute

unpaid care work proposed by different block of countries is not finally included in the latest

draft version of the Addis Action Agenda.

From reducing FfD agenda to the Means of Implementation of the Post 2015 Agenda,

towards strengthening FfD mandate and follow up mechanism to remove global

obstacles for the implementation of all the internationally agreed development

agendas

 

Paragraph 19 of the Addis Action Agenda states “The post-2015 development agenda,

including the SDGs, can be met within the framework of a revitalized global partnership for

sustainable development, supported by the concrete policies and actions as outlined in the

present Action Agenda.” However it is important to recall that FfD agenda is more than the

means of implementation of the post-2015 development agenda, and not all means of

implementation of the

[Message clipped]  View entire message

Click here to Reply, Reply to all, or Forward
Advertisements

One thought on “Women’s working Group Reaction To The 7th OF July Draft Addis Action Agenda and Key Messages

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s