EU banking structure reform is overhyped

The Hamburg based World Future Council (WFC) responded to the public consultation on a reform of the structure of the EU banking sector.

Key messages of the WFC response in brief:

● The separation of banking activities cannot efficiently cope with severe problems like high leverage and excessive risk taking. It can only flank and should not neglect effective measures such as debt brakes for the financial sector, a preventive testing of financial innovations (finance TÜV) and a scalable financial transaction tax to slow down systemically risky volatility.

● There is neither evidence nor plausibility that the reduction of intra-group subsidies through separating deposits from trading activities will lead to shrinkage of the financial sector. Banks refinance themselves primarily, if not solely, through lending activities within the financial sector. Pro-cyclical and opaque credit intermediation chains and overly complex financial innovations make appropriate risk premiums impossible.

● Possible shifts to non-bank finance must not serve as an excuse for weak bank regulation but rather be integrated within an overall approach. This is exactly the purpose of debt brakes for the financial sector, a finance TÜV and a scalable financial transaction tax.

● In view of the limited impact of ring-fencing or separating banking activities as such, full ownership separation such as in the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 is the clearest approach.

Please find the complete response >>>here.

US spending cuts will hit also the South

The government spending cuts in the United States as the President and Congress fail to reach a deal will be felt not only by Americans but also the developing countries. This comes at a bad time as the rich economies are already on a downward path. Last week, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the group of 34 rich countries, said that the gross domestic product of its members fell by an annual rate of 0.6% in the last quarter of 2012. The European Commission, meanwhile, predicted that the Euro-zone economies would contract by 0.3% this year, which could prove to be optimistic given the recent political uncertainties in Italy. The spending cuts in the US would add to the contractionary trend in the rich countries.

The continuously weakening of the Western economies will have adverse effects on exports, tourism, workers’ remittances and incomes in developing countries. There is another and more direct dimension to the “sequestration” on the developing world. The government’s spending cuts will affect the budget for aid given to poor countries and to development programmes such as provision of medicines and food, according to a report by the Inter Press Service (IPS).

The new secretary of state, John Kerry, revealed that the State Department and its aid agency USAID, would have to cut US$2.6bil (RM8bil) from their 2013 budget. The cuts would include $200m from humanitarian assistance and $400m from global health programmes. For example, the US would reduce its contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria by $300m this year, meaning there will be less medicine donated to poor countries. Kerry has written to Congress stating that this reduction would reduce the United States’ ability to provide food assistance to two million people and USAID would have to cease, reduce, or not initiate assistance to millions of disaster affected people, and would “gravely impede” efforts at reducing AIDS-related and child deaths.

The IPS report also quoted Jeremy Kadden of InterAction (an alliance of NGOs aiding developing countries) as saying: “These cuts will cost lives. We’ve made very significant progress over the past 10 years, with real people improving their lives, and this would set that process back enormously, devastating actual people on the ground.” He estimated that the budget cuts would lead to some three million children losing access to the basic education they currently receive; two million people would suffer reductions in or stop receiving food aid, while 600,000 children would lose nutrition assistance. Unlike in the United Kingdom, where the Cameron government decided not to cut its aid budget despite huge slashing of the overall government budget, there is no exemption for overseas spending in the US sequestration exercise.

The poor in America will also be affected. About 600,000 low-income women and children will stop receiving food aid. Also affected in the $26bn cut in domestic programmes are health, education, drug enforcement, national parks and Hurricane Sandy relief. Low-income families will also be affected by a cut in public housing subsidies, which could hurt about 125,000 poor families, according to The Guardian. The National Institutes of Health, which will suffer a 5% budget cut, is cancelling hundreds of research grants. Another $16bn in mandatory spending will be cut, including in medicare, agriculture programmes and unemployment benefits.

* Excerpt of the weekly ‘Global Trends’ column of Martin Khor >>> here.

The Big 10: Behind the Brands campaign

The social and environmental policies of the world’s ten biggest food and beverage giants are not fit for modern purpose and need a major shake-up, says international agency Oxfam. The “Big 10” food and beverage companies – that together make $1bn a day – are failing millions of people in developing countries who supply land, labour, water and commodities needed to make their products. Behind the Brands – part of Oxfam’s GROW campaign to fix the broken food system – for the first time ranks the agricultural policies, public commitments and supply chain oversight of Associated British Foods (ABF), Coca Cola, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Mars, Mondelez, Nestlé, Pepsico and Unilever.

ABF (19%), Kellogg’s (23%) and General Mills (23%) scored most poorly. They have weaker policies than Coca-Cola (41%), Unilever (49%) and Nestle (54%) for example. “Some companies recognize the business case for sustainability and have made important commitments that deserve praise” says Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director for Oxfam International. “But none of the ten biggest food and beverage companies are moving fast enough to turn around a 100-year legacy of relying on cheap land and labour to make mass products at huge profits, with unacceptably high social and environmental costs. No company emerges with a good overall score. Across the board all ten companies need to do much more. ”

The Behind the Brands campaign reveals:
● While some of the “Big 10” have publicly committed to women’s rights, none have committed to eliminating discrimination against women throughout their supply chains.
● None of the companies have adequate policies to protect local communities from land and water grabs, despite all of them sourcing commodities plagued by land rights violations, such as palm oil, soy and sugar. Not one company has declared ‘zero tolerance’ against land grabs in their supply chains
● All ten companies are overly secretive about their agricultural supply chains, making their claims of ‘sustainability’ and ‘social responsibility’ difficult to verify. Nestle and Unilever are most open about the countries they source from, but no company is providing enough information about their suppliers.
● Companies are generally increasing their overall water efficiency but most have failed to put policies in place to limit their impact on local water sources. Only Pepsi has publicly recognized water as a human right and committed to consult local communities. Nestle has developed guidelines for its suppliers to manage water and was ranked top for policies on water.
● All of the companies have taken steps to reduce direct emissions, but only five – Mondelez, Danone, Unilever, Coca-Cola and Mars – publicly report on agricultural emissions associated with their products. Unilever alone has committed to halve its greenhouse gas footprint by 2020. None have yet developed policies to help farmers in their supply chains to build resilience to climate change.
● None have publicly committed to pay a fair price to farmers or fair business arrangements with them across all agricultural operations. Only Unilever – which is top-ranked for its dealings with small-scale farmers – has specific supplier guidelines to address some key issues faced by farmers.

According to Oxfam, it’s time these companies take more responsibility for their immense influence on poor people’s lives. 80% of the world’s hungry people work in food production and these companies employ millions of people in developing countries to grow their ingredients. They control hundreds of the world’s most popular brands and have the economic, social and political clout to make a real and lasting difference to the world’s poor and hungry. “Analyzing their social policies is an important first step. These policies indicate a company’s intent to do good. They are ultimately how consumers and producers can begin to hold them to account. No brand is too big to listen to its customers. If enough people urge the big food companies to do what is right, they have no choice but to listen. By contacting companies on Twitter and Facebook, or signing a petition to their CEO, consumers can do their part to help bring lasting change in our broken food system by showing companies their customers expect them to operate responsibly.”

The ‘Behind the Brands’ campaign has been launched in more than 12 countries including the US, Mexico, China, Brazil and across Europe. Its first public action will target Nestle, Mondelez and Mars for their failure to address inequality faced by women who grow cocoa for their chocolate products. Oxfam is urging the three companies to do more to know and show how women are treated in their supply chains, create an action plan to address inequality for women in their supply chains and engage in advocacy to influence other powerful actors to do the same.

Oxfam has engaged with all 10 companies during the last year who have cooperated in providing data to inform this scorecard. The scorecard will be updated if companies change their policies. Oxfam rated the companies on their policies on seven topics: how they ensure the rights of the workers and farmers who grow their ingredients, how they protect women’s rights, management of land and water use, climate change and the transparency of their supply chains, policies and operations. It did not review other important policies such as those dealing with nutrition, tax and waste, for example.

>>> More information about the campaign >>> here.
>>> Download of the study >>> here.

European perspective on post-2015 goals

The European Commission has published a Communication this week, proposing a change to the EU’s global poverty strategy after 2015 by integrating environmental sustainability and poverty eradication efforts into a single agenda. With the Communication, entitled A decent life for all: Ending poverty and giving the world a sustainable future, the Commission is reclaiming a role in the ongoing debate aiming at a new generation of development goals for the time after 2015 when the MDGs expire. The document should ensure a unified EU positions in the negociations.

However, after the recent cuts in the development budget of the block NGOs remain sceptical. For CONCORD, the European confederation of Relief and Development NGOs, representing over 1,800 NGOs to the European institutions, the EU is is right to recognize that development and environmental sustainability are two sides of the same coin. Yet CONCORD Director, Olivier Consolo can find only few new proposals for “how we’ll actually achieve sustainable development that benefits everyone and especially the extremely poor”. “The Commission also wants an agenda whose goals apply globally, not just to developing countries, which is welcome” says CONCORD. “However more clarity is needed on what changes the EU and richer countries would have to make themselves to fulfil this agenda.” CONCORD believes the Communication is extremely light on accountability mechanisms to ensure leaders and countries fulfil their commitments. The poverty and sustainability challenges set out in the Communication need to be met with real commitment to the changes needed if the EU wants to be taken seriously by the international community.

In September 2013, a UN special event will take stock of the efforts made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), discuss ways to accelerate progress until 2015 and start exchanges on what could follow after the MDG target year of 2015. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon asked the UN High Level Panel on the post-2015 development agenda to which European Commissioner for Development Andris Piebalgs is a member, to prepare a special report, to be presented by the end of May.

EU budget talks in Brussels: Aid under threat

Today and tomorrow, EU leaders meet in Brussels to decide the EU budget for 2014-2020, including the proposed €51bn of EU development aid to the world’s poorest. According to NGOs like BOND or ONE, EU aid works. Between 2004 and 2009, it helped enrol more than 9 million children in primary education, vaccinate 5.5 million children against measles, and connect more than 31 million people to clean water. If the proposed €51bn EU aid budget is adopted, in the next 7 years 15 million more children could be enrolled in school, 9 million more could be vaccinated and 51 million more people could be connected to clean water. But proposals for European aid are under serious threat.

At the last summit in November, proposed development assistance to the world’s poorest was slashed by €6.1bn. And some leaders want to make even deeper cuts that could take funds below current spending levels. Ahead of this week’s critical talks, ONE members from all over Europe have been rallying to ask European leaders to protect lifesaving EU aid at the proposed levels. In the next step of its Lifesaver campaign, ONE estimated that it would cost just 3 euro cents (or 2 pence) per week, per EU citizen to reverse proposed cuts to aid for the poorest. ONE members have therefore decided to make their small change count! In the UK, over 2000 ONE members have asked for postcards to send their 2 pence to Prime Minister David Cameron urging him to protect proposals for lifesaving EU aid in the budget negotiations. In Germany, ONE members have sent postcards to Chancellor Angela Merkel, adding their 3 cents. In Brussels, the team collected by hand over 230 postcards for President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy including around 60 Brussels-based interns and young professionals who came to our meet-up last week. In France, as part of the French version of ONE’s Lifesaver campaign, “sauveteur du siècle”, ONE members have mailed more than 500 postcards to President François Hollande, urging him to make sure that, in Winter sales season, EU leaders don’t try to make savings on the back of the world’s poorest.

In parallel, ONE also estimated how much it would cost each government per year to reverse the cuts to the proposed €51bn for EU aid. For Germany that’s €174m, for the UK €113m and for France €154m – peanuts compared to overall annual government spending.

EU: Balancing books on the backs of the poor

Leading NGOs call on EU leaders to protect EU development aid against short-sighted cuts ahead of this week’s special EU Budget summit. Cuts tabled last week disproportionately target EU development and humanitarian aid, a clear attempt to balance the EU’s books on the backs of the world’s poor. The latest negotiating paper being considered by EU governments to agree the EU budget 2014-2020 calls for aid cuts of up to €10.6 billion, compared to the proposals by the EU Commission & EU Parliament. Most affected would be the European Development Fund (EDF), the largest part of the EU aid budget that targets African countries. The EDF is facing a cut of 11% or €3.335billion while the overall cut is 7%.

In their attempts to reach agreement on the next 7-year EU budget, EU member states must preserve EU aid, a smart investment that represents just 6% of the overall budget, according to Concord, Oxfam International, Plan and ONE. In just six years, EU aid has made a lasting difference in the lives of millions and helped them out of poverty: 50 million people were stopped from being hungry, more than nine million children have enrolled in primary education, more than five million have been vaccinated against measles and more than 31 million people have been connected to drinking water. The positive results and effectiveness of EU aid have been cited by many independent reports. Reviews by institutions including the Center for Global Development and Brookings Institution, and the OECD have also ranked EU aid highly. Publish What You Fund’s 2012 Aid Transparency Index ranked the European Commission’s DG Development and Cooperation (DG DEVCO) 5th out of 72 aid organisations across 43 indicators.

Support for EU aid remains strong among European citizens. The results of a Eurobarometer survey released in October show that 85% of EU citizens believe that Europe should continue helping developing countries despite the economic crisis, while almost two thirds believe that aid to developing countries should be increased. It is telling that this support remains strong in Greece, Spain and Ireland – the European countries most affected by the crisis.

According to a report published last week by the Overseas Development Institute, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and ONE, looking at the economic impact of EU aid on donor and recipient countries, EU aid will also more than pay for itself by 2020. The research shows that as well as boosting GDP in sub-Saharan Africa and globally, EU taxpayers would recoup the funds for the world’s poorest with a 20% return on investment.

World Social Forum 2013 in Tunis

The World Social Forum 2013 (WSF 2013) will take place in Tunis from the 26 to 30 March. Its website was launched on 15 October, and that kicked off the registration process for organizations and for proposals of activities. In the Tunisian Secretariat members of the WSF 2013 are listed the two focal point of Social Watch in that country: the Tunisian League for Human Rights (LTDH) and the Tunisian Association of Democratic Women (ATFD). This decision on the venue was taken by the WSF International Council in Paris, and confirmed last July in Monastir, Tunisia, after several consultations among social movements from this country and others from the other North African countries.

The ATFD, the LTHD, the General Union of Tunisian Workers (UGTT), the Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights (FTDES), Raid-Attac, the Tunisian Union of Unemployed University Graduates, the Association of Tunisian Women for Research and Development (AFTURD), the National Council for Liberties in Tunisia (CNLT) and the Tunisian Bar make up the Tunisian Secretariat of the WSF 2013. The Secretariat was deployed to prepare the Monastir meeting, to start negotiations with the Tunisian authorities, to make efforts to involve new social movements, and to broaden the process in thematic as well as in geographical terms, despite the ongoing difficulties in Tunisia and in the whole Maghreb and Machrek region barely two years after the events that have shaken the region, remarked the Maghrebian Social Forum's Steering Committee.

The WSF 2013 Tunisian Secretariat has set up a number of commissions which have been working for several months and presented its plan, later endorsed by the Maghrebian Social Forum's Steering Committee, and which is the following :

● 15 October: Launching of the WSF 2013 website and of the registration process for organizations and proposals of activities;

● 1 December: End of the phase dedicated to proposals of activities, and publication of the proposals, including the contacts to get in touch with their promoters;

● 2-15 January 2013: Merging process;

● 16-31 January: Registration of the demands for assemblies and distribution of the rooms and spaces;

● 1-28 February: Production of the final program and translation into the main WSF working languages;

● 1-20 March: Logistical setting up, printing of the program and organization of the WSF physical space;

● 26-30 March: Worls Social Forum 2013;

● 30 March: Closing March;

● 31 March-1 April: Meeting of the WSF International Council in Tunis.

The Maghrebian Social Forum's Steering Committee and the WSF 2013 Tunisian Secretariat are inviting movements, unions, organizations and groups of activists of civil society from Tunisia, from the Maghreb, from the Machrek, from all Africa, from the Mediterranean region and from around the world to make a success of the 12th World Social Forum. “As in previous forums, the WSF 2013 will enable encounters between all the women and the men who fight, in their communities and their basic activities, against the neoliberal management of economy, the financial markets' diktats, social fragmentation, and who struggle to build democracy, equality for all, solidarity, justice and peace, to protect the environment and commons,” said the Maghrebian Social Forum’s Steering Committee in its statement. “To make the WSF 2013 a success, we call all social movements to participate, together, in the setting up of the process, to contribute to the internationalization of the preparatory commissions (methodology, logistics, finances, communication, mobilization, youth, women, culture...). More particularly, we call on you to seek the human and financial means that will foster the broadest participation in the WSF,” added the Committee.

The WSF 2013 will have an “extended” form, which means that it will allow civil society organizations, networks and movements that wish to do so to actively participate in the WSF 2013 wherever they will be in the world, and whatever the size of the delegation they can send to Tunis.

>>> Website of WSF 2013

After the IMF meeting: The trade union view

According to Sharan Burrow, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) the recent annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank confirmed what the ITUC and trade unions around the world have been saying for more than two years: The idea that you can create ‘growth through austerity’ is an illusion that has destroyed million of people’s livelihoods. “The IMF should use the important findings it made public this week and support a jobs- and income-led growth strategy, not let a few countries or its partners in the European ‘troika’ dictate a continuation of austerity policies.”

Before the 12-14 October meetings opened in Tokyo, the IMF’s chief economist revealed that the Fund had seriously underestimated the impact of budget-cutting austerity measures on national economies, apparently due to using an incorrect “multiplier” in their economic models. However the final communiqué of the IMF’s ministerial committee (IMFC) asserted that only emerging-market economies, not industrialized countries, should “use policy flexibility [to] support growth”, even though ten European economies are expected to be in recession in 2012. “It is incomprehensible for the IMFC to tell Europe to pursue structural adjustment and fiscal austerity, even though it is in recession, while only countries that are already enjoying growth are encouraged to support pro-growth policies. It seems evident that this totally incoherent approach came from some industrialized-country governments that have obviously not learned the lessons of the IMF’s research revisions,” said Burrow.

Burrow also praised the G24 group of emerging and developing countries at the international financial institutions for drawing appropriate conclusions from the World Bank’s World Development Report (WDR) 2013 on the theme of employment. The G24 stated in a communiqué issued at the Tokyo meetings: “We note the finding of the World Bank’s recent World Development Report that a focus on jobs is the most effective means to reduce poverty, empower people, and promote social cohesion.” According to Burrow the World Bank and IMF should re-examine all of their policies through the ‘jobs lens’ as the WDR proposes. “We also agree with the G24 that it is unacceptable that governments have missed the deadline for the 2010 quota reform by not ratifying in sufficient number a modest shift of some votes at the IMF to emerging economies. The G24 also made important suggestions, which we share, about the need for the IFIs to do more to combat commodity price volatility, especially in light of the recent food price hike which will drive millions more people in developing countries into extreme poverty.”

Europe’s engagement with civil society: Policy inconsistencies

The European Commission recently published a new communication aiming to set out a more strategic engagement with civil society organisations (CSOs). Entitled The Roots of Democracyand Sustainable Development; Europe’s Engagement with Civil Society in External Relations, the communication draws on a “structured dialogue – for an efficient partnership in development” with CSOs as well as a public consultation undertaken earlier this year. The Communication credits civil society as being ‘an asset in itself’ and a great contributor for bringing about development outputs. However, as Frauke de Weijerin of the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) notes, the Communication fails to explain how the new strategic engagement with CSOs will actually translate into practice.

Although it emphasises the importance of civil society at country level, the Communication is unclear as to how it plans to engage with CSOs, particularly those with who it is less familiar, such as faith-based organizations, unions or even social movements from these countries. For CSOs to be eligible for inclusion in policy dialogue the Commission wants them to be ‘accountable and transparent and share its fundamental values’. However, as Weijerin argues, the ‘full spectrum of perspectives’ must be brought on board in order for the development policy to be broadly owned by society.

A 2008 evaluation of EC aid delivery through civil societyorganizations found an inconsistency between the Commission’s policy objectives and the actual use of the civil society channel. For example, it noted an inability of the Commission to mobilise the CSO potential in governance related processes and a tendency to utilise European NGOs at the expense of local civil society organisations. Additionally, the evaluation noted the existence of an institutional culture within the Commission which is not conducive to the proper engagement of CSOs – mainly due to limited political backing from the top. While institutional changes have been made since the evaluation was undertaken and it is hoped that the new communication will provide the necessary push to remove the barriers to a proper engagement with civil society, according to the EuroStep network.

EU reducing biofuel target?

The Commission announced a proposal last week to reduce biofuel mandates to 5% by 2020, revising the controversial target of 10% of fuel transport to come from renewable sources by 2020. The 10% target was primarily envisaged as being met from biofuels. While recognising this was a step forward, aid agency Oxfam is calling on EU leaders to completely scrape the target. “The EU must recognise the devastating impact its biofuel policies are having on the poorest people through surging food prices, worsening hunger and contributing to climate change”, said Barbara Stocking, Oxfam’s chief executive.

Introduced in 2009 in an attempt to fight climate change, biofuel targets have increasingly become controversial as this resulted land being used to produce biofuel in place of food, impacting on supplies of food and contributing to increasing food prices. International Land Coalition estimates that around two-thirds of all large-scale land deals around the world in the past 10 years have been acquisitions in order to grow biofuel. Many such deals have displaced local communities with claims on the land or have involved laying claim to water rights. “Europe has helped spark a global rush for biofuels that is forcing poor families from their homes, while big business piles up the profits. Biofuels were meant to make transport greener, but European governments are pouring consumers' money down the drain, whilst depriving millions of people of food, land and water,” said Natalia Alonso, Head of Oxfam’s EU Office. According to Oxfam, in 2008 €3bn was spent in the EU on incentives for biofuel production, levels comparable to the cuts agreed in the Greek bailout mechanism earlier this year.

 

Oxfam’s alarm bell comes in the context of an informal energy ministers’ meeting in Cyprus last week where European Energy Commissioner Oettinger recognised the fact that the current EU policy had lead to “unfavourable developments such as the tearing down of rainforest to produce biofuel”. The ministers agree that anything over the 5% cap should be achieved without using food crops, but Oxfam calls the 5% cap itself ridiculous. “At this moment the biofuel use in the EU is only at 4.5%. So the new cap of 5% is actually an increase of what we’re using at the moment”, says Ruth Kelly, Oxfam’s economic policy advisor. The land used for growing the crops for biofuels in 2008, could have fed 127 million people according to Oxfam calculations revealed in its last week report, The Hunger Grains.

Norway: First creditor ever to carry out a debt audit

On 15 August 2012 the Norwegian Minister of Development Heikki Holmås announced that Norway will make an assessment of the legitimacy of developing countries’ debt to Norway. This means that the Norwegian government will be the first to ever carry out a creditor’s debt audit. Since being elected in 2009, the Norwegian government has promised to carry out a debt audit, as well as working to establish binding guidelines for responsible lending. Now Holmås promised that the audit will now be launched, to be followed up with new and stronger guidelines for responsible lending.

The Norwegian government has previously admitted their responsibility as a creditor for dirty debts attached to a particular set of loans for developing countries to buy Norwegian ships. In 2006 the government announced that they would cancel debts for seven countries because the original loans had been a “development policy failure”. The Norwegian Coalition for Debt Cancellation (SLUG) has done its own investigation of debts owed to Norway. The research reveals that a part of Indonesia’s current debt to Norway is clearly illegitimate. SLUG shows that the people of Indonesia is still paying for a wave power plant that was never built, and failed technology for sea monitoring systems.

Norwegian initiatives have led to the establishment of international principles for responsible lending and borrowing in the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The principles will be applied in the Norwegian debt audit. In April, the UK government unsuccessfully tried to stop UNCTAD working on responsible lending and borrowing principles. Jostein Hole Kobbeltvedt, Eurodad representative at the UNCTAD expert group on responsible sovereign borrowing and lending, said: “To apply the UNCTAD Principles in the Norwegian debt audit is a solid way of showing that the Norwegian government takes the Principles seriously and that they take their responsibility as a creditor seriously.” Development Minister Holmås announced that the plan is for the audit to be concluded within a year.

* For more information >>> here. 

Advocacy week on EU-Arabic relations in Brussels

A “Week of advocacy on policies and issues of cooperation and partnership between the European Union and Arab countries”, arranged by the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND) in cooperation with Eurostep and CNCD-11.11.11, will engage civil society organizations from both regions. The meetings between 17 to 21 September in Brussels are to see exchanges also between Arab representatives and European policy makers on issues of common concern. It will serve as an opportunity to deepen the discussions on the outlined issues, clarify the demands and propositions from civil society groups, and elaborate on ways of cooperation and possible collective campaigning on priority policy areas. It will also be an opportunity to articulate these demands to policy makers at the European Union level, including in the European Parliament and European Commission, remarked the ANND in a press release.

The Arab region has been witnessing a period of change and quest for new societal relations between the citizen and the state, based on respect of fundamental freedoms, rights, dignity, and rule of law. Along the multiplicity of factors including political repressions, corruption, and lack of accountability and legitimacy of Arab regimes, the peoples’ uprisings and revolutions in multiple Arab countries have reflected a failure of social and economic policies, according to the Network. Indeed, citizens are calling for a new development paradigm, which re-enforces the right to development and economic and social rights and justice. Accordingly, the democratic process and practice in the region necessitates revising the approach to the economic and social policies and policy making, aligned with reforms of political systems and enhancing the role of civil society, observed the ANND.

These changes in the Arab countries necessitate a re-thinking of priorities and policy approaches in the cooperation and partnerships with the European Union, on various fronts whether political, economic, social, and cultural. One of the main challenges to be addressed is seeking coherence among the various levels of cooperation between the EU and Arab countries, specifically among the development cooperation and the economic partnership, including the trade and investment relations. Furthermore, the region witnesses have swept across the whole Arab region, including the Maghreb, Mashreq, and Gulf countries, thus requiring a holistic approach in the revision of the relation between the EU and the various Arab countries.

Find more information >>> here.

The Drought and the Coming Food Price Bubble

Environment and development at Rio+20: Splitting them up again?

The Rio+20 Summit will fail if it agrees to current proposals, which risk worsening the divide between environment and development efforts, warned anti-poverty and environmental campaigners. Agreement on Sustainable Development Goals is expected to be one of the major outcomes from the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, which starts on 20 June in Rio de Janeiro.  

The UN has already begun to deliberate on the post 2015 global development framework, starting with a review of lessons learnt from the existing Millennium Development Goals and options for after they expire in 2015. The current proposal on the table in Rio would effectively create a second process for global goals in the post-2015 period. A separate process focused on the environment will not provide the solution urgently needed to end poverty and inequality while protecting the planet, said international agency Oxfam and the international campaigns, Beyond 2015 and the Global Campaign against Poverty (GCAP).

“Ending poverty and protecting the environment are inextricably linked and cannot be addressed in isolation. The current proposals are a recipe for diluted commitment, duplicated effort, and dispersed focus,” said Antonio Hill of Oxfam. “The world’s poorest people, who still suffer a lack of quality healthcare and education, are also denied their fair share of water, land and clean air. Poor people will be the first to lose out if Rio+20 fails to aim for one set of goals for one planet. We need a single guiding framework whose purpose is to end poverty and restore the living world that sustains us all. “

The groups believe that commitment in Rio to a single process that brings together the Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development framework could represent a landmark agreement to eradicate poverty and ensure prosperity for all by sharing the Earth’s limited resources. But the move could fail if this integration does not happen from the start. The groups also warn that the success of any future goals hinge on the progress made towards ending poverty through the Millennium Development Goals. “Governments in Rio are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while 1.4 billion people still live in poverty, in a daily struggle for food, water and energy. For these people environment and development are not separate choices. We need a race to deliver the existing Millennium Development goals, and a single framework to succeed them,” said Rajiv Joshi from GCAP.

Civil Society Reflection Group seeks post-2015 agenda

On the eve of the United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro (Rio+20), 18 leading civil society activists and scholars from around the globe proposed concrete measures to effectively overcome the obstacles that prevent the world population to achieve a real sustainable development that enhances social equality and protects the environment. In its report, No FutureWithout Justice, the Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives “describes the root causes of the multiple crises” that suffers the planet, “reconfirms the framework of universal principles and rights, reconsiders development goals and indicators, and draws conclusions for the post-2015 development agenda.”

The text “seeks to stimulate debates about alternative development paths, participatory and inclusive governance structures, and the transformation in politics and societies that future justice for all will require,” reads a statement launched by the Group, comprised of members of Social Watch, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, terre des hommes, Third World Network, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, DAWN and the Global Policy Forum. “Governments failed to bring their policies into line with the agreed principles of sustainability and human rights. Instead, policies are still too often sectorally fragmented and misguided, with an overreliance on economic growth and self-regulation of the ‘markets’. New concepts like ‘green growth’ are, at best, attempts to treat the symptoms of the problems without tackling their root causes,” warns the Group.

“All too often, national and international policies have not aimed at reducing inequalities,” summarizes the statement. “The dedication to stimulating economic growth has provided the incentive to exploit nature, rely on the use of fossil fuels and deplete biodiversity, undermining the provision of essential services. Women, especially the poor, continue to suffer from social and economic discrimination and in many places are deprived of their bodily, reproductive and sexual rights. Biodiversity and the bounty of nature, while cherished, are not respected, protected or valued. Communities and populations that seek to live in harmony with nature find their rights ignored and their livelihoods and cultures jeopardized.”

“We have exceeded the ecological limits and ignore the planetary boundaries. With the climate change threat we are already living on borrowed time. However, we refuse to cut back on emissions and allocate the scarce resources to those who have not yet benefitted from their exploitation,” warned the Reflection Group. The activists and experts propose “fundamental changes at three levels”: (1) “changes in the mindset, the guiding concepts and indicators of development and progress”; (2) “changes in fiscal and regulatory policies at national, regional and international levels in order to effectively overcome social inequalities and the degradation of nature and to strengthen sustainable economies”, and (3) “changes in institutions and governance mechanisms at national, regional and international levels.”

“To date, a holistic approach of sustainability has not been adopted for action. It is necessary to redefine, for public policy and public life, the concepts of development and well-being, along with their content, their metrics and their strategies,” adds the Group and remarks that “every concept of development, well-being and progress in societies is based on a set of fundamental principles and values” that “are rooted deeply in our cultures, our ideologies and our belief systems.” In that sense, it proposes a “set of eight principles as the foundation for a new sustainability rights framework”, that “are interconnected and must not be applied in isolation” and “should build the cornerstones of a universal sustainability rights framework”. They are the “solidarity principle”, the “’Do no harm’ principle”, the “principle of common but differentiated responsibilities”, the “’polluter pays’ principle”, the “precautionary principle”, the “subsidiarity principle”, the “principle of free, prior and informed consent”, and the “principle of peaceful dispute settlement”.

The statement also refers to “fundamental values, which are also essential to international relations,” some of them included in the Millennium Declaration, such as “freedom, equality, diversity and respect for nature”. But most of the governments “have mostly failed to translate them into enforceable, guaranteed obligations and specific policies.” The document postulates “a framework for global sustainability goals”, with a preliminary list that is the “result of a joint brainstorming exercise of Reflection Group members”. It is made up by six “core goals”: “dignity and human rights for all”, “promoting equality and justice”, “respect for nature and the planetary boundaries”, “building peace through disarmament”, “fostering fair and resilient financial systems”, and “strengthening democratic and participatory governance”.

G20 must tackle hunger by fighting its roots causes

The Caritas-CIDSE G20 Network of Catholic agencies says making sure all people have access to appropriate food must be the priority for the leaders of G20 economies as they meet 18-19 June in Mexico. There are 925 million people in the world without enough to eat. About 300 children die from malnutrition every hour while one in four children is stunted, and in developing countries that figure rises to one in three. Yet we produce more than enough food globally to feed everyone. The Caritas-CIDSE G20 Network says reducing inequality and promoting sustainable development must be at the heart of the G20s plans to address food insecurity in the short, medium and long term.

Caritas Internationalis Secretary General Michel Roy said, “Hunger is not inevitable. It must be tackled by fighting its structural causes, primarily by promoting sustainable agricultural development of poor countries.” CIDSE Secretary General Bernd Nilles said, “The Mexican G20 has a real opportunity to show leadership on the issue of food security by ensuring better regulation of markets, strengthening of local food production and creating better access to markets for small-holder farmers. The G20 also have a particular responsibility to lead the fight against global poverty, since more than half of the world's poorest people live in G20 countries.”

Caritas-CIDSE G20 Network calls on the G20 to live up to the promises they made in Seoul in 2010. The Caritas-CIDSE G20 Network says increasing food production alone will fail without addressing the problems of access and distribution by building food reserves, curbing speculation in commodities´ markets and introducing social protection schemes. The G20 must act on the financial markets where under-regulated speculation is increasing food prices that are harming the poor. Tackling this problem requires greater intervention by public authorities, including at a global level, to rein in speculation, improve supervision of and increase transparency of markets. Emergency reserves and buffer stocks are needed in the poorest countries to protect the most vulnerable and stabilise market prices.

The Caritas-CIDSE G20 Network is a Network of 180 Catholic agencies working in collaboration to advocate at the G20 for the most vulnerable in our world.

Business-as-usual won’t do at Rio+20 summit: New agenda needed

A group of leading international humanitarian, development, social justice, environmental, and workers’ organizations warned last weekend that next month’s UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) looks set to add almost nothing to global efforts to deliver sustainable development. The group also warns that too many governments are using or allowing the talks undermine established human rights and agreed principles such as equity, precaution, and ‘polluter pays.’ The warning from Development Alternatives, Greenpeace, the Forum of Brazilian NGOs and Social Movements for Environment and Development (FBOMS), International Trades Union Confederation (ITUC), Oxfam, the Slow Food Movement and Vitae Civilis comes at the end of two weeks of negotiations between governments on the conference outcomes, with less than 50 days before the summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 20 - 22 June.

“After four months of talks on the so-called ‘zero draft’ outcome document, the Rio+20 talks are stuck at zero. Little or nothing has emerged that will deliver on what governments agreed was needed 20 years ago at the Earth Summit,” said Antonio Hill of Oxfam. “The 1992 Earth Summit was a milestone that united development and environment efforts. The challenge set then – to provide prosperity for all without exceeding ecological limits – is even more urgent today. Now’s the time to end deforestation, achieve high seas protection, and deliver the energy revolution – that is a future worth choosing,” said Daniel Mittler of Greenpeace.

The group argues that the current financial crises, growing inequalities, broken food system, global climate change and shrinking natural resources require a new approach to economic development but the current negotiating text offers just more of the same. Together with workers, citizens, producers and consumers around the world, these organizations are working to delivering well-being, economic equality, and a prosperity that restores the natural environment upon which we all depend. “We hear the voices of citizens everywhere calling for a better future. Millions of people are demanding their rights and expecting fair and green solutions to poverty and suffering now. The message is clear: it’s time to change course and put the future of people and the planet first,” said Alison Tate of ITUC.

As a benchmark against which to assess what governments achieve in Rio+20, the organisations have set out a 10-point agenda for the global transformation urgently needed to deliver sustainable development. They jointly call on governments to:

1. Agree an ambitious set of global goals for sustainable development, designed to eradicate poverty, reduce inequality, and realise justice and human rights while respecting the finite limits of Earth’s natural resources.

2. Provide new and additional resources for sustainable development, including innovative sources of public finance such as financial transaction taxes to tackle poverty and climate change, and commit to far-reaching budget reforms, including re-directing money from harmful subsidies towards sustainable fishing, renewable energy access, and smallholder agriculture.

3. Enact reforms of the system of global governance to ensure strong institutions with real power to enforce international rules and commitments on environment and development, and launch talks on a global treaty to realise rights of public access to information, greater participation, and access to justice, in order to strengthen accountability and citizen monitoring of environmental and development performance at the national, regional, and global levels.

4. Commit to invest a share of national income in green and decent jobs and sustainable livelihoods, ensuring social equity, gender equality, trade union rights, democracy, and a just transition from today’s economies.

5. Establish a universal Social Protection Floor to realize human rights and support decent living standards worldwide, including allocating resources to establish an adequate level of social protection in the least developed countries.

6. Agree a plan to move quickly towards sustainable patterns of production and consumption, including greater investment in small- and medium-scale enterprises, producer cooperatives, and informal sectors, as well as public procurement policies and incentives for fair and green products and services.

7. Agree a global framework of rules to strengthen corporate reporting on social and environmental impacts worldwide, consistent with the Rio Principles, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and encompassing the full range of impacts associated with corporate activities.

8. Kick-off a major shift towards adequate, nutritious, and healthy food for all, including policies and investments to support small farms, women producers, and secure access to (and protection of) the water, land, soils, biodiversity, and other resources upon which our food security depends.

9. Take decisive action to recover healthy, productive and sustainable oceans – launch a new agreement to protect high seas marine life under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and take steps to reverse over-exploitation, enable sustainable, marine-based livelihoods, and guarantee abundant marine life for the future.

10. Provide fair and lasting energy solutions that put poor people first and help cut greenhouse gas pollution, including new financial and technical support to developing countries that focuses on providing the full range of energy services needed to help pull people out of poverty.

NGOs call on EU to keep its development commitments ahead of Rio+20

With just a few weeks to go until the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) will be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Eurostep in collaboration with ANND, Social Watch, Third World Network and ALOP have called on the EU not to shy away from its commitments to a global sustainable development agenda. In a letter sent to EU officials and member state representatives, the coalition points to a move away from a rights-based approach to development during the conferences’ preparatory process, and avoidance of any discussion about the current unsustainable consumption and production patterns in developed countries.

The letter points out that in the context of the massive Eurozone debt crisis — which has been dominating the EU’s agenda — it is more important than ever that the EU adheres to its core principles — including human rights and equity. In the zero draft outcome document for Rio+20 on the other hand, some UN members, including the EU, have weakened or even undermined these core principles. “In such critical times, the focus of some actors is simply not acceptable — whether that focus is on preserving short term and narrow interests or on trying to dismantle the core pillars of the UN development agenda to the detriment of wider and future populations”, they warn.

EU officials are urged to reaffirm key principles agreed on in previous conferences regarding sustainable development. Most important is the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) among developed and developing countries. This principle is being contested in the negotiations, with developed countries trying to diminish their share in responsibilities, to the detriment of developing countries. “Even though this principle is at the core of the development and sustainable development agendas, it is crucial to stress that while new countries have emerged as economic powers, developed countries are historically responsible for the current state of the planet and are still the greatest per capita emitters of CO2 emissions”, the letter states. “Recognizing the CBDR principle is about acknowledging responsibility, ensuring the realisation of the right to development, striving for more equity, committing to differentiated targets for sustainable development and about providing an enabling environment for developing countries in international relations and assistance according to countries’ needs”, it continues.

Eurostep and its partners call on the EU and its member states to spell out — in the outcome document — certain rights, including the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation, and to reiterate the EU’s core principle to uphold and promote all human rights. “Human rights are legal guarantees that contribute to people’s empowerment and improved equity and ensure equal protection of people before the law; they are fundamental requirements for a sustainable world. Given the EU’s laudable engagement on human rights, to improve democracy, inclusiveness and participatory approaches and increase the role of civil society organizations in decision making processes, we urge the EU to listen to these pleas”, the letter concludes.

These concerns have been echoed by a wide range of international actors including civil society organisations and UN representatives. In an Open Letter, 22 Human Rights Councils‘ independent experts called on all states negotiating the Rio+20 Outcome Document “to incorporate universally agreed international human rights norms and standards in the Outcome Document of the Rio+20 Summit with strong accountability mechanism to ensure its implementation“.

In anotheropen letter, international civil society and non-governmental organisations address the Secretary General for Rio+20 and UN member states to bring the “negotiations back on track“, so that Rio+20 can deliver “the realization of rights, democracy and sustainability” while adhering the principles of transparency and accountability and thus strengthen the foundations of peace and prosperity.