Back to Doha: Financing for Development at stake
By Henri Valot, CIVICUS Policy Advisor

Doha, Qatar will be soon again centre of attention for those of us working on development cooperation issues. It will host the upcoming “Follow-up International Conference on Financing for Development to Review the Implementation of the Monterrey Consensus” from 29 November to 2 December 2008, which will be immediately preceded by the Doha Global Civil Society Forum from 26 to 27 November 2008 .  

Doha is sadly known for having its name attached to the WTO Doha Development Round, the current trade-negotiation round of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which commenced in November 2001. Its objective was to lower trade barriers around the world, which would allow countries to increase trade globally. As of 2008, talks have stalled over a divide on major issues, such as agriculture, industrial tariffs and non-tariff barriers, services, and trade remedies. Major negotiations are not expected to resume until 2009.  

The Monterrey Consensus

The first International Conference on Financing for Development was held from 18-22 March 2002 in Monterrey, Mexico. The Culmination of a four-year preparatory process, the United Nations-hosted Conference adopted the Monterrey Consensus, in which developed, developing and transition economy countries pledged to undertake important actions in domestic, international and systemic development financing matters.  The Monterrey Consensus has become the major reference point for international development cooperation. The document embraces six areas of Financing for Development:  

   1. Mobilising domestic financial resources for development.

   2. Mobilising international resources for development: foreign direct investment and other private flows.

   3. International trade as an engine for development.

   4. Increasing international financial and technical cooperation for development.

   5. External debt management and relief

   6. Addressing systemic issues: enhancing the coherence and consistency of the international monetary, financial and trading systems in support of development.  

In December of 2002, the General Assembly established a detailed follow-up intergovernmental process, as called for in the Consensus, to monitor implementation and carry forward the international discussion of policies for financing development. The General Assembly, in its resolution 62/187 of 19 December 2007, decided that the Follow-up International Conference on Financing for Development to Review the Implementation of the Monterrey Consensus would be held in Doha, from 29 November to 2 December 2008 .  

The UN Secretary-General released a report titled “The latest developments related to the review process on financing for development and the implementation of the Monterrey Consensus” (A/63/179). The report underscores that slower growth, financial crisis and higher energy and food prices pose significant challenges for the international community. With regard to mobilising international resources for development, the report highlights that foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows remain the single largest component of private resource flows to developing countries. These flows, which amounted to almost $500 billion in 2007, involved significant “South- South” investment.  

In preparation for the Doha Review Conference, the UN General Assembly held, from February to June 2008, review sessions on the six thematic areas of the Monterrey Consensus and interactive hearings with representatives of civil society and the business sector. The President of the General Assembly issued informal summaries of the review sessions and circulated, on 28 July 2008 , a draft outcome document (DOD) of the Conference.  The General Assembly held, on 8 - 10 September and 19 September 2008 , the first round of informal consultations on the document, and continues currently to have consultations on the Doha outcome document.  

Substantive inputs from the Doha NGO Group

The Doha NGO Group facilitates CSO involvement in the Financing for Development Process and has so far made substantive inputs to the process, by submitting the Civil Society Benchmarks for the Doha Preparatory Process on Financing for Development and the Civil Society Key Recommendations for Doha Draft Outcome Document. Few MDGs remain priorities in development strategies and aid programmes.  CSO comments on the DOD outlined the following major issues:  

Domestic resources: While welcoming the commitment to broadening the tax base and combating tax evasion, the Doha NGO Group called for specific mechanisms such as country-by-country reporting by transnational corporations with a view to eliminating transfer mispricing and other forms of tax evasion, policies to harness the revenue from natural resource extraction, and the need to attenuate or offset the loss of fiscal resources caused by increasing trade and investment liberalisation. CSOs also called for stronger language on the need for an intergovernmental body for International Cooperation on tax matters to address issues of harmful tax competition, cross boarder tax evasion and capital flight to tax havens. The recognition of gender responsive public financial management as integral to fiscal reform was welcome, as is the need for active labour market policies and the realisation of decent work objectives.  

Investment: The weak language on the responsibility of private investors to uphold labour and environmental standards as well as transparency in the accounting of revenues, including in the Extractive Industries, fails to address the real need for a strong regulatory framework to counter well-documented abuses, and ensure positive developmental impacts of FDI.  

Trade: CSOs have repeatedly affirmed that FfD, in proposing a holistic trade and development agenda, is well-placed to assume the responsibility of examining the questions that the WTO talks have proved repeatedly incapable of addressing. In this regard, the chapter on trade in the DOD comes across as a lost opportunity, with merely some rhetorical acknowledgements of the importance of policy space, and the need to pace and sequence liberalisation according to the circumstances of each country.  

Aid: For the Doha NGO Group, the sense of urgency in making up for the shortfall in ODA, and in providing additional resources is missing from the DOD, as is the need to pursue concrete new mechanisms such as the Currency Transaction Tax (CTT), if core development needs are to be met, along with emerging needs such as financing a response to climate change. The DOD accords central roles in development cooperation to multilateral agencies, such as the OECD/DAC and the World Bank, while failing to acknowledge the need for shifts from their current policies including lack of democratic governance, harmful conditionalities, tied aid, imposing constraints on policy space. CSOs also invite the Financing for Development process, along with the Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) - rather than uncritically endorsing the outcome of the High Level Forum in Accra on Aid Effectiveness - to define the parameters for a comprehensive framework within the UN system for democratic norm-setting and monitorable targets for development effectiveness, and should be the convener of the other development actors for follow-up in this regard.  

Debt: For the Doha NGO Group, the section on debt represents a major step backwards from the Monterrey commitments. The “equivalent treatment of all creditors” should be matched by a major focus on equal treatment of debtors facing critical development challenges. No link has been established between the high levels of debt-servicing and the capacity of the countries concerned to achieve the MDGs, as called for by the Monterrey Consensus. In fact, despite findings that the World Bank/IMF framework for establishing debt sustainability is responsible for an underestimation of debt relief needs, the DOD presents these institutions, as contributors, rather than hindrances, to improved debt indicators. Also missing is the notion of “odious and illegitimate debts”, despite the significant legal and political developments that have shaped this aspect of donor-creditor co responsibility since Monterrey .  

Systemic Issues: Despite the general recognition that “progress in addressing systemic issues since Monterrey has been limited,” the DOD fails to offer clear guidelines for redressing this situation. CSOs usually support the need for a “major international conference convened by the United Nations to review the international financial and monetary architecture and global economic governance structures”. CSOs strongly disagree with the current DOD, which would have the UN abdicate this key responsibility, giving it over to the International Monetary and Financial Committee. The current juncture characterised by climate change, the increase in food and oil prices and the credit crunch, should give a sense of urgency to the challenges ahead.  

Some initial recommendations

Doha offers a rare opportunity for seriously moving forward an equitable and effective agenda for financing development over the next few years.  

Strengthening the FfD follow-up process:

The Doha NGO Group recommends the current follow-up process be replaced with a new institutional mechanism that has, at a minimum, 5 features:

1.       It should meet periodically and frequently (e.g., on a yearly basis).

2.       It should produce a negotiated outcome, moving from the current non-negotiated follow-up mode, to a negotiated follow-up mode.

3.       This institutional mechanism should involve individuals from the highest levels, not only from governments, but also from the leadership of international financial institutions and the World Trade Organization, as well as all relevant development actors.

4.       Civil society should be accorded a space, as has been the case from the beginning of the Financing for Development process. Their contribution to the process should be stimulated in the final phase of the Doha Conference preparatory process at the national, regional and international level as well as at the Conference itself by the provision of full access to its proceedings.

5.       Accessibility to information and to negotiations for all stakeholders, including civil society, should be improved to ensure that the Financing for Development is upheld as a truly multi-stakeholder process.  

Better use could be made of the mandate and follow-up process to ensure the UN’s unique position is used to enable a structured discussion, that integrates different sources of finance and more deliberately explores their interrelations.  

Keep politicising and democratising a technical agenda

CSO during the preparations for the OECD/World Bank HLF3 on aid effectiveness, tried to politicise a technical agenda, as clearly expressed in the Better Aid position paper. Many of us emphasised that the issue is not aid, and that the aid question would need to be incorporated into a Financing for Development perspective. The question remains: when will we have the opportunity to substantively set the agenda, at least in our own consultations?  

One example, among many others: we have repeated for more than 20 years that development needs ownership. We pushed in Accra for truly democratic ownership of aid programmes. But we should also take the time to question ourselves: if development has to be owned, this means that it still comes from the outside. CSOs in Mali, under the leadership of FECONG, which established strategic alliances with Northern CSOs and some governments, bravely opposes the ownership concept and promotes currently the one of auto-determination of development. It recalls major people struggles and with a single word politicises the agenda.  

Our common agenda needs the full involvement of CSO constituencies, the necessary respect of the linguistic diversity and the enhancement of our capacities. We already come with a capacity deficit: few CSOs, apart from some think-thanks, have dedicated lobby and advocacy capacity and can take the time to build the necessary knowledge. But all CSOs fighting for economic, social and political justices understand why those global public goods are a concern for all.  

Convening development constituencies through concerted selective engagement with the UN (UNDCF, UN FfD, UNDP), with OECD, and with the Bretton-Woods Institutions.  

CIVICUS is member of the UN DCF Advisory Board, and in early 2007, joined the CSO ISG for Accra HLF 3 on aid effectiveness. We believe that development cooperation and aid architecture are issues of global concern; aid and financing for development can be considered as Global Public Goods CIVICUS’ core mandate is to support the strengthening and of space and voice of CSO networks, at all levels, on those issues.  

There is a lack of coherence on the development cooperation field, at the multilateral level, as well as in CSO responses. We need to establish coherence, at least among ourselves, and build bridges between the different fora. Among UN DCF, UN FfD, OECD, and IFIs CSO watchdog constituencies, there are many overlaps. Nevertheless, those constituencies do not systematically communicate, or share information and strategies.  These major engagements in development cooperation issues prove undoubtedly CSO expertise and sound knowledge but might not hide totally a lack a common understanding on the overall strategy.  

This fragmentation is largely due to the existence of numerous policy coherence mechanisms, and the fact that all institutions are strengthening their individual engagement with civil society. But it has an impact on our capacity: Are we able to build collectively our core policy demands? Are we able to follow up to all those engagements? And, even more trivial, but real for some of us, do we want to become the very few frequent flyers permanently attending conferences, reviews and forums?  All of us agree that CSOs are development actors in their own right, and all advocate for a holistic approach to the development effectiveness agenda; but are we in agreement in terms of minimum condition for quality engagement; key positioning; shared lobby plan and tactics, and information sharing?  

It might be worth considering in this context the “Non-Governmental Diplomacy” concept proposed by Henri Rouillé d’Orfeuil, President of the French NGO platform, Coordination Sud. The Non- Governmental Diplomacy stems from the various works and studies done on the increasing role of CSOs in International Relations, together with a classical approach to international rules of diplomacy. In substance, the Non-Governmental Diplomacy affirms that, although our engagement at the global level is being done with professionalism and expertise, we could question the legitimacy of those CSOs claiming to represent CSO constituencies and their veritable impact at the global level. Indeed, in the end, change firstly happens in sovereign states and only national governments have a say and a role at the global level. CSOs should then start their lobbying and advocacy work to effect change at the national level, using the national platforms of CSOs or existing thematic CSO networks; their national governments will then exert their influence at the global level. In turn, CSOs, enriched by the concrete engagement with development multi stakeholders, will have the legitimacy to influence the global dialogue.

CIVICUS is offering to use its positioning at the UN DCF Advisory Board and in various development fora, and to partner with others to support the convening of the various CSO constituencies engaged in aid and more largely in development cooperation architecture. Indeed, a common request by CSOs is that the aid architecture dialogue should be placed at the multilateral level, but also the global finances regulations should be placed at the multilateral level. The UN could be, and proves in some cases to be an ally, if we, all CSO actors engaged, could build a common understanding on minimum condition for quality engagement; key positioning; shared lobby plan and tactics, and proper mechanisms for information sharing.

Let’s then go back to Doha!  

In solidarity,  

Henri Valot.

For questions on the Doha Global Civil Society Forum (26 - 27 November 2008) please contact the Doha NGO group (matt.simonds@ituc-csi.org).

Ends

Subscription to e-CIVICUS: 
Do you have a friend who works for a more just world? Would you like to share this newsletter with them? Why don’t you suggest they register for a free subscription?

They can send us an e-mail to subscriptions@civicus.org or fill out the subscription form click here. Alternatively, please forward their e-mail address to subscriptions@civicus.org and we’ll contact them on your behalf. 

Comments, Suggestions and Contributions:
Please send us your contributions no later than Monday every week to editor@civicus.org. All contributions must be focused on civil society issues or have a civil society angle.