2005
Recommendations
A civil society
Benchmark for the 5-year Review of the Millennium Declaration
From 14-16 September 2005 the implementation of the Millennium Declaration will
be assessed in the light of developments that have taken place since its
adoption in 2000. At the time of the Declaration’s adoption it was seen to
contain the agenda for eradicating poverty in the first part of the new
Millennium.
The Millennium Declaration built on commitments adopted by the international
community in the preceding decade at a series of conferences and summits -
including those addressing the environment; human rights; gender equality and
equity; social development; the rights of children; population; sexual and
reproductive rights; the right to shelter and the elimination of racism and
discrimination. As part of these commitments the 1995 UN Social Summit
acknowledged that the eradication of poverty was achievable and adopted a
strategy to meet this objective. This strategy was based on an all embracing
concept of development which not only included a focus on poverty but also saw
full employment and social inclusion as equally important aspects of the
strategy. Civil society played an active role around the conferences of the
1990s, calling on governments to adopt time-bound commitments to promote
development through ending poverty, achieving full employment and diminishing
social exclusion. The engagement of civil society with these processes has
resulted in the establishment of coalitions of organizations across the world
that actively monitor the implementation of the commitments made by governments.
Since the 2000 Millennium Summit, critical events have taken place - from the
2001 attacks on the United States and subsequent military interventions in
Afghanistan and Iraq, to the Asian tsunami - that have shaken the international
community.
A
military concept of security is prevailing, not based on a notion of security
for all - human security in all its dimensions - but promoting security for some
through a concentration of power in the hands of a few. In addition, by avowing
a doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive military action, and going to war without
the authorization of the global community based on a decision of the UN Security
Council, the United States and its allies have undermined the very purpose for
which the UN was created.
A
unipolar world order is being created in which the dominant power promotes a
single set of values covering all aspects of life, whether economic, political,
cultural, religious or ethical. Differences are inevitably emphasized,
re-enforcing divisions and intolerance on which conflict is built.
Security cannot be assured through force. Conflict cannot be resolved with a
gun. It is only when we seriously confront the inequalities that divide us,
promote social justice and assure the human rights of all that we can hope to
achieve a stable future.
The urgency of doing so cannot be underestimated. The very real threat of
destruction to human life in its current form, and to contemporary flora and
fauna, posed by global warming has yet to be sufficiently addressed. Its impact
on people is starting to be felt, with the most marginalized communities being
affected most. While the devastating effects of the Asian tsunami may not be the
result of climate change, it certainly emphasizes the vulnerability of
communities when nature’s forces are unleashed by changes to the natural world
in which we live. Without doubt, we all share responsibility for ensuring that
the threats to life and the sustainability of our planet are overcome, not least
by adopting responsible lifestyles. However governments, and those in positions
of power, have a particular responsibility to ensure that the practices promoted
and allowed by government are consistent with the continued sustainability of
our environment.
The colossal destruction of the Indian Ocean earthquake and resulting tsunami,
together with the consequences that followed, not only increased awareness of
international responsibility but also highlighted the different realities of
security for people living in different contexts. This is in contrast to the
consequences of other crises, such as that in Darfur, that have an equal impact
on people directly affected. And equally to the silent, but ongoing deaths of
millions of people that could be prevented. At least the tsunami has sharpened
the public eye for the complexity and the ethical intolerability of inequality
between the very rich and the very poor.
These events emphasize the interconnected nature of the world in which we live
where the consequences of decisions, actions, and events occurring in one part
of the world increasingly impact on people and communities globally. They also
graphically illustrate the consequences of the gross inequalities that exist
today, not only in the distribution of wealth and income, but also in access to
decision makers and power, and to the resources that sustain life itself. These
inequalities, which directly contribute to and sustain poverty, are central to
the creation and maintenance of instability.
The review of the Millennium Declaration, and the positions taken by governments
in preparing the review, will be seen in the light of these events.
In September 2005, and during the preparations for the review in the preceding
months, the international community has a chance to address the crucial
challenges of our time and put in place the ambitious strategy that is needed to
secure the future of the world for generations to come. Recognition of all human
rights must be a guiding principle. Success requires the involvement of all
stakeholders, both in the preparations for the High-level Event in September
2005 and around the event itself.
People throughout the world know what is at stake. Those who lived through the
Asian tsunami understand the fragility of life. Refugees in Darfur understand
the consequences of insecurity. Communities decimated by HIV/AIDS struggle to
survive. Farmers who lose the livelihood on which they and their families depend
know what it means to be absolutely destitute. For these, and the millions of
people like them, the inequalities of our world have real consequences.
It is on the basis of this kind of experience that civil society organizations
call on the leaders of the international community to take bold and decisive
action when they meet in New York in September. In particular we urge world
leaders to make the following commitments:
Benchmark 1:
From poverty eradication towards diminishing inequality
The world has the means to eradicate poverty. It can and must be done. Hunger,
malnutrition and being condemned to a life in poverty are an affront to humanity
and a denial of basic human rights. We therefore have an obligation to eradicate
poverty and must take all possible actions to ensure that this objective is
achieved. What is lacking is the political will to make it happen. The
international community must not only re-affirm its commitment to eradicating
poverty worldwide in the shortest time possible, but each government must also
recognize its individual and collective obligation to put in place effective
strategies for eradicating poverty.
Poverty is not a statistic and is not defined by USD 1, or even USD 2 a day.
There is no benefit in singling out the very poor from the almost very poor or
the poor among the rich in developing countries from the poor among the rich in
developed countries. All must be addressed. Poverty is based on radically
unequal distribution of income, but also in similarly unequal distribution of
assets, unequal access to opportunities for work and employment, social services
and benefits, and in the unequal distribution of political power, access to
information and political participation. This is largely the result of
deep-seated and persistent imbalances in the current workings of the global
economy which according to the World Commission on the Social Dimension of
Globalization is ethically
unacceptable and politically unsustainable.
Women are most often among those who suffer these inequalities.
Inequality and social injustice are major sources of national and international
instability and conflict. Those struggling to survive seek the means to live,
while those who have more than enough protect what they have and all too often
seek to accumulate more. An adequate response to poverty will only be found in
comprehensive and redistributive initiatives which address all aspects of
inequality, where particular attention is given to the gender dimension. A
concerted emphasis on social development constitutes a major contribution to the
eradication of poverty, with emphasis on the provision of basic health, basic
education, water and sanitation. Achieving the MDGs within the agreed time lines
is only the most urgent part of what is necessary to meet this requirement.
Security and stability can only be achieved when social justice is assured, when
everyone’s rights to the means of life - water, health, food, shelter, etc - are
respected, and when everyone has access to the means to a livelihood for
themselves, their families and their communities.
Governments should commit themselves to eradicate poverty and to achieving
social justice.
This benchmark requires:
·
a
re-affirmation of the conviction that poverty can be eradicated, as they did 10
years ago in Copenhagen;
·
a
commitment to eradicate poverty in each and every country by 2025, where poverty
is defined within each country on the basis of different national realities;
·
a
commitment that national strategies for eradicating poverty be defined within
each country by 2007, drawn up through a transparent and consultative process,
in which the poor are actively engaged;
·
the implementation of policies dedicated to reducing inequalities, including
assuring universal affordable access to quality core public social services,
redistributive tax policies, respect for the core labour standards;
·
a
halt to policies of privatization and “liberalization” which lead to the
concentration of public resources in fewer and often non-national hands;
·
strengthening of the reporting and review requirements of the Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to ensure more frequent and thorough
reviews of states’ fulfilment of human rights obligations to their citizens;
·
a
commitment to report regularly to the UN ECOSOC on progress in implementing
these strategies. The first such reports to be made no later than 2007.
Benchmark 2:
Better strategies for development: the role of the International Financial
Institutions (IFIs)
A
country’s development strategies should be informed by the experiences of its
people. Over the past decades extensive macroeconomic conditions have been
attached to the provision of development aid and loans as well as for the
cancellation of debt with disastrous consequences for social development.
Policies of structural adjustment, liberalization and privatization have
increased inequalities, not diminished them, impacting most severely on
communities and families with least access to decent work and the means to a
sustainable livelihood. For the majority of the people living in poverty, of
which a disproportionate number are women and children, agriculture and
fisheries provide the only viable livelihood for themselves and their families.
Economic reforms imposed on developing countries have promoted export-oriented
production, particularly of primary products for which world prices have
dramatically declined, and an increased control over agriculture and fisheries
by corporate interests. The result has been increased impoverishment for large
sections of developing country societies for whom there are no alternative
options.
The notion that measures to increase trade will lead to the eradication of
poverty has not worked, as can be seen from various statistical analysis
covering the 20 years since the imposition of trade liberalization policies and
export-led growth models of economic development. While Poverty Reduction
Strategy Papers (PRSP) of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World
Bank were supposedly introduced to address these negative effects, they have not
done so.
In theory their aim to ensure an adequate poverty focus in a country’s
development strategies and the allocation of development aid with an increased
sense of ownership on the part of the recipient country is in line with the
spirit of MDG 8 and its “global partnership for development”. Experience shows
however that this remains far from reality with numerous macroeconomic
conditions still being attached to aid. World Bank loans support specific
programmes of reform which include actions (conditionalities) considered
critical by the World Bank and IMF to the success of the programme. Loan
negotiations are still conducted behind closed doors within Ministries of
Finance and Central Banks. The failed macroeconomic policies of the past
continue to be promoted. Not surprisingly, the “ownership” of national
development strategies has not lived up to its promises.
The withdrawal of the state and the privatization of service provision - of
health care, water, education - increasingly deny access to those unable to pay
for what constitutes a basic human right. Globalization and liberalization of
trade, the corporatization of agriculture and other forms of production should
not be the guiding frameworks for agriculture. Instead, sustainable local
livelihoods, food sovereignty, environment regeneration and social concerns
should be the guiding principles.
Governments should promote development strategies based on the needs and
experience of people.
This benchmark requires:
·
the strengthening of national policy making, based on nationally defined needs
and priorities identified through participatory processes. These should be
defined in a rights based framework and allow the self-defined interests and
objectives of street sellers, industrial workers, fishers, and field-workers to
be clearly reflected in national development strategies;
·
transparency in the process for establishing national development strategies
that supports the effective participation of national stakeholders in the
formulation of national policy;
·
the establishment of PRSPs that respect real ownership through nationally
defined decision making, with the effective participation of civil society, and
accountability to national parliaments;
·
agrarian and aquarian reforms to be carried out to ensure farmers, fisherfolk
and other rural communities have access, control, ownership and management of
productive resources. A special focus needs to be given to women ensuring the
maintenance of their control over, and access to resources such as seeds.
Benchmark 3:
Achieving gender equality and equity
Poverty reduction and the empowerment of women are interconnected in many ways.
Women constitute the majority of the world’s poor and often carry the social and
economic burden of looking after the most vulnerable members of the community,
such as children, the elderly and the sick. Women and girls living in poverty
are also at greater risk of becoming victims of gender based violence, are more
likely to be infected with HIV/AIDS, to die at child-birth and to be sold into
slavery. Economic reforms that dismantle social obligations of the state and
privatise public goods, impact disproportionately on women and deepen gender
inequality as women are pressed into filling the gap. At the same time women
constitute crucial active agents in any strategy to eradicate poverty. Denying
full and free access of women to the economic sector and labour market is not
only a denial of their basic human rights but is also detrimental to a country’s
economic development. Poverty cannot be tackled successfully without ensuring
equality of access to the means of livelihood between women and men, and equity
of opportunity. While gender equality and equity are fundamental objectives in
themselves, they are also an essential pre-condition for eradicating poverty.
The MDG targets
relating to women’s empowerment (MDG 3 and MDG 5) must be achieved, but are
insufficient alone. To achieve true gender equity, the concept must be
understood in a comprehensive way and cannot just be limited to the indicators
included in the MDGs.
The
political declaration adopted by governments at the 10 year review of the
Beijing Women’s Conference in March 2005, “emphasize(d) that the full and
effective implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action is
essential to achieving the internationally agreed development goals, […] and
stress the need to ensure the integration of a gender perspective in the
high-level plenary meeting on the review of the Millennium Declaration.”
Governments should
fully recognize the centrality of gender equality and equity for any development
strategy to be successful.
This benchmark requires:
·
increased emphasis to be given to achieving gender equality in implementing
national, regional and international development strategies, through
establishing meaningful targets and indicators to measure its progress;
·
increasing primary school completion rate and secondary school access for girls;
ensuring secure tenure of property, land and inheritance rights for women;
ensuring universal access to sexual and reproductive health services, and
promoting and protecting the full enjoyment by women of all human rights;
promoting equal access to sustainable employment and adequate labor protections;
promoting gender balance in government decision making; and expanding efforts to
combat violence against women and girls.
·
the identification of explicit measures for achieving gender equality in the
context of MDG Goal 8, particularly to ensure that gender equality is promoted
within PRSPs and the new aid architecture;
·
a
compact between donors and their partners to allocate 10% of resources
specifically dedicated to promoting gender equality and in support of specific
activities to promote women’s empowerment;
·
adoption of an optional protocol to make the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1978) more effective.
Benchmark 4:
Taking urgent action in the face of climate change
The complex ecological balance of our planet, which provides the basis for life
itself, is facing unprecedented threats, largely as a consequence of development
strategies pursued by humankind. Our very survival may depend on immediate
radical action being taken to combat the unsustainable pressures that we have
created. We can already see increasing threats to communities around the world.
Those most effected by the immediate consequences of ecological degradation and
environmental change are those already most vulnerable - particularly
marginalized communities and people living in poverty.
While many aspects of the world’s ecological balance needs to be addressed,
Global warming and changes to the global climate represent a significant threat.
Increased temperatures have already accelerated glacial melting in the Arctic
and recent scientific studies predict it will diminish by 50% by the end of the
century. Predictions estimate that by 2050 more than a million distinct life
forms will have been lost.
While actions are being taken these have been slow and insufficient,
particularly given the potential calamitous consequences that may occur. The
reluctance of some nations, particularly those disproportionately responsible
for global warming emission, to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol must not prevent
urgent action being taken. With the Kyoto Protocol entering into force in
February 2005, implementation of emission reduction and funding commitments must
proceed urgently. Furthermore, given recent indicators on the speed and depth of
global warming new more stringent reductions of greenhouse gases must be
established quickly.
Development patterns pursued by humankind over the past three centuries, and in
particular during the past few decades, are the principal source of green house
emissions responsible for climate change. Wealthy nations, and the lifestyles of
their populations, have generated most of these emissions. The threat that
climate change poses to all humanity requires a common response, with radical
and immediate actions being taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to
address its consequences. The primary responsibility for doing so must be borne
by those who have benefited most from the causes.
As part of the need
for urgent and radical action to be taken, future strategies for energy
generation must give priority to renewable safe and non polluting sources.
Given the life threatening nature of this threat, the interests of the global
community must not be held hostage by those few countries that do not join the
common effort.
Governments should take urgent and bold action to address climate change and the
environmental degradation of our planet.
This benchmark requires:
·
explicit recognition of the serious and immediate threat that climate change
poses;
·
immediate implementation of measures for reducing emissions included in the
Kyoto Protocol;
·
an urgent start in negotiations for the immediate revision of existing
commitments and to agree on long-term action in an equitable global framework
that will prevent the most dangerous impacts of climate change;
·
the provision of the necessary additional financial resources by a substantial
increase of the funding level of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the
introduction of emission related user charges for international airspace and the
oceans, and the introduction of an international aviation fuel tax aimed at
doing justice to the climate damage caused by flight traffic and, at the same
time, overcoming the indirect subsidy to the aviation industry via the previous
zero tax rate on aviation fuel;
·
measures to be established to prepare the most vulnerable communities for those
impacts that can no longer be avoided - as well as measures to protect the
world’s flora and fauna;
·
a
commitment to the principal of common but differentiated responsibility, as
agreed in the Rio Declaration, where people and countries bear the costs of
addressing climate change in proportion to their contribution to the causing
factors;
·
a
commitment to increasing use of renewable forms of energy generation.
Benchmark 5:
Stopping militarization and the proliferation of weapons
The much hoped for “peace dividend” from the end of the cold war has failed to
materialise. New forms of militarization have emerged as governments, opposition
movements and other groups seek to impose their will through the force of arms.
Whatever the justification given, in almost all circumstances military
intervention has not brought the stability sought. On the contrary the result is
less stability, as is seen in Iraq. In addition the provision of humanitarian
aid, that should be available on a non discriminatory basis for people directly
affected by disasters and conflict, is increasingly being associated with
military objectives through the use of military personnel in its distribution.
The associated global trade in arms has an enormous human impact, fuelling and
sustaining conflicts, promoting insecurity and undermining development across
some of the poorest regions of the world. At least every minute a person is
killed somewhere in the world due to armed violence. In a number of countries
precious natural resources such as diamonds and copper are being exploited in
exchange for weapons used to commit terrible atrocities. Women and children are
particularly vulnerable; women and girls are raped at gun point; and an
estimated 300,000 children have become soldiers in conflicts around the world.
The proliferation of the arms trade is a cruel example of the incoherence in
international donor policy.
The states that profit most from this trade are the five permanent members of
the UN Security Council, which together make up around 80% of all reported
exports of conventional arms. Between 1998 and 2001 the United States, United
Kingdom and France earned more from the arms trade than they contributed to
international aid. Furthermore the relaxation of controls on the sales of arms
following the 11 September is leading to a new proliferation of weapons. Arms
continue to be channelled to countries with poor human rights records or
developing countries which spend more on defence than on basic social services,
thus diverting resources from these areas such as health and education.
The international community must demonstrate coherence with its own commitments
to promote peace and stability in the world.
Governments should commit to a real and drastic reduction in military spending,
and to put in place a stringent, legally binding control on the sale of arms.
This benchmark requires:
·
a
binding commitment to at least halve military spending in each and every country
by the year 2015 and use the resulting “peace dividend” for social and
environmental purposes;
·
a
binding commitment to promote general disarmament and the ban of all nuclear
arms and of all weapons of mass destruction;
·
the adoption of the global Arms Trade Treaty which can provide some safeguards
in what is, at present, an unregulated market. The Treaty would ensure that all
governments control arms according to the same international standards;
·
a
commitment for the removal of the millions of illegal and surplus arms which are
already in circulation;
·
a
commitment to respect the neutrality and impartiality of humanitarian aid, both
towards its distribution and the humanitarian organizations entrusted with this
task.
Benchmark 6:
Financing of development
Generating the
financial resources necessary to achieve sustainable development where basic
needs of all are met and everyone has the opportunity to lead fulfilling lives
is a responsibility for all governments and people everywhere. The greatest
responsibility falls on wealthier nations, corporations and individuals. As
clearly identified in the report of the Millennium Project, current levels of
finance for development are insufficient to meet even the minimum targets set by
the MDGs. In addition, many forms of finance that are supposedly provided for
development are in reality working against the goals that they are supposed to
promote. While recognising the crucial importance of trade and investment in
generating resources necessary for ensuring sustainable forms of development,
these will remain insufficient for developing countries, particularly those with
low incomes.
Generating
international development financing
For the international
community to meet its commitments and obligations to eradicate poverty there
needs to be a substantial increase in the availability of finance for
development. This can only be achieved by ensuring real increases in transfers
of finance from the rich to the poor. In particular:
Ø
Increasing aid
For many low income countries aid is the most important source of finance for
development. For these countries it is also the only real source of investment
for the basic social infrastructure that is vital for assuring the welfare and
well being of its people and for effectively addressing poverty. Aid will only
be effective when it is sustainable and predictable, contributing to the
development strategies defined by a nation itself. It needs to be free from ties
imposed by donors, which not only distort its value but also prejudices a
nation’s commitment to development policies imposed from outside.
Governments should ensure that levels of aid are increased substantially so that
adopted development strategies can be implemented.
In particular this requires:
·
a
commitment for an immediate doubling in the provision of ODA by 2006 in order to
finance the MDGs;
·
a
commitment by every donor government to provide at least 0.7% of GNI, by 2015 at
the latest;
·
each donor government that has not yet reached the UN target to present plans to
the September summit on how they will reach the target.
Ø
Cancelling debt
While there is clear recognition that for many developing countries their debt
servicing obligations undermines development, insufficient action has been taken
to ensure that levels of debt are sustainable.
Governments to adopt measures that will once and for all remove unsustainable
levels of debt to all low and middle income developing countries. Debt
sustainability has to be measured, among others, against the needs of indebted
countries to achieve the MDGs.
In particular this requires:
·
the complete cancellation of debts where not to do so will undermine the
country’s ability to achieve the MDGs;
·
further substantial debt cancellation for low and middle income developing
countries beyond the HIPC initiative;
·
the immediate setting up of a fair and transparent arbitration procedure to
address unsustainable debt burdens, which gives the right of all stakeholders to
be heard, the protection of debtors basic needs, and the institution of an
automatic stay of debt servicing. This procedure must based on a neutral
decision making body independent of the IFIs, WTO and other similar
institutions;
·
ensuring that funding of debt cancellation is additional to donor’s targets to
achieve its commitment to provide 0.7% GNI;
·
the cancellation of debt to be done free from economic policy conditions, such
as on privatization and liberalization.
Ø
Instituting international taxes
The need for new forms of international finance for development has been
increasingly recognised. Commitments now need to be made to bring these into
reality. Many proposals have been made that are both justified and feasible. In
most instances the implementation of the proposed taxes would not only provide
additional resources for development, but also play a constructive role in
regulating actions that cause instability in global economic systems or impact
negatively on the environment. These international taxes should address the use
of global environmental commons, short-term financial and foreign exchange
transactions, and on trade of items that have negative international impact -
such as on global ecological balances, the promotion of conflict, etc.
Governments should establish mechanisms for international taxation that will not
only provide additional financial resources for development but control
unsustainable and damaging processes.
In particular this requires:
·
a
commitment to establish international taxes based on one or more of the current
proposals, in particular a Currency Transaction Tax (CTT) and an international
aviation fuel tax;
·
a
commitment to develop systems for sharing information on trans-border financial
transfers, and increase the global coordination of taxes so as to increase tax
revenues, as well as to control corruption;
·
a
commitment to take measures that will lead to the immediate abolition of all tax
havens.
Generating domestic finance for development
All governments have an obligation to generate financial resources from within
their countries that can help finance development strategies. They also have an
obligation to use financial resources efficiently and in the most effective way
possible, and to account for their use in a transparent and accessible way to
their own people. Mobilization of domestic finance is an important means to
address national inequalities, particularly through progressive taxation and the
taxation of corporations.
Governments should establish equitable systems of taxation in each and every
country.
In particular:
·
support for the strengthening of domestic progressive taxation systems;
·
commitments to establish transparency in national budgets and accounts,
including the integration of gender budgeting, so as to increase accountability
of governments to local citizens in using resources;
·
an international convention to facilitate the recovery and repatriation of funds
illegally appropriated from national treasuries of developing countries;
·
a
multilateral agreement on an effective sharing of information on taxation
between countries, to stem tax evasion.
Benchmark 7:
Making trade fair
It is repeatedly emphasised that trade has substantially more potential to
finance development than aid ever can. This can only be the case when
international rules of trade make effective provision for the rights and needs
of developing countries and their producers. At present trade is the vehicle for
the indiscriminate liberalization of developing country economies and the
imposition of harmful conditions, instead of supporting sustainable development,
poverty eradication and gender equity. Trade policies need to be re-oriented to
promote fair trade and to foster sustainable development. Trade rules and
policies must ensure the right of developing countries to pursue their own
development agendas, putting their people’s interests first. This includes
enabling measures to protect public services from enforced liberalization and
privatization, to secure the right to food and affordable access to essential
drugs, and to strengthen corporate accountability. Farmers’ knowledge and
indigenous technologies should be given due recognition and research should be
re-oriented to include this.
For many developing countries the export of one or two commodities remains the
source for most of their export earnings. The decline of commodity prices has
eroded their income by up to 50%, thus aggravating their dependence on aid and
increasing the unsustainability of their debt.
Governments should ensure that the global trade system is fair and just.
This benchmark requires:
·
an end to conditions imposed by the International Financial Institutions and
other donors on aid and debt cancellation that determine trade policies of
developing countries;
·
effective and transparent special treatment for developing countries within the
global trading system;
·
the abolition of all forms of subsidy by rich countries that damage developing
countries’ agricultural production and markets;
·
increased accountability and transparency of governments and international
organizations to their grassroots constituencies in the formulation of
international trade rules and national trade policies, while ensuring
consistency of trade policies with respect for workers’ rights, and human rights
more broadly;
·
effective and transparent international mechanisms to support the prices of
commodities, and to compensate developing countries for price fluctuations.
Benchmark 8:
Fighting HIV/AIDS and other pandemic diseases
Death and incapacity resulting from disease is a continuing and often
preventable human catastrophe which dwarfs almost all others. It is also a
serious constraint on development. It strikes poor and marginal communities
disproportionately, particularly those who have inadequate access to health
care. HIV/AIDS poses a particular threat. The MDG relating to HIV/AIDS is
scandalously modest and inadequate in its recognition of the potential for
life-extending access to treatment. At the 2001 UN General Assembly on HIV/AIDS
member states expressed their concern that the global HIV/AIDS epidemic
constituted a global emergency. Since then the situation has deteriorated. At
the International AIDS Conference in 2004 world leaders confirmed that over 38
million people in the world were living with AIDS and that the epidemic was
spreading in every region.
HIV/AIDS affects poorest countries disproportionately. The most affected region
is Sub-Saharan Africa where almost 40% of all deaths are from the disease. The
enormous impact on HIV/AIDS on the human capital of these states stands as a
grave threat to development. Through its effect on those directly affected as
well as on their children, relatives and communities it undermines productive
capacity both in the present and future. Other treatable pandemic diseases, such
as malaria and tuberculosis, compound the threat to the life and livelihoods of
millions of people in developing countries.
Treatment of the infected is available and possible, but while millions need it
only a few hundred thousand have access. Providing access to treatment has been
not only been held back by social and cultural attitudes, the stigma associated
with disease, and by the reluctance of governments to take energetic leadership
but also by deference to the privileges and protections accorded to
pharmaceutical corporations. Only sustained and widespread civil society
campaigning and demonstration projects have led some governments, like that of
Brazil, to provide free access to the affected, and to a grudging recognition by
the WTO of the claims to the right to health. The vast majority of those needing
treatment still wait for the ramping up of services and funds which would stop
thousands dying each week.
At the International Conference in Bangkok in 2004 world leaders admitted that
they had not done enough to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS or to mitigate its
effects. A renewed commitment backed by political will is therefore necessary to
combat this disease, which stands as a serious obstacle to global development,
and to reduce its impact. All interventions must be gender sensitive
since figures show that 60% of adults affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa are women -
making women’s empowerment a critical issue in the fight against HIV/AIDS. In
addition, a special emphasis should be given to policies and interventions that
address children affected by HIV/AIDS, including those orphaned through the
disease. A “Free by 5” campaign, to assure equitable access to all, free of user
fees, has been initiated in Africa and is expanding around the world.
Governments should recognize the critical fight against the pandemics
devastating countless communities and ensure adequate priority is given to
address them.
This benchmark requires:
·
a
radical increase in financial support for the 3 by 5 Initiative
[1]
of the World Health Organization, followed by the inauguration of a 6 (million)
by 7 (2007) sequel in extending treatment. In addition sustained and predictable
funding for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria must be
assured;
·
the inauguration of a global emergency service response and publicly
administered supply facility for the provision of accessible and freely
available anti-retroviral treatment - and vaccination should an effective
vaccine be developed;
·
a
re-commitment to the long-established vision of “Health for All” combined with
substantially increased funding for rebuilding and extending health systems in
all developing countries;
·
a
moratorium on any further extension of the terms of patent protection for
pharmaceuticals and on further TRIPS clauses in bilateral and regional trade
agreements. No TRIPS “plus”;
·
the inauguration, using emergency security provisions, of a publicly-owned
support for a world-wide “Free by 5” initiative to ensure free,
non-discriminatory access to treatment.
Benchmark 9:
Promoting corporate accountability
Transnational Corporations (TNCs) are the main protagonists and beneficiaries of
globalization but they are not held globally accountable. TNCs are continuously
entangled in the violation of social, environmental and human rights standards.
Corporations and governments have responded to the widely recognized negative
impacts of corporate activity through the development of hundreds of sectoral
and company codes of conduct and voluntary “partnership” initiatives. The Global
Compact initiated by UN Secretary General is the best example of a political
strategy aimed predominantly at the voluntary self-regulation of industry. With
the aid of best practice examples, the companies involved are expected to
demonstrate their sense of responsibility towards society. However industry’s
influence and the impacts of transnational corporate activities reach way beyond
these “soft” policy fields. Behind the curtain of partnership initiatives and
dialogue processes, many corporations and business associations continue to
ruthlessly pursue their own specific interests in the “hard” areas of politics.
Their activities seriously affect the human security of people all over the
world. There is a need, therefore, for legally binding international instruments
that will ensure that the activities of TNCs are consistent with globally agreed
conventions and standards.
At the Johannesburg Summit 2002, governments clearly committed themselves to
“actively promote corporate responsibility and accountability, based on Rio
Principles, including through the full development and effective implementation
of intergovernmental agreements and measures”.
In 2003, the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
approved the “Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and
Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights”.
These Norms represent a landmark step providing a succinct, but comprehensive
restatement of the international legal principles applicable to business with
regard to human rights, humanitarian law, international labour law,
environmental law, consumer law and anti-corruption law.
Governments should commit to making transnational corporations and other
business enterprises accountable to the global community and to future
generations.
This benchmark requires:
·
a
commitment to support the “Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational
Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights” and to
take concrete steps towards their full implementation;
·
an international binding instrument to increase the transparency of financial
flows between TNCs, particularly in the extractive industry, and governments, as
proposed by the international campaign “Publish What You Pay”.
Benchmark 10:
Democratizing international governance
A
system of open, transparent and accessible governance in which human rights and
the rule of law are respected is critically necessary for ensuring equitable
global development. Ensuring that human rights are observed and the rule of law
is enforced is primarily the responsibility of national legal authorities within
a nationally established legal framework that is consistent with international
agreements and obligations, not least those that define internationally agreed
human rights. However the application of national laws is not always sufficient
for justice to be carried out and there is a growing need for the international
legal framework to be strengthened so that governments, corporations and
individuals can be held accountable for acts that contravene human rights and
other international agreements.
The legitimacy of our system of international governance is at stake. Global
power carries responsibility and accountability of those that assume it -
whether they are governments, corporations or even individuals - must extend to
the international community as a whole. However the effective domination of our
multilateral institutions by a minority of governments who use their position to
promote their own specific interests above all others is no longer acceptable,
particularly when those very governments themselves fail to adhere to the will
of the international majority. A reform of our international system of
governance is long overdue. It needs to be re-built so as to adhere to
principles of justice and democracy. The UN remains the most legitimate and
representative institution for assuring an effective system of international
governance, yet the management of the global approaches to economic, monetary
and trade policies effectively lie outside the UN within the IFIs and the WTO.
This disconnection from the UN has led to structural imbalances in the global
governance system that favours economic paradigms over human development,
undermining political priorities defined in the UN framework. This needs to
change so that the UN regains global political centrality based on new
mechanisms ensuring effective democratic, transparent and accountable
decision-making. The World Bank, IMF and WTO must be brought fully within the UN
system, with their roles being redefined. Their governing structures must also
be reformed to reflect changes in the global economy.
Governments should commit themselves to a radical reform of the multilateral
system of governance and the strengthening and democratization of the UN.
This benchmark requires:
·
the re-establishment of a reformed UN Economic and Social Council in which
membership is based on the principles of representation, accountability and
common responsibility. The new Economic and Social Council should be the
ultimate legal global authority for economic and social affairs, whose decisions
are enforceable;
·
a
transformation of the membership of the Security Council so that the same
principles of representation, accountability and common responsibility apply;
·
a
reform of the World Bank, IMF and other International Financial Institutions,
together with the WTO to adhere to these principles, but with their ultimate
accountability being to the reformed Economic and Social Council. Their roles
should be redefined such that the World Bank is a development bank within the UN
system, the IMF’s mandate focuses on safeguarding global financial stability,
and the WTO restricted to regulating international trade;
·
the establishment of regular public parliamentary reviews of the policies and
actions of multilateral economic institutions, and the role and approach
undertaken by the national government concerned, with participation from civil
society;
·
a
strengthening of the legal institutions - International Court of Justice and
International Criminal Court - responsible for implementing the international
rule of law.
Benchmark 11:
Involving civil society
The participation of
stakeholders lies at the centre of successful development strategies. The
concept of ownership that is promoted so vigorously in the Millennium
Declaration, in PRSPs and in development assistance strategies requires the
involvement of actors at all levels. National processes for participation should
form the basis for engaging civil society in the identification, formulation and
implementation of strategies that address the countries specific needs and
national context. Governments need to facilitate the engagement of civil society
that is open, transparent and inclusive. Making local government an effective
democratic institution is vital for communities in order to safeguard their
material and political interests, where key resources, such as water, can be
safeguarded and used in a sustainable way. Equally, the participation of civil
society also needs to be facilitated at regional and global levels.
The process of the review of the Millennium Declaration should reflect the
crucial role of an interaction of governments with civil society - and give
ample space for civil society organizations to meaningfully engage with the
review process. Ultimately, if the Millennium Declaration - and the MDGs - is to
have real political significance, the ownership and support of civil society
will be a crucial factor in its promotion. While civil society is ready to
engage, governments negotiating the review of the Millennium Declaration must
listen and take on board the concerns of its citizens. The UN should ensure
space for this interaction to be meaningful and productive in a true spirit of
common goals promoted in an open, transparent and accountable manner.
Governments should ensure that engagement with civil society in the process of
decision making - nationally, regionally and at the international level - is
effectively facilitated.
This benchmark requires:
·
a
commitment to ensuring that national processes of engagement are transparent,
open, accessible and consistent;
·
the establishment and strengthening of participatory mechanisms for regional
organizations;
·
the establishment of mechanisms at the level of the UN and other international
organizations that give transparency to the processes of debate and decisions,
access to agendas, papers and reports, as well as to meetings themselves -
including those of the General Assembly;
·
to provide facilities to work and engage within the premises of the UN;
·
the implementation of the proposal of an expanded trust fund to support civil
society participation in UN processes, whether they take place at regional level
or at the UN headquarters;
·
a
meaningful and effective engagement with civil society organizations in the
preparations of the September Summit, and at the Summit itself which recognises
the legitimacy and crucial role of civil society in assuring effective,
acceptable strategies and policies, as well as their implementation.
Conclusion:
No more broken promises, no more excuses
The time has come for
bold and decisive action. Anything less is irresponsible. We recognise that at
September Summit, and in the preceding preparations, our leaders will face
difficult decisions. All too often short term political interests take precedent
over longer term needs. Agreements made by the international community are full
of compromise. Yet the threats and challenges to our common heritage are more
urgent than ever before. The resources and technology exist. The world’s heads
of State and Government must show a common political will to succeed, not only
in collectively committing to a bold and radical agenda, but in pursuing its
implementation. The failure of a few to meet this challenge, pursing instead
their individual short term interests, could condemn us all. We cannot afford to
fail.
Notes:
“Treat 3 million by 2005” (3 by 5) is the global initiative of the World Health
Organization and UNAIDS adopted in 2003 to provide antiretroviral therapy to 3
million people with HIV/AIDS in developing countries by the end of 2005.
Plan of
Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, para. 49.
Johannesburg, September 2002.
UN
Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, resolution
2003/16.
|
