Reactions from Civil society on doc C(2016)4 “Towards an OECD strategic response to the Sustainable Development Goals” In general we are pleased to see that the OECD prepared a Action Plan as reaction to the huge challenge the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda will bring us. The document shows that the OECD has a clear understanding of the universality of the agenda, and that the organisation admits it has an important role to play. It also admits that we are shifting away from an outdated “North-South” lens for global progress. It is therefor very important to have a fundamental analyses of the root causes of poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, climate change and current refugee crisis. Only then we will be able to do the necessary transformation of our economic and financial model and production and consumption patterns. The OECD countries have a special responsibility in pushing for this systemic change. The OECD countries also have a special responsibility concerning the environmental dimension of the implementation, as the average ecological footprint and carbon emissions are still far beyond the ones from non OECD countries. Contraction and convergence schemes should be set up for achieving a fair share of all, thus environmental justice. Nonetheless, we see some points of concern or discussion in the document, we are listing below: On civil society participation: • There is hardly any recognition of the role of civil society in the process towards this action plan, nor in the consultation for concrete action planning, nor the implementation and the review. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda would never exist without the full engagement and participation of the Major Groups1 and other Stakeholders. o o 1
The UN process for SD recognises the participation of the 9 Major Groups as agreed in Agenda 21: NGOs, women, children & youth, trade unions & workers, local authorities, business & industry, indigneous peoples, farmers, science & technology
o We recommend that in the decisions and actions for implementation and review of the SDGs, there is a transparent and inclusive policy for Civil society engagement, just as it is happening in the UN processes (HLPF, UNEA) o We recommend that all OECD countries, when they develop their National Strategies for Sustainable Development, they include civil society organisations (based on the UN Major Group system) in the planning, implementing and monitoring.
On governance and policy coherence: • We see it crucial that within the OECD governance structures there is a commission that secures policy coherence for Sustainable Development. This commission could also be in charge for organising yearly Forum for SDG implementation and review. On Tax policies: • We want to stress the independence of the Finance for Development process. We don’t see it appropriate to limit the Finance for Development challenges to Means of Implementation for SDGs. Its is much more, and should be recognised like that. • It is correct that improving the tax income of developing countries is central to achieving the delivery of the SDGs. But this will require more than simply ‘adapting existing tools’ to the needs of developing countries. There is now substantial consensus around the need to develop rules (and associated tools) that match the specific needs of developing countries rather than attempting use tools that are simply not suited to the economies, and existing capacity, of poorer countries. We do not consider the OECD as being the appropriate institution for the development of such rules, as those countries are not member of the OECD. • We acknowledge that the OECD-hosted a 137-country strong Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, where the discussion was to set international tax standards, to address tax evasion and illicit financial flows globally. This forum has engaged in a lot of dialogue, but has so far not produced any binding commitments to end tax haven secrecy, nor come up with an official definition of illicit financial flows or harmful tax practices.
On Aid: •
We feel a concern that often private commercial investments are supported with public investments what can be understood as subsidising a private investment, which cannot be accepted. In general, it is necessary that the public private partnerships (PPP) are transparent, fully in line with the SDG agenda, based on sustainability impact assessment criteria and being accountable.
On Climate Finance: • We are concerned that significant contributions of climate finance are coming from ODA budgets. Thus, we wish to see the OECD monitor more concretely the relationship between ODA and climate finance, specifically assessing and reporting that as climate finance increases so too must ODA levels. • We highlight, with concern, instances where development finance just partially meets climate change objectives but which is reported as climate finance. Thus, we wish to see a better differentiation in accounting between climate-specific assistance and development assistance where climate has been mainstreamed. Additionally, the very rough granulation of the Rio Marker system and the very inconsistent way countries account for RM1 deserves attention. • The donor countries’ Technical Working Group agreed that they intend to report not only gross amounts (e.g. loans at face value) but also on a grants and grant equivalents basis, or on the basis of what countries provide from their budgets (footnote 44 of the OECD 100bn report). Any future assessments should include such figures as they provide a more honest measure of countries’ efforts. • The OECD should differentiate in their work between a) progress towards the 100bn commitment and b) progress towards UNFCCC commitments under Article 4 – as these are two separate commitments. • We welcome the reference to scaling up the impact of adaptation finance, but doing so requires a scale up specific funding for adaptation, and a commitment from donor countries to set out an adaptation financing goal through the UNFCCC negotiations. • Bearing in mind the increase in adaptation needs, the OECD should continue to scope possibilities to raise new sources of international public finance to reignite the stalled debate on leveraging the billions of public support that will be needed to adapt to a 1.5/2 degree world. Contact: leida.rijnhout@eeb.org