Discussion on Questions related to the Third session of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing (ICESDF), 12 March 2014

This is not an official submission, but more of discussion paper based on the questions posed to stakeholders by the committee before its third sesssion and the multistakeholder dialogue.

1. Does the effectiveness and sustainability of a sustainable development financing strategy depend on systemic reforms of the international financial architecture? If so, which reforms are needed?

Sustainable development finance needs to address inequalities both between and inside countries. It must also secure global public goods, such as clean air and water, as well as climate change mitigation, adaption, and protecting biodiversity.

Currently, the financial sector's incentive structures favor short-termism, excessive and often societally harmful speculation, and a disregard for the long-term viability of the real economy and our natural surroundings. The underpricing of environmental assets, risks and externalities has enabled the GDP to grow, but it has also led to us as humanity using up the natural base of our wellbeing. The increasing financialisation of natural goods that has mobilised significant amounts of capital to commodities sectors has thus far only accelerated unsustainable practices.

Several things must change:

  • Negative externalities must be priced according to their real-life impacts and the most unsustainable practices must be outright banned. Positive externalities must be given more weight when valuing returns.
  • Incentive structures must consider the long-term impacts of investment decisions.
  • Rules must be changed so that alongside a narrow "fiduciary duty" towards shareholders, corporations' operations are assessed in light of their broader impacts.
  • Countries must be given the right to regulate capital flows when there is a clear social or environmental benefit to doing so, and to change unsustainable laws without fear of multi-billion dollar dispute settlements.
  • International financial institutions have in many places been the drivers of the present unsustainable financial practices and the ideology behind them: they must now be at the forefront of sustainable finance. The mandate of IFIs and national DFIs should be revised so as to put sustainability first - even if this means foregoing short-term financial returns. 

<more>

Side Event Report: Risks and opportunities of different scenarios for integrating climate change into post-2015

Side Event Report: Risks and opportunities of different scenarios for integrating climate change into post-2015
 
Hosted by: CAFOD, CAN International, Beyond2015, UN Millennium Campaign
9 January, 2014

 
French Development Minister—lead UNFCCC negotiator, Pascal Canfin
·      Top priority of the French now because hosting COP21 in Paris in 2015

·      Want to set a positive mood for success in Paris on climate

·      Don’t want to export all the problems and obstacles that are still unsolved in the COP process to the SDG discussion—otherwise counterproductive

·      Discussing SDGs and a new development pattern without discussing climate change is nonsense a

·      At the beginning of the century for the World Bank climate change wasn’t an issue—the issue was how to fight poverty and climate change was out of the scope.  Now they launched a report and 4 degree warming – main threats on food security and other issues is climate change

·      2 dangers in the process-the first is to duplicate and export the UNFCCC problems

·      second danger is to forget about climate in the SDGs

·      Do we want an SDG on climate? French view—the only agreement that we have on climate so far is to keep global warming under 2 degree warming.  If we are able to take this on board and not to open how to make this happen, why not have an objective on climate?

·      If we have a proper objective on climate, which is 2 degree target, there will be targets and indicators on which there is no agreement.  If we go down this line, we are going to export the issues of the UNFCCC

·      The best option: the climate objective of 2 degree in the broad vision of the whole purpose of the SDG process and to see taking this into account what odes it mean to have a world of below 2 degrees warming in terms of transportation, agriculture, urbanization, etc—using the SDG process that gives substance to things outside of the COP process.  Using the complementarity of the process more than the overlapping areas

·      SDG process objective by objective would focus on how to implement the 2 degree objective in terms of cities, agriculture, transportation, energy etc

 
Ronald Jumeau, Climate change Amb to Seychelles

·      Cannot be a successful post-2015 agenda and set of SDGs without successfully tackling climate change

·      A weak climate agreement in 2015 will cripple if not doom attempts to have a truly effective post-2015 framework

·      The SDGs and agenda won’t mean a thing if the SIDS aren’t even around to benefit from them or achieve them

·      There cannot be sustainable development without survival and there can’t be survival without tackling climate change

·      How do we do this without being accused of encroaching on the UNFCCC negotiations?

·      It’s understandable for the people in the post-2015 process to be wary of how climate change can be included in the agenda because of the UNFCCC political issues

·      AOSIS feels that they can’t place all the hopes in the formal negotiations as of now—informal alliance with LDCs on this.  So the climate agreement in 2015 won’t be ambitious enough so there has to be some thinking outside the silos

·      Climate change conference in Durban – approached negotiating partners outside of the formal negotiations to see what countries can do before 2020 to increase mitigation ambition and take urgent and effective action outside of the negotiations themselves? To increase what countries are already doing?

·      No formal obligation to adopt negotiation pledges there already exists a range of policies and technologies that countries are using cost-effectively to reduce emissions – many actions have benefits for adaptation, reducing pollution, fiscal stability and competitiveness etc.  If we can scale up these actions it can help increase ambition in the negotiations

·      Can’t you translate these actions into the formal agreements?

·      Energy—large emissions from fossil fuels –every country in the world seems to have embarked on or a plan/strategy for renewable energy as part of national and collective actions to tackle climate change.

·      Found a willingness with negotiating partners to see how countries can help each other enhance and replicate what countries are already doing or willing to do in transportation, energy, buildings etc

·      We are not waiting for a climate agreement to take action, we are acting now but we need help doing it (MOI). So if we tackle these MOI issues now, it will help the negotiations later. 

·      Would bring in civil society/academia/private and public sector—opens a door for governors and mayors

·      Danger of bringing in the attitudes from the other negotiations into the post-2015 process, but even major emitters which are reluctant to make or increase commitments under the formal process, even they wanted to talk about this.

·      Warsaw decided to accelerate this initiative by launching a technical process on how this could be done. In the UNFCCC process—they are looking at it from a sustainable development angle.

·      Not a question of if it should be done but it should be done.  But how do we do it? Based on AOSIS’ experience on getting people to think outside the siloes. 

 
Olav Kjørven—Special Adviser to the UNDP Administrator on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
·      Strongly agree with Minister when made the point that it is naïve to think that the things that can’t be resolved in the UNFCCC process can be solved in another when many of the same people show up

·      Lots of scope for significant synergy when we go beyond looking at the UNFCCC process in a narrow sense (Workstream 2 in the ADP)

·      Option 4 in the options paper: (based on science), is probably not realistic at this point.  What should it look like if scientific knowledge were to reign supreme. We need to work further on option 4, not because it’s necessarily realistic, but we need to strive for this.

·      Option 3 is interesting to discuss because with the mainstreaming (option 1) and this, it could help things progress – build flexibility in the UNFCCC framework with a placeholder approach

·      Critical to frame the climate related goal language in developmental terms (has to be a about dev and reducing poverty and increasing good conditions for people all over the world)—none of the proposals have so far done this

·      Have to force ourselves to think more about where we want to be in 2030 than where we are now in terms of political realities.

·      Post-2015 agenda really is about where we want to be in 2030 and long term

 
Wael Hmaidan, Director of CAN International:
·      In November OWG session on energy—had a side event for this paper and there was a lot of skepticism, but this week there is more positive energy for the paper and how climate change should be reflected – should really look at this and realize that political will does change

·      Having climate change part of the development agenda is key

·      Ministries of Environment are often in charge of climate change and it doesn’t become very high on the agendas, because it’s not development in that regard.  Having part of the development movement moves it higher up the agenda

·      Want to continue working on a new draft of the paper based on the discussions this week and hopefully finalize a new draft in the next month or so

·      The narrative option is not enough—basically only having climate change in the narrative.  Important to have it in the narrative but not enough.  Helps it not just be an environmental issue to redefine it as a developmental issue

·      Option 1: climate proofing of goals—address climate change in the goals.  What we already sort of have consensus on because most people agree that we cannot have goals without addressing their sustainability and climate change.  Urbanization goal has to address CO2 and GHG emissions.  Lowest common denominator

·      Options 2 -4 for a climate goal. 

·      Options 3: using existing agreements for a goal—keeping 2 degrees warming that’s already been agreed upon by UNFCCC.  Problem with this goal is that the Summit for post-2015 is 7 weeks before COP21 so whatever ends up in the SDGs might not be relevant depending on what comes out of Paris. 

·      Option 4: most ambitious and based on science –provides increased momentum

·      Civil society is looking at a phaseout of GHG emissions goal—doesn’t have to be a year, but a goal provides a vision of how we want society to look like. Includes elements of what the OWG Co-Chairs said about not being threatening etc. How we want to develop towards a future.

 
Frederick D’Souza, Caritas India Director:
·      Different views of climate change – some people believe it’s normal, some believe it’s caused from only natural disasters, and some believe it’s from humans

·      In India see the impacts of climate change

·      For all our needs there is enough—development should be based on a need, not greed. 

 
 
Discussion
·      No risk of losing binding commitments

·      Governments have to come to the UNFCCC and say their positions and try to reach agreement—mandated by the UN that they have to meet and have a legally binding commitment.  Phase-out would be voluntary and a vision and would provide room for growth

·      Planetary boundaries—one is the climate and CO2 but so many issues and not sure that putting them all together would be helpful.  Ex. Oceans, climate and other ones are so interlinked and if climate change alone is creating all this discussion, it would be even worse if you lumped them together

·      SIDS are always out there pushing the envelope and if there’s a way to get away with it, this is out.  AOSIS has never been shy about this stuff.

·      The reason SIDS are pushing the workstream 2 and things outside the formal process is to get stuff done and countries to commit to things in the parallel process and show that they’re already doing it.

Discussion Paper: Options for Integrating Climate Change Considerations Into the Post-2015 Development Framework

December 2013;

Author: Bernadette Fischler, CAFOD. With contributions from: Rachel Garthwaite, Save the Children, Ruth Fuller and Dominic White, WWF UK, Sven Harmeling and Kit Vaughan, CARE, Sarah Wykes, Graham Gordon and Neva Frecheville, CAFOD, Lis Wallace, Progressio. (Supported by CAN and Beyond2015 but not an official position)

 

 INTRODUCTION 

At the 2012 Rio+20 conference all countries agreed that climate change is a major obstacle to sustainable development and poverty eradication. This is supported by the experience of people living in poverty and vulnerability and major UN reports feeding into post-2015.3 Science further underlines the immediate need for action in all areas, including international development. The urgency for action is underpinned by climate science and the window of opportunity for avoiding dangerous climate change is rapidly closing. Even a 2˚C world will undermine development gains and make attaining post-2015 objectives more difficult. The post-2015 framework must help to make climate action in all countries happen without further delay and must support poor people to respond to climate impacts they are experiencing already. 

The purpose of this paper is to describe different options for including climate change in the post-2015 framework, and to facilitate a more informed and constructive debate by providing suggestions for possible target areas. A series of approaches to addressing climate change are discussed, including a "light touch‟ or narrative-only approach in option 0; mainstreaming climate change targets to make all relevant goals "climate-smart‟ in option 1; and three potential options for a ‟stand-alone‟ climate goal in options 2-4. 

None of these approaches are mutually exclusive. A truly committed post-2015 development framework would do all of these things. However, recognising the political nature of this process, we highlight the benefits and trade-offs associated with each to help informed decision-making. 

This paper builds on two papers presented during a workshop in October in London and the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG on SDGs) meeting in November 2013. They have been put together by a group of development and environment organisations with the support of Beyond 2015 and CAN-International, two major global NGO networks involved in this agenda. 

 

Integrating sustainable energy and climate change into the Post-2015 agenda: how and why?

Integrating sustainable energy and climate change into the Post-2015 agenda: how and why?

Time: 26 November 2013, 8am-9am
Location: Amartya Sen Conference Room, FF Building, New York. 

Introduction
The aim of the post-2015 development framework is to “eradicate extreme poverty in all its forms while ensuring a sustainable development path for all countries”. However, climate change is an existential threat, that is and will continue to disproportionately affect the poorest and most vulnerable people and places the most, impacting negatively those least responsible for the climate crisis. Further, securing universal access to modern energy services and transitioning energy systems away from fossil fuels is central to solving both the climate change crisis and the global poverty crisis.

A goal on energy access for people in poverty and many other goals on poverty eradication will only be effective in the long run if it addresses also the causes of climate change and all its impacts. It is essential to start finding concrete ways to integrate climate protection and human development needs in a holistic development framework.

A group of environment and development organizations convened by CAFOD and WWF UK with the support of Beyond 2015 and CAN-International put together a set of concrete recommendations on how to meaningfully address energy access and climate change across the post-2015 framework. The resulting discussion papers form the basis for a conversation on these pertinent topics during the November sessions of the OWG on SDGs.

Purpose
This breakfast meeting will provide a space for open and informal discussions on concrete suggestions to integrate sustainable energy access for all and tackling climate change into the post-2015 development framework.

Program
 

  • 8:00am – Welcome and introductions, Corinne Woods, Director UN Millennium Campaign
  • 8:05am – Concrete suggestions on how to integrate energy access and climate change into the post-2015 framework, Bernadette Fischler, CAFOD/Beyond 2015
  • 8:15am – Open Discussion moderated by the Chair, Corinne Woods, Director UN Millennium Campaign
  • 9:00am – End of event

*The discussion will be held under Chatham House rules to encourage an open dialogue 

Intervention: Remarks by Jeffery Huffines of CIVICUS on behalf of CIVICUS, Climate Action Network and Beyond 2015 at Environmental Sustainability Briefing, 19 April 2013

 

Remarks by Jeffery Huffines of CIVICUS on behalf of CIVICUS, Climate Action Network and Beyond 2015

Briefing on Environmental Sustainability in the Post-2015 Development Agenda

19 April 2013

INTRO FOR GEORGE:

Jeffery Huffines is Main Representative of CIVICUS: World Alliance For Citizen Participation at UN Headquarters in here in New York and has served as Rio+20 NGO Major Group Organizing Partner since October 2011. Based in Johannesburg, South Africa, CIVICUS is a global alliance of citizens and civil society groups striving to protect, enable and enhance civic action and civil society around the world. Moreover, as a member of the Beyond 2015/GCAP UN Working Group and the UNDG Post-2015 Outreach Strategy Planning Group set up for the purpose of facilitating the participation of key stakeholders in the post-2015 global conversation, CIVICUS was invited to participate in two of the eleven thematic consultations on governance in Johannesburg and on environmental sustainability last month in San Jose, Costa Rica.

REMARKS:

I am here to represent Wael Hmaidan, Director of CAN International, Climate Action Network, which is the world’s largest network of civil society organizations working together to promote government action to address the climate crisis, with more than 700 member organizations in over 90 countries. Together with Beyond 2015 representing more than 570 organizations from 95 countries, CAN International helped organize civil society participation in the thematic consultation on environmental sustainability. To kick off preparations for this thematic consultation, CAN International and Beyond 2015 produced a paper that served as a basis for civil society participation in 4 weeks of online e-consultations that took place immediately beforehand.

In contrast to the preparations of the MDGs where neither Member States nor civil society or the private sector had an opportunity to provide advance input into the formulation of the goals, UNDP and the UN Environment Programme, together with the co-hosts of the Governments of France and Costa Rica, are to be commended for organizing a comprehensive series of consultations on the theme of environmental sustainability, the seventh Millennium Development Goal. With over 30 leading and emerging thinkers from civil society representing both grassroots movements and international networks from regions around the world, the consultations in Costa Rica represented the culmination of the first phase of a continuing conversation.

The diverse participation of leading civil society representatives, UN officials, government officials and business leaders, brought to the fore the complex trade-offs among growth, poverty and the environment that confront policy decision makers.  Civil society representatives were unanimous that there needs to be a fundamental paradigm shift in the current economic model if the three dimensions of sustainable development are to be effectively rebalanced and integrated. Radical changes in consumption patterns where the wealthiest 20% account for 80% of global consumption must be complemented by the use of more holistic criteria than GDP for measuring success. A central challenge, therefore, is to reduce the impacts of consumption and production to maintain human wellbeing, while operating within the limits of sustainability set by the planetary boundaries, and redistribute consumption towards the poorest and most marginalized.

A number of innovative ideas were considered. To overcome the myth that environmental protection means the loss of economic prosperity, the question of putting into place proper price incentives was discussed that would change consumer and business behavior by such means as eliminating perverse subsidies and enforcing carbon taxes. One participant proposed making natural resources cheap or free for those that use very little, and expensive for those that use excessive amounts, thus respecting planetary boundaries without affecting the poor. Another pointed out that sustainable companies are outperforming their unsustainable peers. Common support was expressed for the role of diverse local economies; respect for the global commons, the importance of changing attitudes, behaviors and consumption patterns; the shift towards an equitable green or “smart” economy, and taking an ecosystem approach. 

With regard to MDG 7, the consensus was that the design of this goal was fundamentally flawed as it was not integrated with other goals, lacked environmental measurements and data, and was narrowly focused on conservation to the exclusion of other core issues, such as climate change, natural capital, SCP and oceans. On barriers to the implementation of MDG 7, participants cited the “silo syndrome”; the lack of integration of global targets into domestic policies, and the need for an accountability framework.

Participants recognized that if sustainable development is to be realized, than all stakeholders must challenge their preconceived notions of “business as usual.” Members of the environmental and development sectors must go beyond their own set of biases if they are to bring they are to more effectively integrate their respective agendas. For example, one participant suggested that labeling goals as “environmental” automatically flags them as a “last priority” for many governments, particularly from developing countries, while another person pointed out that some in the development arena will not accept that limits on consumption exist. The new goals must highlight links with environmental sustainability, economics and poverty.

With the national and thematic consultations now concluding and with the HLP report being prepared for release next month, our attention turns to the intergovernmental negotiations now taking place by the Open Working Group on the SDGs, on the high level political forum for sustainable development, and the formation of the Expert Committee on a Sustainable Development Strategy. A strong institutional framework and means of implementation are critical for the success of any SDGs. If the high level political forum is going to serve as the cornerstone of the post-2015 development agenda, Member States must ensure the equal participation of ministers of finance, development and environment at its meetings, and integrate decision-making across ministries at home to reduce separation of thematic goals in “silos”.

Any plans for SDGs coming out of Rio+20 must be fully integrated into the global overarching post-2015 development framework. Civil society demands that the new post-2015 framework must recognize shared global challenges and include the obligations, ownership and accountability of every country to respond to the needs of all. Contextualized national targets are needed for different countries, reflecting challenges and strengths, and inspired by the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities. The framework must have human rights at it center, be coherent overall, with goals and targets promoting synergies between sectors which contribute to a holistic and collective approach to achieving our purpose.

To conclude, we will continue to urge civil society to engage in these consultations and use their results to hold their own governments accountable to the promises they will make and therefore keep on behalf of their citizens.

 

CAN and Beyond2015 Joint Position to the UN Thematic Consultation on Energy

 

1.  Introduction
This paper is a response by the international civil society, represented by CAN-International and Beyond2015, to the thematic consultation on Energy launched by the UN, in relation to the work of the UN High Level Panel of Eminent Persons.
 
Climate Action Network International (CAN) is the world’s largest network of civil society organizations working together to promote government action to address the climate crisis, with more than 700 members in over 90 countries.
 
Beyond 2015 is a global civil society campaign, pushing for a strong and legitimate successor framework to the Millennium Development Goals. The campaign brings together more than 570 organisations from over 95 countries. Whilst participating organisations have a range of views regarding the content of a post-2015 framework, the campaign unites behind one vision:
  • That a global overarching cross-thematic framework succeeds the Millennium Development Goals, reflecting Beyond 2015’s policy positions.
  • That the process of developing this framework is participatory, inclusive and responsive to voices of those directly affected by poverty and injustice.
 
2. Centrality of energy to development
Energy is a key driver of human and economic development. It powers communities, homes, businesses and industries, schools, hospitals, and transportation. Businesses across subSaharan Africa see the lack of access to reliable and affordable electricity as the biggest obstacle to operations. Access to energy is key to eradicating poverty, and levels of access closely correlate to rankings on the human development index and other measures of development progress. Energy’s status as an enabler – catalysing access to clean water, education, public health, and sanitation – has led it to be widely described as the ‘missing’ Millennium Development Goal.
 
<more>

 

Post Rio: CAN-I and Beyond2015 Position to the UN thematic consultation on Sustainable Environment

 

This paper is a response by international civil society, represented by CAN-International and Beyond 2015, to the thematic consultation on Sustainable Environment launched by the UN in relation to the work of the UN High Level Panel of Eminent Persons.
 
We want to note that the siloed approach to the 11 thematic consultations, while understandable for practical reasons, should be re-considered by the UN. One of the greatest challenges and opportunities for the post-2015 development framework is precisely to break down the fragmented approach of the MDGs to fully capture the cross-cutting synergies between and among the different themes. In order for the consultations to be effective, we need to move to a holistic, sustainable, approach and advance one global development agenda that is people-centered, inclusive, and sustainable.
 
<more>

The Rio Gap

One of the key obstacles to achieving sustainable development is agreeing who will carry the burden. Stopping environmental degradation requires resources. Some argue those resources could be needed somewhere else, such as eradicating poverty. So it could appear that the need to eradicate poverty and the need to stop environmental degradation are in conflict.

ECO does not buy into this argument.  At all.  Environmental degradation is fast becoming the biggest contributor to increased poverty. If we want to eradicate poverty, then we need to invest also in what is leading to more poverty, which includes fighting environmental degradation.

The more scarce resources become, the more sustainability must be at the center of poverty alleviation. The world has no choice but to choose a path that would combine them.  In fact, many developed and developing countries are already providing a lot of good examples on the national and subnational levels, such as developing efficient public transport that reduces CO2 emissions and at the same time increase mobility and affordability, which is needed for economic development.

Now that governments have agreed as little as they have, given the existing and rather pathetic political will now available, the question is what will they do when they go back home. The current conference document, with all its weaknesses, has nonetheless indicated many potential opportunities for further action. There are no hard numerical commitments and actions in the text, but it provides processes for governments to develop these commitments and actions. Such processes include:

  •  establishing an intergovernmental high level political forum that will follow up on the implementation of the sustainable development commitments contained in Agenda 21,
  • committing to promote an integrated approach to planning and building sustainable cities and urban settlements,
  • committing to maintain and restore marine resources to sustainable levels with the aim of achieving these goals for depleted stocks on an urgent basis by 2015,
  • adopting the 10-Year Framework of Programmes (10YFP) on sustainable consumption and production (SCP),
  • resolving to establish an inclusive and transparent intergovernmental process on SDGs that is open to all stakeholders.

There are many other opportunities highlighted within the existing text for governments to take us forward. Nevertheless, this will not happen unless political reality on the ground changes.

The failure of the international process is not because multilateralism is wrong. The process is good. What we lack is political will. The international process can only work within existing political will. If there is no new political will to capture, the process will not do anything.

Political will is not created at international venues, it is created back at home, and on the streets. It is up to the youth and civil society movements to take it forward.

But reality can change, and we saw it in the Arab Spring. What is needed is persistence, and continued action.  Civil society campaigned for years in Egypt to achieve political change against harsh suppression, but they never gave up. Then a tipping point was reached, and everything changed in only one day.

Civil society must use all the anger that exists as a result of the Rio+20 reality check, and then alter that reality.  After all, we are running out of time.

So ECO is going home for now.  We are angry, but that will focus our energy, and we will organize. Because as Nelson Mandela so wisely said: “it always seems impossible, until it is done.”

Related Newsletter : 

Dear Mr. Prime Minister...

In a disappointing and disheartening plenary session today, the Brazilian chair adopted the watered down draft text to be taken to world leaders tomorrow to formally adopt. As delegations clapped away at our failed future, civil society loudly protested from the back of the plenary hall. 

As a last attempt to salvage this summit, civil society has united its efforts to write a letter to UK Prime Minister David Cameron at the G20 Summit calling for an urgent intervention to deliver ambition at the Rio+20 Earth Summit. The letter highlights that the draft text is severely lacking in ambition, urgency and political will. Countries are reluctant to commit to a bolder agenda largely because they do not believe that the money can be found to deliver the transition to a fair, prosperous and sustainable world for all.

Civil society is calling on the UK, as a member of G8, G20, UN Security Council and the European Union, to take matters into their own hands and be pioneers in this endeavor to save the planet and forge an international agreement on tackling global inequalities. To do this, three commitments are needed to transform this summit.

  1. Phase out harmful fossil fuel subsidies, with safeguards for the world poorest communities.  Commitments to begin such a process were made by the G20 at their meeting in Pittsburgh in 2009 and again in Toronto in 2010, but with almost no progress to date. Developed countries spend around $100bn a year in subsidies and tax breaks to prop up fossil fuel production, according to the OECD.
  1. Introduce a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) which has been proven by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Commission and independent studies to be a credible, effective and development friendly tax. It is a hugely popular idea, supported by 63% of European citizens and more than 1000 economists, and could raise at least $400bn a year.
  1. Stop multinationals dodging their taxes. This would generate an extra $160 billion a year in tax revenues in poor countries alone. This is money that these companies already owe but which they are not paying.

The biggest impediment to means of implementation and finance is that the money isn’t there, but as shown above, the money is clearly there and can be easily freed up and utilized. Strong political will and even stronger leadership is needed now to push these negotiations to deliver a safe and prosperous world for everyone.

Related Newsletter : 

Pages

Subscribe to Tag: Rio-Process/Post-2015