GPF
네이버 블로그 동일
http://blog.naver.com/hch73111/60200690369
Reforming the G8's public–private partnership on agriculture and food security
The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, launched at the G8 summit in 2012, promises to reduce poverty for 50 million people over the next ten years by increasing private investment and agriculture-led growth in selected African countries. one year after the initiative’s launch, evidence provided by a new Oxfam Briefing note about its implementation presents a worrying picture of its performance so far.
Oxfam Briefing Note
The new Alliance: A new Direction is needed
In a recently launched statement Oxfam asks for a different approach of the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.
The past decade has witnessed a resurgence of interest in investing in agriculture. In 2003, heads of state from across Africa committed to allocate at least 10 per cent of their national budgets on an annual basis to agriculture and, through their commitment to the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), to reduce poverty through agriculture-led growth. [1] More recently, at the 2009 G8 Summit in L‟Aquila, Italy, world leaders responded to the global spike in food prices by pledging to provide $22bn over three years to promote food security in developing countries. [2]
Amidst tight budgets and austerity measures, donors and developing countries are increasingly turning to the private sector. Public–private partnerships (PPPs), aimed at leveraging the resources of private investment to achieve development objectives, represent an emerging trend in this direction. The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, launched at the 2012 G8 Summit is one such example. To understand better how the New Alliance is being implemented, Oxfam conducted fact-finding research in several of the early adopting countries (specifically Ghana, Tanzania, and Mozambique [3]).
Private investment in the agriculture sector of developing countries, especially investment made by small-scale producers themselves, is critical to driving inclusive growth. However as Oxfam documents, there are good reasons to be sceptical that large-scale private investment, even in well-intentioned PPPs, can benefit small-scale producers.
Initiatives such as the New Alliance failed so far to work with stakeholders to develop and execute investments that are rooted in a shared vision for development and built on partnerships not just with companies and governments, but also with small-scale producer organizations (POs), civil society, and local communities themselves.
For New Alliance leadership (host and donor governments) and companies in each country, Oxfam recommends to strengthen the role of POs and civil society groups, including those representing women, the rural poor, and consumers. Moreover they ask for environmental and social impact assessments as prerequisites to any company investment activity to identify and mitigate activities with potentially harmful consequences. In general they demand better transparency of the initiative by increasing available information at both the global and local levels.
[1] AU Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. http://www.nepad.org/nepad/knowledge/doc/1787/maputo-declaration
[2] “L‟Aquila” Joint Statement on Global Food Security: L‟Aquila Food Security Initiative (AFSI). http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/summit/2009/statement3-2.pdf. Of the $22bn pledged at L‟Aquila, only $6.8bn was new or additional to existing funding levels.
[3] To gather information for this report, country research was carried out in Ghana, Mozambique, and Tanzania. Additional information was gathered from Oxfam staff in Ethiopia. The full list of early adopting countries is Burkina Faso, Côte d‟Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, and Tanzania.kfh
Download the Oxfam's Briefing note here.
GPF_Dangerous_Partnership_Full_report.pdf
UN report working group mercenaries.pdf
연관 자료 아래
Secretary-General removes right of staff to be effectively represented
- Details
- Published on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 14:55
We are shocked and disappointed by Friday's announcement of the Secretary-General's unilateral decision to implement a new Bulletin on Staff Management Committee (ST/SGB/2011/6/Rev.1).
This new bulletin removes a hard-won right of your elected representatives to negotiate with Management on the workplace issues that concern you, whether you are in headquarters or the field, a conference room or a conflict zone. This right is observed in national legislations around the world. It is upheld by international human rights and labour laws and is a condition of membership of the United Nations Global Compact. This right has been replaced by, in Management's own words on iSeek, "a dialogue with staff."
Without knowing what "a dialogue with staff" might mean, we are further disappointed that in implementing this new bulletin, the Secretary-General went around his own rules. As the contents of the bulletin were the subject of disagreement between staff representatives and Management at negotiations in Mexico City, there should have been a mediation process (ST/SGB/2011/6 art 1.3). Instead, and as the iSeek message admits, it was simply "re-circulated [by email]… to allow for further submission of comments". Unions considered consultation by email to be meaningless and reiterated their legal right to mediation. This was ignored and the bulletin was issued, showing scant regard for the rule of law by the Secretary-General and a bad faith approach to negotiations.
Because we believe that the way in which the new bulletin was issued was illegal, we are not in a position to recognize it.
Overall, this development deprives you of your right to be effectively represented and marks the start of a new era at the United Nations of rule by decree. All this takes place at a time when many significant reforms affecting your job security are being planned. This would explain why the Secretary-General chose to so harmfully misinterpret and implement within three months a non-urgent and vague paragraph (para. 71) in General Assembly resolution 67/255 when many more specific and urgent resolutions and demands by member states go untouched for years.
Moving forward, we have already submitted legal challenges against the new bulletin and will be following them closely. We have also informed member states of the situation and drawn their attention to the Secretary-General's misrepresentation of General Assembly resolution and of the events of the last few months. Both these actions will continue.
At the same time we will coordinate with the other unions of the United Nations system to ensure an effective, strong and united front. We will consult with you and keep you informed as we go forward. We reject the new bulletin and will do all we can to ensure a platform for negotiation between staff representatives and Management that meets the most basic requirements of international law.
Thank you for your understanding and support.
첨부자료
PS) PDF 첨부파일은 용량상 관계로 생략함 주석링크가 PDF받기 가능함. (네이버 제외 다음은 해당)
PS2) GPF가 보낸 이메일을 통해서 다운받을 수 있다.
|
Global Policy Forum E-Mail: gpf@globalpolicy.org |
Global Policy Forum Europe Königstr. 37a D-53115 Bonn Germany E-Mail: europe@globalpolicy.org |