Busan: concept of decent work introduced into official development cooperation texts

Having reached the end of the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, attended by USO-Sotermun, in Busan (South Korea), from 29 November to 1 December, we can now take stock of the progress made, the new challenges ahead and the elements included in or omitted from the outcome document.

Article by Santiago GONZÁLEZ, Area Internacional - USO

The Busan conference is a continuation of the efforts to internationally institutionalise effective development cooperation. The conference was preceded by the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action, which set out the guiding principles for more effective development aid and the kind of governance needed to achieve this. The OECD, the club of rich donor countries, clearly holds a leading role, although this is progressively being mitigated thanks to the incorporation of new players, countries that are not members of the organisation but have joined its ranks as donors, such as emerging countries, and other development agents such as civil society organisations. Civil society organisations (CSOs), including trade unions, grouped together within the BetterAid platform, have been recognised as leading development actors since Accra and were represented in the discussion and drawing up of the outcome document in Busan along with the governments and other stakeholders.

Among the most significant elements in the Busan document are the recognition of the role of the ’private sector’ (to be understood in its broadest sense) and its capacity to steer development; and the two-speed development policy established with the inclusion of a clause, in line with China, underlining the voluntary nature of compliance with the principles (on which there had hitherto been a consensus) in the case of South-South cooperation. The text also calls for the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals but fails to mention, even for cosmetic purposes, compliance with the pledge made by rich countries to devote 0.7% of their national income to development aid.

As regards the inclusion of the private sector, there is a danger that growth may be mistaken for development or that the interests of a certain private sector take precedence over the priorities identified by the state or civil society. The issue of incorporating the private sector in the development aid paradigm was avidly promoted by states and governments, for a number of reasons, both practical and ideological. Spain was among those that signed a parallel statement backing this position at the same time as recognising the need to mitigate the cuts in official development assistance. It was argued that state aid would act as a catalyst for attracting private investment.

The final paragraphs referring to the private sector alongside another referring to corruption were not entirely welcomed by civil society and trade unions. It was a section reserved for intergovernmental discussion, excluding any intervention by the other representatives. No explicit reference is made to the norms and standards of the ILO or to the role of trade unions. There is no mention of the ILO even in the section on bodies providing information and statistics, unlike the sempiternal OECD (and UNDP). The section on corruption fails to mention tax havens, although there is reference to the fight against tax evasion and the transparency of aid.

Among the positive elements is the inclusion of the concept of decent work, which is by no means inconsequential. It is, indeed, a significant step forward, although no reference is made to its attributes: freedom of association, social dialogue, collective bargaining, social protection, etc. The fact, however, that it forms part of the document and that a concrete definition has been given to the concept within the ILO, approved by the member states, means that it will constitute a development indicator and opens up the possibility of demanding that development actors comply with it.

As regards the voluntary aspect of compliance with aid effectiveness principles in the case of South-South cooperation, the result may be to allow competitive bidding or tied aid, or the implementation of projects without consideration for the local economy or SMEs, not to mention decent work. The concession made to China (and the other countries), by OECD countries, without any European leadership, undermines the ability of the countries receiving the assistance to make it more equitable, more in line with their priorities and more accountable.
Finally, the Busan conference took a more in-depth look at the post-Busan discussion, at the Building Blocks that will form the keystones of specific policies in the future (South- South cooperation, climate change, transparency, effective policies and institutions, management of diversity and fragmentation, results and accountability and the private sector) as well as the indicators measuring the reality of development policies. The progress achieved in all these areas will be examined in June 2012.

In the words of the ITUC’s deputy general secretary, Wellington Chibebe, who spoke at the session on a rights-based approach, "our work does not end here. Busan lays a good foundation, but there is still a long way to go before labour rights and decent work are effectively implemented". The Trade Union Development Cooperation Network is meeting in Florence between 12 and 14 December to assess the outcome of Busan and to set out its criteria with regard to the specific policies and indicators.

Lastly, it should be pointed out that one of the opening speeches at the conference was given by Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda. His speech was well received, based on the fact that good transparency practices are being implemented in his country and he had been appointed as the representative for Africa. But this does not justify his place at the conference, especially in light of the genocide charges he is facing and the fact that Spain, among others, has issued a warrant for his arrest.

Original in Spanish.