View previous stories
	In the world’s poorest countries, cities could be the test for the Sustainable Development Goals by Gordon McGranahan, Cyril Obi IIED, Steps Centre, UN Chronicle   In the world’s poorest countries, cities could be the test for the Sustainable Development Goals, by Gordon McGranahan.   The UN’s 2030 Agenda presents a dazzling array of Sustainable Development Goals, claims they are integrated and indivisible, and pledges that no one will be left behind. From the vantage point of the world’s poorest countries the targets behind these goals might seem almost surreal. Growth in GDP per capita needs to be 7% a year or more in the “Least Developed Countries” (LDCs), even as inequalities are being reduced, and radical social and environmental targets are being achieved.   Really? Despite the fact that these LDCs will be in the midst of urban transitions that in wealthier countries were accompanied by rising inequalities and large scale environmental degradation? Are the countries of the world really uniting to help LDCs to implement these goals, or cynically just cheering on a futile endeavour, wherein the LDCs are meant to achieve the most with the least or be judged failures?   Despite the assertion that they are indivisible, the SDG targets look suspiciously like prizes you can only win and take home one of: Do you want 7 per cent economic growth per capita? Or would you rather get your consumption-based environmental burdens under control? Or how about providing everyone, including the poorest, with adequate water and sanitation? Ask experts and advocates how the goals they are associated with are to be achieved, and they will explain, but give as a condition that the other goals be de-prioritised.   These trade-offs stand out especially in the world’s poor countries, where the targets the most far reaching and urbanisation and urban growth are at their most rapid. It is in the expanding towns and cities of the LDCs that the 2030 agenda will either get torn apart or patched together. As a recent IDS report outlines, cities and urbanisation can contribute greatly to development goals, but much of their potential contribution is squandered.   The urbanisation rate is the rate of growth in the share of the population that is urban. These estimates show urban growth rates and urbanisation rates in decline, but declining more slowly and from a higher starting point in the Least Developed Countries, with urban growth rates about three times those of other developing countries by the middle of the twenty-first century. Much of their urban growth is due to rapid overall population growth. Rural-urban migration accounts for a large share of urbanisation, but urbanisation accounts for less than half of LDC urban growth.   Some are tempted to discourage urbanisation, and may argue that this will lower urban population growth rates and help towns and cities to provide their growing populations with the urban facilities they need, enabling them to match the aspirations of the SDGs.   This would indeed involve a radical transformation. But in the past only the most draconian policies have managed to put a serious dent in urbanisation trends. Most attempts by cities to discourage growth really just involve planning for the population they want, rather than the population they are going to have. And there is no reason to think future efforts to resist migration and growth will help achieve the development goals.   Indeed, the radical transformation needed is in the opposite direction: welcoming urbanisation, and grappling with the challenges it poses. A big implementation challenge is reconciling the goals and targets in the SDGs. For Least Developed Countries, there are some principles which would help to reconcile and integrate these targets in their ever-growing cities.   Inclusive urbanisation: More inclusive urbanisation requires, among other things, planning for – and, perhaps more importantly, planning by and with – the growing low-income urban populations in urbanising countries. Inclusion can contribute to both economic and social goals, and managed well can help in the design more sustainable cities. This requires a major shift in approach, and one that cities will be hesitant to follow without more support from national governments and others. But without more inclusive urbanisation and cities, inter-goal conflict is likely to become intractable.   Decentralisation policies have not always succeeded in making local governments more accountable to urban citizens, let alone to aspiring migrants. Indeed, some forms of decentralisation have pushed cities to compete to attract investment, and keep out people with poor economic prospects. A more strategic decentralisation is needed if cities are to achieve social and environmental as well as economic goals.   Informal settlements and informal economies have their problems, but formalising them by again trying to enforce the regulations that helped to create them makes matters worse. In many cities and towns a majority of the population lives in informal settlements, and the majority of workers are in the informal economy. But even where the shares are much smaller, those dependent on informality need to have a say and benefit from formalisation. Well managed formalisation should also benefit the overall economy and the capacity to mitigate environmental burdens.   The pursuit of well-being. Economic growth can be critical, but should not be viewed as a goal in itself. Improving human wellbeing, now and into the future, needs to become a more central and measured goal if cities are to facilitate the pursuit of economic, social and environmental goals in a unified way.   Does the importance of cities and urbanisation that rural development is a secondary issue? Not at all. More inclusive rural development is also critical. That should also ease the pressure on urban areas. But trying to keep people from moving to cities is a poor basis for rural policy – and an even worse basis for urban policy.   As the Sustainable Development Goals begin to be implemented, the cities and towns of LDCs may prove to be the places where they are most severely tested. Hopefully they will also prove to be the places where the most grounded and integrated responses are forthcoming.   http://steps-centre.org/2016/blog/in-the-worlds-poorest-countries-cities-could-be-the-test-for-the-sustainable-development-goals/ http://www.iied.org/reimagining-development-ldcs-what-role-for-sdgs http://www.iied.org/least-developed-countries-ldc-challenges-how-can-sdg-implementation-focus-transformation   The Scope and Limits of Humanitarian Action in Urban Areas of the Global South, by Cyril Obi. (UN Chronicle)   Our rapidly globalizing and urbanizing world presents a host of complex challenges for humanity and the living environment. These developments pose threats to, as well as opportunities for, ongoing and future humanitarian action. Rather than be limited by unprecedented changes in the global South, for example, where cities are growing at record rates, humanitarian action should, in the future, be at the forefront of new approaches to reimagining and redesigning just and sustainable human settlements.   As we approach the first World Humanitarian Summit, to be held in Istanbul in May 2016, the world urgently seeks an agenda for humanitarian action that will address the various vulnerabilities associated with urbanization. Nearly 50 per cent of the world’s population, or an estimated 3.5 billion people, already live in urban areas, with projections suggesting an increase to 70 per cent by 2050. With the majority of the fastest-growing cities located in the global South, the future of urban areas in an increasingly globalized economy and networked society assumes greater significance when we take into account the scale of vulnerabilities associated with natural phenomena and human-induced processes.   The future demands solutions to urban crises of unprecedented scale and impact, which are likely to pose formidable challenges for humanitarian organizations and developing communities, as well as urban planners and dwellers. How can we best address growing vulnerabilities within the continuum of disaster prevention and response based on current urban institutional, governance and structural mechanisms? What actions are likely to prevent the reoccurrence of urban disasters? Through which kinds of creative solutions, new social movements and political coalitions can we best confront and address emerging problems?   How can we apply lessons learned from dealing with recent natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, climate change-related flooding and droughts, which have contributed to worsening living conditions for large swaths of humanity in coastal cities across Africa, Asia, Oceania and South America?   While urbanization is one of the results of accelerated human mobility and the search for better opportunities, life in cities may be under threat from the effects of climate change, as well as poor governance and violence, which often arise following large-scale conflict. Since the end of the cold war, the world has experienced new forms of conflict involving State and non-State actors, targeting the most vulnerable civilian populations and turning cities into zones of refuge as well as zones of active warfare. Cities such as Bangui, Beirut, Goma, Maiduguri, Mogadishu, Mumbai, Nairobi and Tripoli have suffered some of the worst consequences of these “new” wars, including terrorist attacks in urban areas, while also hosting a steady stream of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) from war-ravaged hinterlands and neighbouring countries. The destruction and post-conflict reconstruction of cities, leading to displacement and massive waves of migration across borders, test the very limits of survival, resilience, creativity and humanity itself.   According to recent studies, over 35 million people were displaced by violent conflict within their countries in 2014, with similar numbers seeking refuge abroad. Many of the world’s refugees and IDPs remain in refugee and IDP camps in urban areas, some of which are already blighted by poor planning, overcrowding, and lack of social services, amenities and jobs. This is the situation in cities such as Baghdad, Damascus, Goma, Juba, Kinshasa and Maiduguri, among others.   Urbanization in the global South also contends with high levels of inequality, criminality, unemployment and poverty, leading to the marginalization of vast numbers of people and contributing to high levels of social disharmony and political instability. The scope of the challenge facing humanitarian action in the context of the growing urban crisis in the global South is immense. As noted in the report of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for the World Humanitarian Summit, entitled One Humanity: Shared Responsibility, “rapid unplanned urbanization combined with natural hazards, pandemics and aerial bombardments are placing even more people at risk”.   The situation with regard to the ongoing urban crises in the global South can be characterized as “urbanization without development”. Breaking the current impasse with humanitarian action in that part of the world requires an understanding of decades of failed and misplaced urban development planning. The growth of cities has in many cases outpaced or overwhelmed planning capacities, leaving authorities unprepared to deal with exploding urban populations and placing urban dwellers at great risk in the face of mounting pressures and unpredictable disasters.   An agenda for change will require that humanitarian action be based on the recognition of the equal rights of citizens. Transcending the current urban crisis calls for new and innovative ideas, and bridging the gaps between the knowledge and practice of urbanization and equitable development. This will also involve working with urban planners at the municipal and national levels, as well as regional and global actors. A new foundation must be laid by mainstreaming urbanization into participatory national development planning.   Many have called for interdisciplinary and integrated approaches to pre-emptive plans designed to deal with natural and human-induced urban disasters and crises. Such measures would have to connect national efforts to a worldwide commitment to building socioeconomic bulwarks against inequality, poverty, corruption, youth unemployment and marginalization, and other vulnerabilities underlying urban crises.   An alternate future lies in actions directed towards building and recreating more egalitarian, secure and liveable urban settings in the global South. It also calls for equal access to efficiently delivered sanitation, adequate and sustainable shelter, clean water, good education, health care and security. It is time for a new global impetus that goes beyond the usual rhetorical and short-term, technocratic “fixes”, which tend to be elitist and exclusionary. Lessons from the past century make it clear that urban development in the global South is fundamentally a people’s rights issue.   We should embrace a holistic, humanistic approach in taking actions that exhibit a new awareness of what is really at stake: the future of human existence and civilization. The world stands at a critical juncture, at which the present and future of our cities ultimately depend on outcomes across the global South. The time to chart a new, people-centred course for humanitarian action is now upon us.   http://unchronicle.un.org/article/scope-and-limits-humanitarian-action-urban-areas-global-south/
	Corporate tax avoidance cost Governments billions in lost revenues by Access Info Europe, ICIJ, agencies International Consortium of Investigative Journalists   April 2016   It’s none of your business – Report on Europe’s Closed Company Registers   In the wake of the massive Panama Papers scandal, Access Info Europe and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) have released a report showing that in most European jurisdictions data on company ownership is almost impossible for the public to obtain.   For an investigative journalist tracking down money laundering or organised crime, the main obstacle to accessing company registration information in Europe is financial: the register can be obtained for prices ranging from €75,000 in the Netherlands to € 286,000 in Estonia; single record costs range from €2.33 in France to €767.00 in Russia.   This situation endures in spite of repeated promises in fora such as the G7, G20 and Open Government Partnership to open up company data. Of 32 countries surveyed, the only two exceptions are the UK, which has a fully open company register available for download since just since June 2015, and Denmark, where the register may be accessed by those with a Danish Electronic ID. Not one of the remaining 30 countries provides free of charge bulk access to registers.   “The Panama papers investigation shows the immense power of transparency allied to rigorous investigative journalism. Making company registers accessible – at low or no cost – would be a great way to build on that success. It’s time promises on open data were kept, and governments showed that their rhetoric can be matched by action,” stated Drew Sullivan and Paul Radu, co-founders of the OCCRP.   The report It’s none of your business! identifies a total of 10 obstacles to accessing company register data. Another significant obstacle is that most countries don’t permit searches by the name of the company owner. Only Sweden, Ukraine and the UK offer free record-by-record searches by name.   “European governments are complicit in blocking investigative journalists in their work uncovering criminal activities, money laundering, and tax evasion,” stated Helen Darbishire, Executive Director of Access Info Europe.   “The reality is a seriously skewed playing field, with company ownership data shielded from public view in Europe. Access is only for those with the ability to pay – law firms, financial businesses, and the like – the kinds of people the Panama Papers have shown to be abusing the system,” added Darbishire.   http://www.access-info.org/company-register-transparency   12 April 2016   EU tax plans will allow multinationals to continue dodgy business as usual. (Christian Aid   European Union plans to force multinationals to reveal more about their financial affairs will do little to stop firms’ rampant tax abuse, Christian Aid says today.   “The Commission plans will allow multinationals to hide large parts of their global affairs from public scrutiny, which is a recipe for dodgy business as usual,” said Toby Quantrill, the charity’s tax justice expert.   The EU plans will require large multinationals to reveal a range of information, broken down by country, about their EU operations and also any operations in an (as yet unspecified) list of non-EU countries that the EU deems tax havens. Firms will have to reveal only aggregate figures for the rest of the world.   “Unless companies have to report on their activities in all the countries where they operate, they could continue to dodge tax on a massive scale, using the places still hidden from view,” added Mr Quantrill, Christian Aid’s Principal Adviser on Economic Justice.   “The Panama Papers are a graphic reminder of what happens when the powerful can hide: people and companies do things they would never have done in public.   “The European Commission should learn this lesson and revise its plans immediately, to ensure multinationals reveal what they are up to in all the countries where they operate, not just for some.”   Mr Quantrill added: “Under these plans, companies will have to make ‘public but not global’ reports within the EU, while the OECD and G20, meanwhile, require multinational companies to file ''global but not public'' reports. This is an unnecessary mess, not least for multinationals themselves.   “Importantly, these new EU reports will have little value to poor countries, which still will not find out what multinationals are up to. Yet they suffer worst from tax dodging. People living in poverty pay the highest price for multinationals’ cheating and are in the most need of funding for public services that tax dodging restricts.”   The new EU proposals are based on a standard called country-by-country reporting. Tax justice campaigners have used ‘country-by-country reporting’ to describe reports revealing details of multinationals’ activities in every country in which they operate. Such details include taxes paid, profits made, number of people employed and turnover.   Campaigners including Christian Aid have backed country-by-country reporting because it can help tax authorities and others to identify suspicious patterns which may indicate tax avoidance or evasion and which warrant further investigation.   However unless multinationals have to make such reports for every country where they operate, the reports lose much of their power.   Commenting on EU proposals to require multinationals to report on their activities within a set of blacklisted countries outside of the EU, Mr Quantrill added: “Previous EU attempts to define blacklists have failed and hard to see how this one will be different. Will the US or Switzerland be on the list this time?   “The limited picture provided by the approach proposed could increase the risk of misinterpretation. We really need to see the whole picture.   April 2016   The European Commission''s attempt to crack down on corporate tax evasion "is a smokescreen that will not stop multinationals dodging their taxes," says the UK-based social justice organization War on Want.   The proposal put forth by the Commission would require large companies—those whose annual revenue exceeds €750 million ($856 million)—to publicly disclose tax and financial data. The plan was reportedly "toughened up" in the wake of last week''s Panama Papers revelations.   Koen Roovers, lead EU advocate for the Financial Transparency Coalition, a network of civil groups and governments working to reform financial systems, criticized the plan as "a half-hearted hybrid that would keep most of the world in the dark."   Tax justice campaigners say the proposal''s limited scope represents yet another missed opportunity to effectively end tax havens.   For one thing, "the Commission''s proposal only requires reports for EU member states and countries on what is likely to be an arbitrary list of tax havens," said Oxfam''s EU tax policy advisor, Aurore Chardonnet, on Tuesday.   "The Commission criteria to list tax havens are already absolutely vague," she explained, "and we also expect EU member states to delay or oppose the process of compiling an official EU list."   ActionAid''s EU tax advocacy officer, Kasia Szeniawska, echoed that charge, saying the "yet-to-be-agreed list of tax havens is likely to be selective and highly politicized."   It is unclear if one of the world''s worst tax havens, the United States, will make the list.   Szeniawska said, "citizens, journalists and campaign groups won’t get the information they need to scrutinize multinationals'' global tax affairs, and there’s no assurance that the world’s poorest countries will get the information either."   Owen Espley, tax campaigner at War on Want, between 85-90 percent of the world''s corporations will not have to report under the proposal. Indeed, said Szeniawska, the deal "lets off the hook the vast majority of multinational companies by setting a very high threshold for companies covered by the requirement."   Political economist Richard Murphy, who calls himself "the person who created the idea of country-by-country reporting," says what the Commission is suggesting is "nothing like" the system for which he advocates. In fact, Murphy said, this "disaster in the making...is, I suspect, designed to undermine the credibility of country-by-country reporting."   In a blog post, he further enumerated the plan''s failings, including:   We will have no data on developing countries who are meant to benefit from this disclosure; The USA has killed all disclosure for anywhere outside the EU; The EU has a very poor track recording in preparing tax haven lists If a tax haven is part of a larger state – as Gibraltar is part of the UK for EU purposes – then it appears data will not need to be disclosed for it. This will also apply in the Netherlands; Most tax haven data will not be disclosed under these rules; We will simply not be able to use this data to extract useful data from the accounts – and we will not even know if the information we will get will usefully reconcile with those accounts.   "The Commission has once more taken the side of tax dodging multinationals against the European public," said War on Want''s Espley. "The proposal is a recipe for more austerity, cuts to public services and tax competition, and leaves no seat at the table for southern countries, for whom genuine country-by-country reporting could help to collect taxes to fund essential public services."   http://financialtransparency.org/commissions-selective-tax-transparency-proposal-leaves-world-dark/ http://www.christianaid.org.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/april_2016/eu-tax-plans-will-allow-multinationals-to-continue-dodgy-business-as-usual.aspx http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/04/12/the-eu-is-not-demanding-country-by-country-reporting-today-so-dont-believe-it-when-it-says-it-is/   * 13.4.2016   Panama Papers: global tax officials to launch unprecedented inquiry   Tax investigators from 28 countries will meet in Paris on Wednesday to launch an unprecedented international inquiry following the publication of the Panama Papers.   Senior officials from tax authorities around the world have said they intend to work together to analyse information revealed by the documents, which have provoked international concern over the offshore industry.   Investigations have been launched in a number of countries over the past week, but the Paris meeting will be an attempt to develop a global strategy to crack down on offenders.   The new approach is being led by the Joint International Tax Shelter Information and Collaboration (Jitsic-OECD) network.   Jitsic’s chairman, Chris Jordan, has previously spoken of establishing a “global mindset for tackling tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance”. Jordan, who is Australia’s tax commissioner, has previously set up a six-country collaboration to investigate tech companies, including Apple. He now wants to develop a global approach to the exchange of information on tax collection.   “We’re basically trying to get the bigger picture,” Jordan told reporters, “It’s never been tried on this scale before. “A number of countries have got slices or pieces of the data and that’s been very useful, but really, the start of the conversation is to work out who’s got what, how we can pool that information and start to work together.”   Jordan has emphasised the importance of speed, telling officials that he expects immediate information exchange, rather than the traditionally slow approach.   The meeting in Paris will be chaired by the Australian tax office’s head of international tax, Mark Konza.   * Unfortunately the OECD, the G20, the UN Global Compact and the Australian Tax Office have talked up their ineffective results for years.   Just last week, for example the Australian Deputy Tax Commissioner highlighted the ATO was seeking some $400 million in lost revenues, when billions annually are lost through tax evasion and highly dubious tax minimalization schemes in Australia; with some estimates suggesting the Australia Government has lost well over a $100-150 billion in tax revenues in the last decade alone.   Tax officals cite inadequate legislation, members of parliament and Government officals claim to be addressing the effective theft of public revenues whilst keeping an eye on their future careers as corporate lobbyists.   Last year, 1 third of all Australian companies paid no tax, another third paid significantly reduced tax, whilst working employees had 30% tax automatically deducted from their wages. In a Senate Committee it was revealed that leading Australian companies channelled some $60 billion through Singapore last year alone to minimize their taxes. High income Australians also operate a variety of legal schemes involving trusts, superannuation tax concession arrangments, and tax deductible negative gearing on their property investments to reduce their taxable incomes, apart from offshoring their tax arrangements in other juridictions.   Business groups are significant political donors to the major political parties. Australian business groups are currently lobbying to reduce company tax rates, as are many other corporate business groups globally, effectively reducing Government revenues to fund public services. These same groups are loud advocates for privatizations, Public Private Partnerships, reducing the size of Government programs and advancing austerity measures, whilst gaming the system in their own self interest. http://nb.tai.org.au/fairtaxreform   Similar realities exist in the UK regarding Mr. Osborne''s proposed minimalist tax revenue gathering measures. In the U.S. business leaders proudly boast of their tax avoidance success, and openly denigrate international accountability mechanisms. U.S. corporations currently have 2 trillion dollars parked offshore in other tax juridictions.   Authoritarian states are loathe to offer transparency or accountability deemed a threat to their political power. Wealthy elites, multinationals and business interests wield significant political power on Governments around the world.   Expect a lot of tough talk from Tax and Government officals and from the OECD over the latest revelations from just 1 tax firm. Grandstanding over minimalist changes and achievements and the ongoing loss of hundreds of billions of potential Government tax revenues to fund public services each year.   A significant part of the problem is the corporate and regulatory capture of parliaments and international mechanisms by multinational corporations, business lobbyists and high wealth individuals, most notably in the U.S. and U.K.   Mar. 2016   Ministers agree to new EU rule to further actions to curb corporate tax dodging, by Hamish Boland-Rudder.   Multinational corporations operating in Europe will be required to report their earnings and taxes on a country-by-country basis after the continent''s finance ministers agreed to new tax transparency measures this week.   Finance ministers from the European Union’s 28 member states met in Brussels on Tuesday, where they approved a new directive on the exchange of corporate tax-related information. The new rules are aimed at curbing profit shifting and corporate tax avoidance by large multinational companies.   The initiative is driven by a string of recent corporate tax scandals in Europe, including ICIJ’s Luxembourg Leaks investigation which revealed how hundreds of the world’s biggest companies were using secret agreements with Luxembourg to cut their tax bills by billions. The European Commission estimates that Europe’s governments lose 70 billion euros to corporate tax avoidance each year.   The new rules are expected to be adopted by June, and will be applied to foreign companies with European subsidiaries from 2017. Under the rules, corporations will be required to report revenues, profits, taxes and the number of employees in all European countries where they operate.   Transparency campaigners called on the EU to go a step further, and make this information available to the public.   It comes at a time of increasing tensions between Europe, the United States and multinational companies looking to reduce their tax bills.   Following a January ruling by the European Commission forcing Belgium to reclaim about $765 million from 35 multinational companies, some corporations were reportedly considering shifting their operations out of the country.   In recent months the U.S. has criticized Europe’s tax investigations as unfairly targeting American companies and indicated that it is considering retaliatory measures against European companies.   http://www.icij.org/blog Visit the related web page
	View more stories