Even though the call was watered down in the heated ministerial discussion that took place yesterday evening, at 10pm ministers came out of the meeting with an agreement to call for a UN conference at the highest possible level. Trevor Manuel from South Africa very strongly called for an explicit recognition in the document of the need to reform the international financial architecture through an inclusive and legitimate process. The German and Dutch development ministers also played a crucial role in reaching agreement and persuading the U.S. to support it.

Most of the Doha Outcome Document is already agreed. Negotiations are ongoing, however, on a limited number of issues. These include a mention of taxation in the context of foreign direct investment, climate change, and UN Financing for Development follow-up mechanisms. Negotiators are expected to reach agreement on these final points during the next few hours. They will then release the final document by the end of the day today, Tuesday. To reach agreement on these few final points some further good language is likely to be sacrificed, further watering down the text. However, no major changes are expected from the last version of the text which was made public yesterday.

The general sense of civil society present in Doha is that the text is weak. In general, it does not constitute a step forward from Monterrey. Most of the text is just a reaffirmation of Monterrey, but progress is made on some issues, such as taxation - even though the final negotiations may weaken the text. The text even goes backwards on some of the issues, including on debt.

It is striking how six years after the Monterrey FfD summit, the text is only able to - at best - restate past commitments. During these years debates civil society and some progressive governments have pushed forward the agenda on key issues such as the legitimacy of debt claims, creditor co-responsibility in loan contracting and past debts, policy conditionality, or illicit financial flows - to name a few. Civil society and some progressive governments fought to have these issues reflected in the text. The FfD process is one of the very few existing processes which could address the major flaws in the global economic and financial system to make it work for development. However, lack of political will from rich country governments has prevented the process having the necessary impetus and vision.

This conference confirms that at this moment when the world is spiralling down in crisis and recession, a good number of rich countries are threatening to go back to regressive and very short-sighted views. Concerned about budget constraints and in trying to preserve their power in the global economy, they fail to realise that we are most likely heading to a multipolar world where "old" rich countries will no longer have hegemonic power. The US and the EU are also failing to realise that, even if it is only for narrow self interest, they may need more than ever to boost economic growth and consumption in developing countries; they may need in the near future a fair and transparent debt work-out mechanism which allows them to deal with huge debts they will be soon accumulating; they may need clear regulation on fiscal matters and tax competition when a growing number of companies using the justification of the crisis to relocate even more to other countries.

In these times of uncertainty no one knows what the future holds - both in terms of the long-term effects of the crisis and how it may lead to reshaping geopolitics. Rich countries are upsetting the rest of the world with their unwillingness to give up their power in the international economic and financial governance. Both rich and poor countries should be more willing to address fundamental issues that will allow developing countries to retain and mobilise much needed resources for development; but also to address the type of policies which allow greater wealth redistribution within countries, and the protection of the poorest of the poor. We all have our share of responsibility. And in times of crisis, is fundamental to think big. The UN is the right forum to hold these types of discussions to push progressive policy debates and issues forward. Other institutional mechanisms at global level, regional and national levels are also needed to implement these agreements. But regardless of the forum what is desperately needed is the political will and long-term vision of world governments. The fact that so few heads of state came to Doha for this conference sent a bad signal that is matched by the outcome text. It is hard to hold out too much hope for the next UN conference that has been agreed, but it is positive that more governments will have some say in how the world’s institutional architecture can be rebuilt for the good of the majority.

To read more about the FfD conference in Doha, click here.