Fighting illicit flows from developing countries.

What next for the EU agenda?

Report of the conference organised by Eurodad, CNCD and the

Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development

December 7-8, 2010

Brussels, Belgium

Introduction

Cross-border illicit financial flows from developing

countries are estimated to range from US $850 billion

to US $1 trillion each year. 1 Two thirds of these illicit

flows are related to tax evasion and avoidance by

multinational companies operating in the South. As a

result of tax dodging, poor countries lose massive

financial resources which, according to the OECD, are

larger than the amount received from Official

Development Assistance (ODA), and according to

Christian Aid amount to as much as US $ 160 billion per

year.

Civil society organisations have for a long time been

concerned about the staggering amount of tax-related

illicit financial flows depriving developing countries of

much needed resources for development. As a result of

intense research, campaigning and advocacy efforts by

experts and CSOs, tax and development have, in recent

years, also become a concern for decision-makers.

However, concrete measures which could make a

breakthrough are still sorely missing in the official

agenda. Therefore, the time is right to push forward

specific policy reforms that could make a substantial

change in curbing tax-related illicit flows from poor

countries.

Around 80 participants from several countries,

including 15 from the South, gathered in Brussels on 7

and 8 December to take part in the conference

"Fighting illicit flows from developing countries. What

next for the EU agenda” organised by Eurodad, Eurodad

1 http://www.gfip.org/storage/gfip/documents/executive%20-

%20final%20version%2005-14-09.pdf

member Centre National de Coopération au

Développement (CNCD) and the Task Force on

Financial Integrity and Economic Development. The

conference brought together civil society groups,

experts, decision-makers, parliamentarians and some

private sector representatives working on tax-related

issues to discuss policy proposals and strategic

alliances that could help make a breakthrough in the

fight against tax evasion and avoidance from poor

countries, and to ensure the highest standards of

financial honesty.

The event was an opportunity to expose specific

examples of the negative impact that illicit financial

flows have on developing countries, to evaluate

progress made so far by recent policy reforms and

official initiatives, and to discuss more ambitious

policy proposals, and identify upcoming opportunities

and strategies to push them forward in the official

agenda, with a particular emphasis on the EU and the

G20.

1. Tax evasion and avoidance: A problem of

the North and the South

Leonce Ndikumana, Director of the development

research department at African Development Bank,

argued that African countries currently face three

main problems:

• a financial haemorrhage: a large volume of illicit

financial flows leaves Africa to rest the world;

• a discovery problem: money smuggled out of the

continent has very consistent channels to be hidden,

including secrecy jurisdictions and financial opacity;

and

• a recovery problem: the lack of transparency of the

global financial system makes it extremely difficult to

track and recover tax-related illicit financial flows and

stolen assets.

Ndikumana said that the repatriation of these capitals

is both a moral and an economic imperative, since it

could contribute to sustainable growth and allow

financial independence. On the part of African

governments, this can be attained through an improved

regulatory framework and fiscal governance, which

Northern governments could support through greater

provision of technical assistance in support of tax

administration and governance.

However, Western governments and the EU also have

to address their own responsibilities: they must put in

place regulations to improve banking and financial

sector transparency, and they can make better use of

their intelligence services to capture illicit banking

transfers and tax fraud. They must also ratify and

implement international conventions by Northern

governments. In this regard, Dereje Alemayehu from

Tax Justice Network Africa alerted on the role of tax

havens in hiding illicit flows from developing countries.

Both speakers agreed that it is fundamental that the

problem of illicit financial flows, tax evasion and

avoidance is not perceived as a problem of Southern

countries only.

The speakers emphasised that CSOs have an important

role in bringing systemic aspects of this issue into a

broad discussion which addresses both developing and

developed countries’ responsibilities.

How do multinational companies (MNCs) dodge

taxes?

Transfer pricing is one of the mechanisms most often

used by multinational companies (MNCs) to avoid and

evade taxes from poor countries. This practice implies

that companies which are part of the same

multinational group trade with each other at distorted

market prices. All too often this mechanism is used by

multinational groups to shift profits to jurisdictions with

lower taxation.

Martin Hearson from Eurodad member Action Aid (AA)

presented the findings of new AA research, "Calling

time: why SABMiller should stop dodging taxes in

Africa", which reveals how SABMiller, the world’s

second biggest brewer, uses transfer pricing to siphon

profits out of subsidiaries in developing countries,

depriving those governments of significant amounts of

tax. The OECD guidelines on “Transfer pricing guidelines

for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations”

recommend the application of the "arm's length

principle" for the valuation of cross-border

transactions between associated companies require

using market prices in their intra-group trading.

However, this is becoming increasingly difficult and

complex to administer and enforce, as transfer pricing

today typically involves huge and expensive databases

and high-level expertise to handle. Even when these

guidelines are enforced, the tax authorities of many

developing countries do not have sufficient resources

to examine the facts and circumstances of each and

every case so as to determine the acceptable transfer

price, especially in cases where there is a lack of

comparables, such as in intangibles resources.

According to Hearson, addressing transfer pricing

requires a political dialogue which includes developing

countries; therefore political processes framed within

the OECD are flawed as they do not provide

appropriate voice and representation for developing

countries. Moreover, this should go hand in hand with

enhancing the capacity of developing countries so

their fiscal administrations can meaningfully address

the problem of tax evasion and avoidance from their

countries.

Addressing transfer pricing and cross-border tax

avoidance: what can Northern governments do?

Civil society organisations have long campaigned to

change the reporting standards of MNCs and establish

a country-by-country reporting standard, which would

allow for assessing the performance of individual

companies within a group, thereby increasing

transparency and helping fight tax avoidance. The

proposal gained traction during 2010, including among

institutional circles.

At the Council Summit in June, European governments

gave their support to the European Commission’s

Communication on Tax and Development, launched in

April 2010. The Communication supports the

establishment of a country-by-country reporting

standard for MNCs, notably in the extractive industry.

Going even further, the U.S. Congress passed

legislation in July 2010 to ensure that all U.S. MNCs in

the extractive sector comply with this reporting

standard. Shelly Han, Policy Advisor on the U.S.

Congress Commission on Security and Cooperation in

Europe, spoke about this new U.S. legislation, the

Dodd-Frank Act, and the process through which the

U.S. Congress took a bold step in adopting binding

measures to curb tax-related illicit flows. The Act

requires that all companies active in the extractive

industry (minerals, oil and gas) in third countries and

registered with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC) publicly report (via a devoted

website) the different types of payments they make to

host governments on a country-by-country and project-

by-project basis. Some EU based companies active in

the extractive sector are listed in the U.S. and will

therefore be subject to this Act. Having passed this

legislation, the U.S. is now exploring ways to ensure a

more level playing field with other countries and

companies not listed in the U.S. and therefore not

bound by this legislation. The Dodd-Frank Act was

introduced as a way of ensuring greater transparency,

but not necessarily with a view to tackle tax avoidance

and evasion. However, publicly disclosing information

on the profits and payments made by MNCs in each

country in which they operate will help concerned

governments and civil society organisations to obtain

information crucial to enforcing taxation to the

companies operating in the South.

Although no legislation has yet been passed in Europe,

the European Commission is taking steps forward on

the issue of country-by-country reporting. Thomas

Neale from the European Commission's Taxation and

Customs Union Directorate-General (EC DG Taxud)

explained the experience of the EU in tackling tax

evasion and promoting good governance in tax matters

(including enhancing transparency, exchange of

information and fair tax competition). The EU action

focuses on encouraging and supporting developing

countries to adopt and implement international

standards in the tax area, mainly through technical

cooperation and capacity building. On the issue of

country-by-country reporting (CBCR), the Commission is

adopting a cautious approach, conducted research on

innovative approaches and commissioned a study on

transfer pricing that will come out in June 2011. In

addition, the European Commission’s Internal Market

and Services Directorate-General (EC DG Markt)

launched a public consultation on the issue, which

might lead to a Communication in September 2011. The

Commission representative also re-stated the EC’s

support to the current work of the OECD on the matter

and the research work by International Accounting

Standards Board (IASB) on the possible inclusion of

CBCR in the review of the International Financial

Reporting Standard for the extractive industries (IFRS

6).

Country-by-country reporting or formulary

apportionment?

In the discussion on how to effectively tax MNCs and

address transfer pricing, participants put forward two

methods: country-by-country reporting and formulary

apportionment. On the one hand, country-by-country

reporting is an accounting tool that would enhance

the quality of the comparable data which would, in

turn, help developing country tax administrations and

civil society to raise red flags regarding potential

abuse worthy of further investigation. This level of

transparency would assist in the efficient operation of

markets and the enforcement of current international

standards on transfer pricing as well as potential

alternative methods of taxing multinational

companies.

On the other hand, formulary apportionment is a

system under which a multinational company’s total

profits would be allocated for tax purposes between

the countries in which it operates according to a

formula, which would take into account the share of a

company’s total property, payroll and sales. In the US,

companies already have to use formulary

apportionment to allocate profits between states; and

at the European Union, the proposed Common

Consolidated Corporate Tax base (CCCTB) would take

a similar approach. As Thomas Neale pointed out, the

Commission is exploring the use of this method,

although there are political hurdles to get over first.

However, this method would only apply within the

European Union, which implies that outside the Union

the “arms’ length principle” would continue to be

applied. According to Neale, to implement a system

like this all countries must agree, which takes time.

A formulary apportionment was also proposed by

John Christensen from Tax Justice Network as an

alternative to the “arm’s length principle” of country-

by-country reporting. The “arm’s length principle”

does not work in practice, as recognised by Michael

Durst, a former director of the U.S. Internal Revenue

Service’s Advanced Transfer Pricing Program, since

they are very difficult to apply in relation to

trademarks, brands and technical assistance.

Therefore, CSOs must take the lead in providing

alternatives, despite the massive lobbying from big

corporations.

2. What can developing countries do?

Tax and debt

For movements and civil society organisations in the

South, tax evasion and avoidance is closely related to

the need for developing countries’ governments to

enhance domestic resource mobilisation. This issue, in

its turn, is clearly linked to the staggering bleeding of

resources devoted to servicing external debts. Maria

Lucia Fattorelli from the Latin American Network on

Debt, Development and Rights (Latindadd) spoke about

how the payment of debt, especially in Latin America,

but also in Europe, has increasing repercussions on tax

policies and tax justice. As Lidy Nacpil from Jubilee

South in the Philippines also stressed, the problem in

the South is not the lack of wealth, not even necessarily

poor management, but mostly structural problems,

such as unfair trade relations, profit repatriation and

debt service which lead to the major outflow of

resources.

As Fatorelli argued, CSOs have long campaigned to set

up debt audits which would allow the tracking of

illegitimate debt and would spare citizens from carrying

the burden of paying for that debt through heavy and

unfair taxation. She presented the experiences in Latin

American countries which carried debt audits, mostly

highlighting the Ecuadorian audit and the process that

led to setting up a Commission at the Parliament in

Brazil.

Fair and progressive taxation systems at national level

In developing countries, adopting strong fiscal and

progressive systems is not only a domestic matter.

International Financial Institutions (IFI) conditions and

technical advice attached to their loans and grants have

an influence on these national decisions. As Attiya

Waris from Tax Justice Network Africa explained,

governments in Africa are not permitted by the IMF to

write their own tax policies. Moreover, as Fatorelli and

Waris highlighted, some fiscal policies, such as the

increase of indirect taxation and liberalisation of

financial flows, have been pushed by IFIs in the past

decades. These tax reforms have had a regressive

impact, as poor people tend to devote a higher

percentage of their income in consumption than rich

people do.

Developing countries also face other challenges when

they negotiate investment contracts and Double

Taxation Agreements (DTAs). As Waris stressed, these

agreements all too often include tax-related conditions

that curtail the possibility of developing countries to set

up their own fiscal systems. When MNCs with bigger

budgets than the country itself come in, their

negotiation power is also seriously constrained.

Tax competition is another key issue with international

dimensions that affect tax revenues in developing

countries as they compete to attract foreign

investment. In fact, developing countries lose a lot of

potential income due to tax exemptions. Often

governments feel that they have to engage in a race-

to-the-bottom to attract Foreign Direct Investments

(FDI) and thus grant generous tax exemptions to

foreign investment. However, research shows that

tax-related incentives are not a crucial factor to attract

FDI.

Speakers also emphasised the need to address

collective regulation at the global and national levels.

Nacpil pointed that such global discussion should take

place in an inclusive and democratic framework such

as the United Nations, and not the G20. At the

national level, CSOs need to engage in discussion on

how taxes are raised but also how governments

intend to spend the resources, since there has been

an erosion of public services over the last decade.

Fratorelli highlighted that long-term solutions for illicit

capital flows in developing countries include a fair tax

system, global taxes on financial transactions, the end

of tax havens, and the realisation of debt audits.

Improve tax administration

Weak tax administrations are among the main

challenges faced by national governments in the

South. Whereas Collins Magalasi from AFRODAD

stated that it is high time to focus on developing

stronger institutions and capacity building for national

tax authorities, he also stressed that there is now a

new wave of thinking among several African CSOs,

including the option of increased nationalisation of

natural resources. Nationalising the extraction of

natural resources would allow national governments

increased control over domestic revenues.

Ndikumana, however, questioned if increased

nationalisation would indeed solve the problem. The

real challenge, Ndikumana stressed, is to ensure an

efficient enforceability of tax rules, and rules that

apply to MNCs as well as governments.

There was also a consensus around the need to

strengthen tax administration in developing countries.

The reforms need to address the interests of the tax

payer and the tax collector, increasing transparency

on one side and enforcement capacity on the other.

3. Next steps: 2011 agenda for change

Political momentum increasing

The political momentum created by U.S. legislation

was emphasised by Vanessa Herringshaw from

Revenue Watch. Oil, gas, and mining revenues are

critically important economic sectors in about 60

developing countries which, despite abundant natural

resources, rank among the lowest in the world in

poverty, economic growth, and governance

assessments. This is why the new bill represents an

important step in the right direction and certainly an

example to be followed.

At the EU level, there have been some positive steps,

particularly during the last Spanish presidency. Felix

Fernandez-Shaw from the Spanish Permanent

Representation stated that the Council conclusions in

June 2010 took an EU stance on tax issues for the first

time and even recommended “exploring country-by-

country reporting as a standard for multinational

corporations”. These conclusions also supported the

Commission Communication on Tax and Development,

which emphasised the potential of country-by-country

reporting in the extractive industries and other sectors

as a tool to assist developing countries in mobilising

domestic resources for development. According to Jose

Correia Nunes from the European Commission's

Development Directorate-General (EC DG

Development), this communication was a step forward,

but it is clear that we have to continue working. Even

thought the EU is not yet at the legislative stage of the

U.S., both officials stated that next year this issue is

going to be at the forefront of discussion. As

Fernandez-Shaw explained, it is tremendously

complicated to bring issues like transfer pricing, CBCR

and the exchange of information to Council

conclusions, since decisions on these require unanimity.

Taxation is closely linked to sovereignty and it is very

difficult for Member States to give up their

competences in this field. For this reason, CSOs are

called on to play a greater role in mobilising their

governments in allowing progress at the EU level.

What should the EC do?

While the EU could opt for a replication of the U.S.

legislation, Herringshaw stressed that we need to push

for other issues, such as including CBCR for all sectors

and effectively promoting tax justice and fiscal justice,

not just corruption. Correia Nunes was also in favour of

this, but he warned about the time and the support

needed. As he stated, it should be progressive, and we

must ensure collaboration from Member States, by

showing the benefits of cooperation, such as more

efficiency and hence more tax revenue. Certainly CSOs

have to push strongly against the resistance of Member

States, companies in Europe and also in some

developing countries.

According to Herringshaw, the next issue on the

agenda is contract transparency, monitoring and

enforcement, particularly in the extractive sector. The

disclosure of such contracts and their enforcement is

important, not just for governments but also to create

symmetry within civil society organisations to assess

the fairness of those contracts and hold governments

accountable.

Going beyond, and acting at the G20 level

In the last two years, G20 leaders have expressed

concerns about the lack of transparency of and

cooperation from secrecy jurisdictions and the need to

regulate them. In November 2009, they also made a

commitment to “make it easier for developing

countries to secure the benefits of a new cooperative

tax environment.” Meeting in Seoul in November

2010, the G20 leaders issued the “Seoul development

consensus for shared growth,” which includes old and

new commitments on tax matters, particularly in

relation to domestic resource mobilisation.

According to Maylis Labusquière from Oxfam France

the EU can be useful in extending the European

standards of exchange of information to developing

countries and in building a new model for the taxation

of MNCs. She also stressed that the EU and the G20

must assume the responsibility of requiring

information from their own companies and take into

account the detrimental impact of trade liberalisation

on the tax systems of developing countries.

The way forward

As the tax justice agenda moves swiftly forward, the

speakers agreed that the time has come to

consolidate progress made in the last few months and

take reforms to the next level.

CSOs are pushing strongly for binding legislation for

the private sector in order to make it accountable.

Whereas Nacpil and Labusquière stated that CSOs can

engage in dialogue with private companies only to the

extent that campaigns make progress, Herringshaw

mentioned the fact that there are some voluntary

initiatives of disclosure and that Newmont publicly

supported the U.S. bill and disclosure of contracts.

However, some participants highlighted the need to

make distinctions within the private sector. While the

big players (MNCs) benefit from the current global

rules, the small and medium enterprises are only

affected by these economic distortions.

The speakers also agreed that 2011 will be important

in terms of campaigning and lobbying opportunities.

The G20 chaired by France is a good platform for

mobilisation as well as for advocacy. CSOs will work

actively to influence European governments and the EU

and position towards the G20 to promote concrete

measures on tax matters.

CSOs from the North and South should also work to

expose the role of private investments in developing

countries and tax related conditions that undermine

policy space in the South. The IMF, World Bank and

regional banks should be the natural target of the work.

According to some speakers, this is also the time to

take bold bilateral action based on the experience in

certain countries, such as Spain and Ireland, which

demonstrate that tax competition does not work.

In order to do this effectively, Correia Nunes and

Fernandez-Shaw emphasized that it is important to

have a clear agenda, not against the private sector, but

concentrating on the different roles to be played by

both developed and developing countries. As they

stated, there is a lack of incentive in catching the tax

dodgers, as there is competition between countries to

harvest more taxes. There is therefore an increasing

need to network between the most important players,

setting out an ambitious and joint agenda, with clear

priorities on what to achieve in 2011.

4. Conclusions

The conference was an excellent opportunity to discuss

what needs to be done and how to get there. At the

global level, there is an agreement that tax evasion, tax

avoidance, transfer (mis)pricing and financial secrecy

need to be addressed. However, the question is how to

do it effectively. Country-by-country reporting is just

one tool to reach greater transparency.

At the national level, strong tax systems are needed,

which is important both in developing and developed

countries, particularly those facing strong fiscal crises in

Europe. In developing countries, however, adopting

strong fiscal and progressive systems is not only a

domestic matter: International Financial Institutions

(IFIs) impose conditions- double taxation agreements

curtail the possibility of countries to set up their own

fiscal systems and powerful MNCs immensely

constrain the negotiation power of countries.

Therefore we need to address collective regulation

globally, but also enable an environment in which

countries do not engage in tax competition either

voluntarily or advised by IFIs.

Finally, how are effective regulation and results

reached? The problem can only be fully addressed at

the multilateral level. However, progress will be very

slow if we rely solely on this instance. In parallel,

strong action at the unilateral level is possible and can

help advancing the agenda: the U.S. Dodd-Frank Act is

a good example of that. We could also use the fiscal

crises as an opportunity to strengthen campaigning in

developed countries. Indeed, tax justice and fiscal

justice need to be put at the forefront in both

developing and developed countries and the CSO

advocacy role is very important in this fight.

Eurodad Eurodad (the European Network on Debt and

Development) is a network of 58 non-

governmental organisations from 19 European

countries who work together on issues related to

debt, development finance and poverty reduction.

The Eurodad network offers a platform for

exploring issues, collecting intelligence and ideas,

and undertaking collective advocacy.

More information and recent briefings are at:

www.eurodad.org

EURODAD Information Updates:

Subscribe free to EURODAD’s newsletter

“Development Finance Watch”:

www.eurodad.org/newsletter/index.aspx?id=108

Annex

AGENDA

Tuesday 7th December

17.00 – 18.00: Roundtable debate to discuss the new reports

L’économie déboussolée : multinationales, paradis fiscaux et captation des richesses (CCFD) and Calling Time: Why

SABMiller should stop dodging taxes in Africa (Action Aid)

18.00 – 20.00: Opening cocktail

Welcome and opening remarks by Nuria Molina, Eurodad Director

Key note speech

• Ingrid Fiskaa, Norwegian State Secretary for development and cooperation – Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway

• Shelly Han, Policy Advisor on the U.S. Congress Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

• Franziska Keller, Member of the European Parliament

Wednesday 8th December

9.00-10.00 Registration

10. 00 10.15: Key note speech

Leonce Ndikumana, Director of the Development Research Department at the African Development Bank

10.15- 12.45: Taxing multinational corporations: addressing transfer mispricing and cross border tax avoidance.

Moderator: Jean Merckaert

Speakers:

• Shelly Han, Policy Advisor on the U.S. Congress Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

• Martin Hearson, Action Aid

• Thomas Neale, DG Taxud, European Commission

• María Lucia Fattorelli, Latindadd

• Dereje Alemayehu, Tax Justice Network Africa

Discussant: John Christensen, Tax Justice Network

13.00-14.00: Lunch break

14.00-14.15: Key note speech

Attiya Waris, Tax Justice Network

14.15- 16.30: What next after the June 2010 Council conclusions? What should be the EU position towards the G20

in 2011?

Moderator: Martin Sandbu, Financial Times

Speakers:

• Vanessa Herringshaw, Publish What You Pay Coalition

• Félix Fernández-Shaw, Spanish Permanent Representation

• Jose Correia Nunes, DG Development, European Commission

• Maylis Labusquière, Oxfam France

Discussant: Lidy Nacpil, Jubilee South

16.30 – 17.00: Wrap up and closing remarks

Speakers:

• María José Romero, Eurodad-Task Force

• Antonio Gambini, Centre National de Coopération au Développement (CNCD)

List of participants

Participant Organisation

Aichata Cisse Malians Parliamentarian Network Against Corruption

Ali Idrissa Cabinet du Président du Conseil Consultatif National - France

Aline Labat Master student of Public Health

Amadou Bouare Malians Parliamentarian Network Against Corruption

André Seubert Parliamentary Assistant to MEP Gabriele Zimmer

Antonio Gambini CNCD

Antti Kahrunen European Commission, DG Development

Attiya Waris TJN Africa

Barbara Grenko European Commission, DG Taxud

Bodo Ellmers Eurodad

Bosire Nyamori Eastern Africa Taxation Institute

Bourama Dicko Malians Parliamentarian Network Against Corruption

Cecilia Mattia NACE

Chris Jackson Cicero London

Christian Peter European Commission, DG Development

Cibele Cesca Eurodad

Claire Mandouze Institute Africain de la Gouvernance

Clare Berkett Eurodad

Collins Magalasi Afrodad

David Walwyn Ogier (Jersey)

Dereje Alemayehu TJN Africa

Des Carney Transparency International

Desislava Stoyanova CEE Bankwatch Network

Elio Pereira Guimaraes Luta Hamutuk Institute

Eric Desquesses French Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Erin Weir International Trade Union Confederation

Félix Fernández-Shaw Spanish Representation

Filomeno Sta Ana Action for Economic Reforms

Fiona Napier Open Society Foundation

Florian van Megen Assistant to MEP Sven Giegold

Georg Stoll Misereor

George Boden Global Witness

Gregoire O. Balaro

Ecole Nationale d’Economie Appliquée et de Management

(ENEAM) Université d’Abomey-Calavi

Guillaume L. Chaize Cotecna Inspection S.A.

Guillaume Xavier-Bender German Marshall Fund

Guindja Pierre TJN / Kairos Europe

Hege Fisknes Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Helen Collinson Christian Aid

Helen de Vane Christian Aid

Hugo Noe Pino Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Fiscales

Ingrid Fiska Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Inti Ghysels Assistant to Member of Belgian Parliament Dirk Van der Maelen

Iris Smolders Evert Vermeer Foundation

Issa Tolo Malians Parliamentarian Network Against Corruption

Jean Letitia Saldanha CIDSE

Jean Merckaert CCFD

Jenny Brown Christian Aid

John Christensen TJN

Katherine E. Monahan U.S. Agency for International Development

Katrin McGauran SOMO

Kirsten Ehrich Eurodad

Kjetil Abildsnes Norwegian Church Aid

Kristina Fröberg Forum Syd

Lars Koch IBIS Denmark

Laura Trevelyan Christian Aid

Leonce Ndikumana

Development Research Department at the African Development

Bank

Lidy Nacpil Jubilee South - Asia/Pacific Movement on Debt and Development

Luis Moreno Latindadd

Maja Flinthøj IBIS Denmark

Maria Jose Romero Eurodad

Maria Lucia Fattorelli Latindadd

Marie-Paule Ogereau CIDSE

Martin Hearson Action Aid

Martin Sandbu Financial Times

Mathilde Dupré CCFD

Maurice Engueleguele Institut Africain de la Gouvernance

Maylis Labusquiere Oxfam France

Mette Masst Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Miguel Carapeto Eurodad

Nakiguli Devine Kibuuka Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development - Uganda

Nanoukon Aristide BNPP Fortis

Navina Vemuri Global Policy Forum Europe

Nicolas Mombrial Oxfam International

Nora Honkaniemi Eurodad

Nuria Molina Eurodad

Oygunn Brynildsen Eurodad

Paal Ivar Aavatsmark Norwegian Representation

Pasi Nokelainen KEPA

Quentin de Roquefeuil ECDPM

Rachel Sharpe Action Aid

Richard Hay Stikeman Elliott

Sanata Sylla Malians Parliamentarian Network Against Corruption

Sarah Johansen IBIS Denmark

Shelly Han US Congress - Helsinki Commission

Siaka S. TRAORE Malians Parliamentarian Network Against Corruption

Sophie Powell Christian Aid

Sorley McCaughey Christian Aid

Ssesimba Wahab Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development - Uganda

Sunita Verlinde Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Suzan Cornelissen Fair Politics/Evert Vermeer Foundation

Tassilo von Droste European Commission DG Development

Ted van Hees Oxfam Novib

Tom Neale European Commission, DG Taxud

Tone Tinnes Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Tumuhimbise Jasper Lantern Consult International

Tytti Nahi KEPA

Vanessa Herringshaw PWYP

Wolfgang Obenland Global Policy Forum Europe

Yvonne Bol FMO

Zahid Abdullah Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives - Pakistan