Global partnership – thoughts on a new leitmotif for international politics Reader Jos van Gennip Lecture The Dutch Senate, January 22, 2014
Reader Jos van Gennip Lecture The Dutch Senate, January 22, 2014 Jos van Gennip Lecture
The aim of the Jos van Gennip Lectures is to provide an impetus to the Dutch public debate and policy by placing current developments in the international global development debate in a Dutch context. The Jos van Gennip Lectures are organized by NCDO and Institute of Social Studies (ISS) as a token of appreciation for Van Gennip’s commitment and invaluable contribution in the fields of international development cooperation and global sustainable development.
NCDO is a Dutch expertise and advisory center for citizenship and international cooperation. It promotes public awareness of international cooperation and the importance of active Dutch involvement in this area. NCDO carries out research, provides information and advice, stimulates public debate, for example by organizing the Jos van Gennip Lectures, and is actively involved in the field of training and education. During the implementation of these activities NCDO cooperates with government, political and social organizations, the business community, the research sector and with citizens directly.
More information can be found by visiting www.ncdo.nl
The International Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague is part of the Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR). ISS is a highly diverse international community of scholars and students from the global south and the north, which brings together people, ideas and insights in a multi-disciplinary setting which nurtures, fosters and promotes critical thinking and conducts innovative research into fundamental social problems. ISS shares expertise with a wider public by providing high-level policy advice, serving as a platform for debate and the exchange of ideas and engaging in consultancy can mark itself as a unique and still growing Institution. Being both research- and teaching-based, the collected talent and significant contributions its academics have made in the field of development can be at least partially attributed to the multicultural and close-knit community that has marked the Institution’s history.
More information can be found by visiting www.iss.nl
Cover photo: Bart Maat / Hollandse Hoogte Amsterdam, January 2014
NCDO is the centre for global citizenship. P.O. Box 94020, 1090 AD Amsterdam tel +31 (0)20 568 87 55 [email protected], www.ncdo.nl JOS VAN GENNIP LECTURE THE DUTCH SENATE, JANUARY 22, 2014
Global partnership – thoughts on a new leitmotif for international politics
PROGRAMME
15.00 Welcome and registration
15.30 Opening by Hans Franken, Vice-President of the Senate
15.35 Introduction by moderator Rolph van der Hoeven, Institute of Social Studies
15.45 Lecture by Horst Köhler, former President of the Federal Republic of Germany and member of the UN High Level Panel of eminent persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda - Global partnership – thoughts on a new leitmotif for international politics
16.30 Lecture by Lilianne Ploumen, Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation
17.00 Discussion
17.40 Concluding remarks by Pieter van Geel, Chairman of the NCDO Board of Supervisors
17.45 Drinks
CONTENTS
. INTRODUCTION
. BIOGRAPY HORST KÖHLER
. BIOGRAPHY LILIANNE PLOUMEN
. A LIFE OF DIGNITY FOR ALL UNITED NATIONS
. A NEW GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP THE CO-CHAIRS OF THE HIGH-LEVEL PANEL OF EMINENT PERSONS ON THE POST-2015 DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
. A WORLD TO GAIN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE NETHERLANDS
. A DECENT LIFE FOR ALL EUROPEAN COMMISSION
. DE NEDERLANDSE INZET IN DE POST-2015 ONTWIKKELINGSAGENDA MINISTER PLOUMEN
. THE EU IN 2030 MARGARITAS CHINAS
. THE POST- 2015 DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ADVISORY COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
. CAPITALISM AND INEQUALITY JOS VAN GENNIP
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP - THOUGHTS ON A NEW LEITMOTIF FOR INTERNATIONAL POLITICS INTRODUCTION
The Jos van Gennip Lecture is a series of lectures named after former Dutch Senator Mr. Van Gennip, who resigned as Chairman of the Board of NCDO in February 2012. The lectures are organized by NCDO and ISS as a token of appreciation for Van Gennip’s commitment and invaluable contribution in the fields of international development cooperation and global sustainable development.
The aim of the lectures is to provide an impetus to the Dutch public debate and policy by placing current developments in the international global development debate in a Dutch context. The lectures cover topics on international cooperation and sustainable development. Specifically, it focuses on analyses of (global) social, economic and ecological developments and their impact on the Dutch international cooperation and global sustainable development policies.
This reader provides background information for the second Jos van Gennip Lecture, to be held on January 22, 2014: Global partnership – thoughts on a new leitmotif for international politics. It contains the biographies of Horst Köhler and Lilianne Ploumen, both of whom will speak at the lecture, the programme and a number of relevant articles and reports on the lecture’s subject. BIOGRAPHY HORST KÖHLER
Horst Köhler served as the ninth President of the Federal Republic of Germany between 2004 and 2010. During his term of office he was not only engaged in the domestic arena but he was committed in the field of foreign issues as well. He advocated a human dimension to globalization with clearly defined rules and was therefore a staunch campaigner for poverty eradication and the African continent.
During his career, Mr Köhler was appointed as State Secretary in 1990 in which position he negotiated the German-German monetary union with the GDR leadership. Additonally, he achieved the agreement on the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the GDR in Moscow. Moreover, he was chief negotiator for the Maastricht Treaty on European Monetary Union, as well as the Personal Representative (Sherpa) of the then Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl for the World Economic Summits of the then G7.
In 1993 he became President of the German Savings Bank Association and worked to create a modern image of the organization and recognized the particular responsibility of the savings banks for small and medium-sized enterprises and for the social climate in the municipalities.
In 1998 he took the position of the President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in London until 2000, when he was proposed as the new Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington, DC. He acted in this position until his election as Federal President in 2004.
President Köhler was a member of UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda from 2012-2013 and continues to serve in a number of national and international organizations in honorary positions.
BIOGRAPHY LILIANNE PLOUMEN
Lilianne Ploumen holds a Master’s Degrees in Social History (1988) and Strategic Marketing Management (1992) In 1983, while still at university, Lilianne Ploumen became a community outreach worker in the Crooswijk area of Rotterdam. Two years later she joined the Institute of Psychological Market Research (IPM), working in the statistics department and as a research project leader. IPM focuses on research-based consultancy.
In 1995 she founded Ploumen Projecten, an organisation specialising in market research and innovation for commercial and non-profit clients. In the same year she also began working as a fundraising coordinator for Mama Cash, an international fund supporting women’s initiatives, going on to become director of the organisation from 1996 to 2001.
From 2001 to 2007 Ms Ploumen worked for the development organisation Cordaid, first as head of quality and strategy and later as director of international programmes. She was Chair of the Labour Party (PvdA) from October 2007 to January 2012.
On 5 November 2012 Lilianne Ploumen was appointed Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation in the Rutte-Asscher government.
Lilianne Ploumen previously held the position of Vice Chair of the Evert Vermeer Foundation, and was a member of the Labour Party’s South-North Committee (advising on international cooperation). She has also been a board member of feminist organisation Opzij and Women Inc. and member of the Stop Aids Now! supervisory board.
United Nations A/68/202
General Assembly Distr.: General 26 July 2013
Original: English
Sixty-eighth session Item 118 of the provisional agenda* Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit
A life of dignity for all: accelerating progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and advancing the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015
Report of the Secretary-General
Summary The present report is submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution 65/1, in which the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to report annually on progress in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals until 2015 and to make recommendations for further steps to advance the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015. Renewed efforts are essential for achieving the Millennium Development Goals by the end of 2015. While providing an assessment of progress to date, the report also identifies policies and programmes that have driven success in the achievement of the Goals and can contribute to accelerating it. These include emphasizing inclusive growth, decent employment and social protection; allocating more resources for essential services and ensuring access for all; strengthening political will and improving the international policy environment; and harnessing the power of multi-stakeholder partnerships. A new post-2015 era demands a new vision and a responsive framework. Sustainable development — enabled by the integration of economic growth, social justice and environmental stewardship — must become our global guiding principle and operational standard. This is a universal agenda that requires profound economic transformations and a new global partnership. It also requires that the international community, including the United Nations, embrace a more coherent and effective response to support the agenda. As we make the transition to this new era, we need to continue the work begun with the Millennium Development Goals and ensure that extreme poverty is ended within a generation. In keeping with United Nations principles, this post-2015 framework can bring together the full range of human aspirations and needs to ensure a life of dignity for all.
* A/68/150.
13-40932 (E) 130813 *1340932*
A/68/202
I. Introduction
1. The world’s quest for dignity, peace, prosperity, justice, sustainability and an end to poverty has reached an unprecedented moment of urgency. 2. In 2000, the States Members of the United Nations agreed on a bold vision for the future that reaffirmed the fundamental values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for the planet and shared responsibility. 3. That vision, enshrined in the Millennium Declaration (General Assembly resolution 55/2) and rooted in the Charter of the United Nations, recognized the need to pool efforts as never before and to advance on three fronts simultaneously: development, peace and security, and human rights. Global challenges, local solutions; shared burden, shared gain: this remains the credo of international action for our collective well-being. 4. Among the promises made in the Millennium Declaration was a compelling pledge to spare no effort to free all women, men, girls and boys from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of poverty. The call itself was not new; the commitment to better standards of living is part of the purposes and principles of the United Nations. But what was new was the sense of possibility — the conviction that through a combination of targets, tangible investments, genuine action and political will, countries and people working together could end poverty in all its forms. 5. The Millennium Development Goals gave expression to this resolve. Since their adoption, Governments, partners and an inspiring constellation of groups and individuals around the world have mobilized to tackle the many dimensions of poverty. Those efforts have generated unprecedented advances in human development. 6. There has been substantial progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals and several successes in reaching specific targets globally and in individual countries. However, the prospects for achieving all of the Goals differ sharply across and within countries and regions. More than a billion people still live in extreme poverty. Far too many people face serious deprivation in health and education, with progress hampered by significant inequality related to income, gender, ethnicity, disability, age and location. The prolonged global economic downturn and violent conflicts in recent years have exacerbated poverty, inequality and exclusion. Biodiversity loss, the degradation of water, drylands and forests and the intensifying risks of climate change threaten to reverse our achievements to date and undermine any future gains. 7. We must do everything we can to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by the end of 2015. That work is unfinished and must continue in order to secure the well-being, dignity and rights of those still on the margins today, as well as of future generations. By meeting our existing commitments, we will be in the best possible position from which to agree upon and implement a universal agenda for sustainable development after 2015. 8. At the same time, the world has changed radically since the turn of the millennium. New economic powers have emerged, new technologies are reshaping our societies and new patterns of human settlement and activity are heightening the pressures on our planet. Inequality is rising in rich and poor countries alike.
2 13-40932
A/68/202
9. A new era demands a new vision and a responsive framework. Sustainable development, enabled by the integration of economic growth, social justice and environmental stewardship, must become our global guiding principle and operational standard. This framework can bring together the full range of human aspirations and needs. It offers a template for mutually reinforcing approaches to global challenges. Sustainable development is, in short, the pathway to the future. 10. So the challenge remains, even as it has taken on new complexity and increased in scale: we must fulfil our promises and meet the aspirations of the world’s peoples, and we must summon the unity to realize the dream of the Charter and the Millennium Declaration. Ours is the first generation with the resources and know-how to end extreme poverty and put our planet on a sustainable course before it is too late. 11. The transition to sustainable development must not mean any diminishment whatsoever in the commitment to ending poverty. As underscored in the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2012 (General Assembly resolution 66/288), poverty eradication is an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. This is a matter of basic justice and human rights. It is also a historic opportunity. If ours is the generation that can end poverty, there should be no deferring this essential mission, no shrinking away from the task. In a world of great wealth and technological advances, no person anywhere should be left behind. No person should go hungry, lack shelter or clean water and sanitation, face social and economic exclusion or live without access to basic health services and education. These are human rights, and form the foundations for a decent life. 12. Nor can progress be achieved or sustained amid armed conflict, violence, insecurity and injustice. These ills often have roots in social and economic deprivation and inequality. In the same vein, poverty can be a precursor and breeding ground of instability. We know that upholding human rights and freeing people from fear and want are inseparable; it is imperative that we do more to act on this basic truth. 13. The present report is intended to galvanize greater efforts to end poverty and achieve sustainable and inclusive growth. We will need enlightened and courageous leadership in the halls of government and the engagement of responsible businesses and civil society the world over. I have drawn considerable inspiration from a dynamic United Nations-led process — a global conversation launched in 2012 on the priorities of a new development agenda that would build on the Millennium Development Goals. In a series of global, regional and national consultations in nearly 100 countries and through a social media platform, more than a million people have shared their views on “the world they want”. I am profoundly grateful to all who expressed their hopes and expectations and offered ideas and constructive criticism. The United Nations is strongly committed not just to listening to those voices, but also to amplifying and acting on what we have heard and learned. 14. In defining a new agenda, Member States can also benefit from the insights of a set of illuminating reports. My High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, co-chaired by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, President of Indonesia, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, President of Liberia, and David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, called for major transformative economic and institutional shifts: a new
13-40932 3
A/68/202
global partnership and a data revolution for monitoring progress and strengthening accountability. 15. Reports by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, the Global Compact Office, the United Nations System Task Team on the Post-2015 United Nations Development Agenda, the regional commissions and our partners in civil society and academia have also provided important inputs and recommendations for the formulation and content of the processes ahead. 16. The common ground in these contributions far outweighs any differences. Indeed, it is possible to see the emerging outlines of a new sustainable development agenda: universal in nature yet responsive to the complexities, needs and capacities of individual countries and regions; bold in ambition but simple in design; combining the economic, social and environmental dimensions while putting the highest priority on ending poverty and reducing inequality; protective of the planet, its biodiversity, water and land; rights-based, with particular emphasis on women, young people and marginalized groups; eager for new and innovative partnerships; and supported by pioneering approaches to data and rigorous accountability mechanisms. Guided by this far-reaching vision, a limited set of goals with sustainable development at the core, as called for at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, could be constructed to encapsulate current challenges and the priorities of the new agenda and to guide the transformation we need. 17. In the present report we take stock of where we are and where we need to go — first, in the time that remains until the end of 2015, and second, in the period beyond that. As a contribution to the discussions and negotiations of Member States, I offer my sense of the lessons we have derived from the Millennium Development Goals and set out a number of possible elements for consideration in charting a way forward. I look forward to a rich process of consultation and debate as the crucial year of 2015 draws near. 18. We are all aware of the vulnerabilities and perils that define daily life across the world. But there is also simultaneously a sense of wondrous potential made possible in part by science and technology but even more by our own hard work and devotion to common progress. Based on everything I have seen and heard during my six and a half years as Secretary-General, I am convinced that, collectively, we have the leadership, conviction and courage to address short-term uncertainties while seizing the opportunity for long-term change. In that spirit of hope and resolve, I offer the present report to the membership of the United Nations.
II. Achieving the Millennium Development Goals and accelerating progress
19. The Millennium Development Goals are our promise to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. They have succeeded in placing people at the centre of the development agenda. 20. We have made remarkable progress. Many countries — including some of the poorest — have aligned their policies and resources with the Goals to make unparalleled gains. Several critical targets have already been met or will be met by the end of 2015, both at the aggregate level and in individual countries. Sizable gains have occurred in even the poorest countries.
4 13-40932
A/68/202
21. However, progress has been insufficient and highly uneven. Rural areas and marginalized groups continue to lag behind on virtually all goals and targets. Countries in or emerging from conflict, disaster or instability face significant challenges. In addition, the economic and financial crisis has complicated efforts, including by putting pressure on official development assistance. 22. Yet progress continues. In the Millennium Development Goals Report 2013, it is stressed that despite challenges and gaps, the agenda embodied by the Goals retains great power in engendering collective action for faster results.
A. Where do we stand on the Goals?
23. At the global level, poverty and hunger have been reduced significantly. In developing regions, the proportion of people living on less than $1.25 a day fell by more than half, from 47 per cent in 1990 to 22 per cent in 2010, with the majority living in rural areas. Much of this progress, however, has been made in a few large countries, primarily China and India. Moreover, even if the poverty target has been met, 1.2 billion people are still living in extreme poverty. For example, despite recent strong economic growth and declining poverty rates in sub-Saharan Africa, the number of people living in poverty is rising, and the region is still vulnerable to shocks that can rapidly erode gains. 24. The target of halving the percentage of people suffering from hunger by 2015 is within reach. The proportion of undernourished people in developing regions fell from 23.2 per cent in the period from 1990 to 1992 to 14.9 per cent in 2010-2012. However, one in eight people remain chronically undernourished, and one in four children suffers from stunted growth because of malnutrition. 25. We risk failing to keep our promise to enable all children to go to school. The number of children out of primary school declined from 102 million to 57 million between 2000 and 2011. But progress has slowed significantly over the past five years. Without renewed efforts, the target of universal primary education by 2015 seems beyond reach, particularly in conflict-affected countries. Half the world’s out-of-school children live in sub-Saharan Africa, with the gap largest for children and adolescents from the poorest households. Much stronger efforts are needed to improve the quality of education and provide lifelong learning opportunities, especially for girls and women, those belonging to ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities and children living in conflict-affected areas, rural areas or urban slums. 26. Women and girls are major drivers of development. Yet challenges to achieving gender equality and women’s rights remain significant. In many developing countries, girls are denied their right to primary education. Women have been gaining employment in non-agricultural sectors, but often in less secure jobs with fewer social benefits than those held by men. In both the public and private spheres, women continue to be denied opportunities to influence decisions that affect their lives. Gender-based violence contravenes women’s and girls’ rights, undermines development and is an affront to our common humanity. 27. Despite significant progress globally and in many countries, a renewed commitment is needed to improve the health and life prospects of mothers and children. The mortality rate for children under 5 dropped by 41 per cent between 1990 and 2011 — a significant achievement, yet far short of the target of a two-thirds reduction. The maternal mortality rate fell by 47 per cent over the past
13-40932 5
A/68/202
two decades — again, important progress, but still far from the target of 75 per cent. Intensified efforts are needed to reach the most vulnerable women and children and ensure their sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, including full access to basic health services and sexual and reproductive education. 28. New HIV infections declined by 21 per cent globally over the past decade, and close to 10 million people living with HIV are receiving lifesaving antiretroviral treatment. Expanded treatment and prevention yielded a 25 per cent reduction in AIDS-related deaths between 2005 and 2011. Yet 2.5 million new infections still occur each year and in many parts of the globe, millions lack access to treatment. The last decade saw a 25 per cent fall in mortality rates from malaria globally, sparing the lives of an estimated 1.1 million people. Between 1995 and 2011, 51 million tuberculosis patients were treated successfully, saving 20 million lives. 29. Some of the targets for ensuring environmental sustainability have been achieved: the target for improved water sources was met ahead of schedule, and over the past decade over 200 million slum dwellers — double the target — benefited from improved water and sanitation facilities, durable housing or sufficient living space. Furthermore, from 1990 to 2011, 1.9 billion people gained access to a latrine, flush toilet or other improved sanitation facility. With rapid urbanization and population growth, however, the number of slum dwellers is on the rise. Two and a half billion people lack access to improved sanitation, while a billion practise open defecation, a continued source of illness. 30. In all countries, the achievement of Goal 7, on ensuring environmental sustainability, remains at significant risk because of the profound and urgent challenges posed by climate change. Carbon dioxide emissions are more than 46 per cent higher than in 1990. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has exceeded 400 parts per million, a level not seen in millions of years and threatening the existence of the planet. 31. Biodiversity loss continues at a rapid pace. Freshwater resources are being depleted and fish stocks are overexploited. Land degradation and desertification, ocean acidification and the loss of species and forests continue at an alarming rate. 32. As shown in the forthcoming MDG Gap Task Force Report 2013, progress towards a global partnership for development has fallen short of expectations. Following an encouraging rise in official development assistance since 2000, over the past two years aid flows have declined. Despite significant debt relief for many countries, the debt-servicing burden of some low-income countries remains intolerably high. Progress in improving market access for many developing countries has been slow, and “aid for trade” has not escaped the impact of reduced official development assistance. Despite welcome gains in connectivity, a substantial digital divide remains between developed and developing regions.
B. Which policies and programmes have best driven progress?
33. It is crucial to know what works and what does not. More than a decade of experience has painted a revealing picture. Strong national ownership and well-managed policies, supported coherently by partners at all levels, has underpinned progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Policies that foster robust and inclusive economic growth, accompanied by measures to improve the access of poor and excluded people to quality basic services, have produced
6 13-40932
A/68/202
gains in many countries. Much has been learned by formulating and implementing those policies. Applying these lessons will be important for making more rapid progress in the time that remains.
Emphasizing inclusive growth, decent employment and social protection
34. Inclusive economic growth with decent employment and decent wages has proven to be a prerequisite for achieving the Millennium Development Goals, particularly Goal 1, on eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. Progress in East Asia has been strong, and several countries in Latin America and Africa have successfully combined economic growth and redistributive policies. 35. Targeted investments in public health systems, fighting disease, education, infrastructure and agricultural productivity have all played important roles in achieving the Goals and promoting economic growth. These interventions work in a synergistic way and are therefore highly effective in integrated development programmes. Cash transfers targeting poor and marginalized families have also bolstered progress. 36. In East Asia, reforms in the agricultural sector have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty. Many Governments in the region have also adopted policies that increase social spending, expand social protection and raise the minimum wage. 37. Policies promoting rural employment have proved to have positive results in terms of poverty reduction, food consumption, household spending on education and health, debt reduction and asset creation. 38. In addition, programmes in Latin America and South-East Asia that have combined increased food production and distribution with skills training, microfinance, land distribution and nutrition education programmes have had positive impacts on child mortality and maternal health.
Allocating more resources for essential services and ensuring access for all
39. To accelerate progress on education, some countries have eliminated school fees and reduced the indirect costs of schooling. In Africa and the Middle East, policies have targeted orphans and other vulnerable children with vouchers for uniforms and books. In Asia, countries have scaled up stipend programmes and introduced financial support mechanisms for ethnic minority students. 40. In West Africa, complementing investments in infrastructure with female literacy campaigns to overcome resistance to girls’ education in rural areas led to a significant increase in the rate of enrolment of girls in primary schools. 41. Some countries have expanded access to primary education while tackling gender disparities at the same time. Achieving the parity target by 2015 is within reach if entrenched gender disadvantages can be overcome, particularly in countries where early marriage remains pervasive. 42. Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have launched nationwide midwifery schemes to train and deploy tens of thousands of front-line health workers to accelerate progress in preventing maternal and child mortality. 43. Improved national strategies supported by additional financial resources have contributed to faster progress on the Millennium Development Goals in the area of
13-40932 7
A/68/202
health in many countries. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the GAVI Alliance and the United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief have played a major role, complementing national efforts. 44. Investments in human and physical infrastructure for the public health-care sector are paying off in South Asia, where services have been provided free of charge in facilities close to patients. 45. Policies supporting free universal access to quality primary health care for women and children have reduced child mortality in some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially when special attention is given to reducing deaths from malaria, pneumonia, diarrhoea and measles and to rapidly scaling up the provision of insecticide-treated bednets, measles vaccine and vitamin A supplements. 46. National initiatives have proven to be effective in achieving water and sanitation targets. In South-East Asia, partnerships between local governments, builders and community leaders have been launched to meet the need for drinking water and sanitation. Access to latrines has increased significantly, driven by community empowerment activities, strengthened institutions and a community hygiene campaign.
Strengthening political will and improving the international policy environment
47. The global nature of many current challenges requires coordinated global action. I am very concerned by any developments or trends that threaten the global partnership for development, a core part of the Millennium Development Goal framework. There is an urgent need to stop and reverse the two-year contraction of official development assistance and aid for trade, especially for the least developed countries. Stakeholders should strengthen coordination and follow through on commitments to and for effective aid delivery, as well as cracking down on illicit capital flows, returning stolen assets and stemming tax avoidance and evasion. 48. I urge the members of the World Trade Organization to redouble their efforts to reach a development-oriented conclusion of the Doha Round of trade negotiations and improve duty-free, quota-free market access for products of least developed countries. Further efforts are needed to ensure timely debt relief for critically indebted developing countries, thus improving their chances of achieving the Millennium Development Goals. 49. A stronger partnership is also needed among governments, pharmaceutical companies, research facilities and philanthropic organizations to make essential medicines more affordable and available in public health facilities, including using the provisions available to developing countries in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. 50. Limiting and reversing the increase in the average global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in line with international agreements demands bold, coordinated national and international action. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change contains commitments and guidance, most notably the agreement of Governments to negotiate an ambitious, legally binding global agreement by 2015 that will cover all countries of the world in a fair way. The situation calls for full and urgent adherence to what was agreed.
8 13-40932
A/68/202
51. Bolder measures are equally urgent on other environmental sustainability targets, including those related to biodiversity, water, land use and forests. Where commitments already exist, we need faster implementation of the corresponding multilateral environmental agreements. 52. With support from the international community, developing countries should accelerate efforts to improve the transfer of and access to information and communications technology, as well as to lower its cost, especially in key service-delivery areas. In order for technology transfers to countries embracing deep structural economic transformations to be successful, the institutional and human capacity gaps will need to be addressed at the local level. 53. The multi-stakeholder partnership model has emerged as a promising way to share burdens, catalyse action and bring all relevant actors to bear in addressing specific problems. We need to mobilize more action to deliver on commitments and exploit the full potential of the partnership approach.
C. Accelerating progress towards the Goals to 2015
54. Fulfilling our existing commitments and promises on the Millennium Development Goals must remain our foremost priority. Member States, with the continued support of development agencies, civil society and the private sector, should and can take bolder action to accelerate progress. 55. Together, we need to focus on those Goals that are most off-track and on countries that face particular development challenges, including the least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing States and countries affected by or recovering from conflicts or disasters. In so doing, we must pay particular attention to the needs and rights of the most vulnerable and excluded, such as women, children, the elderly, indigenous people, refugees and displaced families, as well as people with disabilities and those living in poor rural areas and urban slums. 56. The preceding section highlighted some successful strategies for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. They show that accelerating progress requires national ownership and international commitment, with the right policies backed by reliable, timely financial resources and people-centred multi-stakeholder partnerships. Countries should make every effort to mobilize domestic resources. At the same time, these resources should be supplemented by external support where necessary. 57. In April I launched the campaign “MDG Momentum — 1,000 Days of Action” as a spur to achieve the gains we need by 2015. My appeal seeks to give additional impetus to several key initiatives that were already under way in response to the call for acceleration made at the 2010 high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly on the Millennium Development Goals. 58. The Millennium Development Goals Acceleration Framework, a coordinated effort by the United Nations Development Group, is firmly rooted in national ownership and supports the systematic identification of bottlenecks and local solutions. Acceleration plans are being implemented in more than 46 countries across all regions, covering a range of goals and targets and bringing together a full spectrum of actors. Those efforts are assessed by the United Nations system in
13-40932 9
A/68/202
collaboration with the World Bank under the umbrella of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination. 59. In one sub-Saharan African country, an acceleration plan on maternal health is being implemented through the revised national reproductive health policy and protocol. This is backed by a multi-pronged strategy that includes the use of mobile telephones for diagnosis and referrals and partnerships with local road transport associations to facilitate the travel of women in labour. 60. When implemented at the subnational level, the Acceleration Framework can also help to address disparity and inequality, as well as underlying causes such as discrimination and sociocultural exclusion. In one South American country, provinces and municipalities are implementing acceleration plans to address local priorities, such as poverty reduction and the economic empowerment of women, where progress lags behind the national level. 61. The €1 billion Millennium Development Goals initiative of the European Union has been supporting countries in the African, Caribbean and Pacific regions to accelerate progress on the Goals that are the most off-track: eradicating hunger, improving maternal health, curbing child mortality and improving access to water and sanitation. Nearly 50 have been supported to date. 62. Regional initiatives are an increasingly important part of the picture. In 2012, the African Union Commission adopted a road map on shared responsibility and global solidarity to accelerate progress in the response to HIV, tuberculosis and malaria. The actions in the road map are organized around three strategic pillars: diversified financing, access to medicines and enhanced health governance. Similarly, in 2012, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations adopted a road map for the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals focusing on five key areas: advocacy and linkages, knowledge, resources, expertise, and regional cooperation and public goods. 63. Every Woman Every Child, a multi-stakeholder partnership launched in 2010, seeks to save the lives of 16 million women and children by 2015. The United Nations secured commitments of $20 billion from more than 250 partners, including governments, multilateral organizations, the private sector and civil society. A new partnership between governments and United Nations agencies, “Committing to child survival: a promise renewed”, was launched to reduce the under-5 mortality rate to fewer than 20 deaths per 1,000 live births in all countries by 2035. 64. The Sustainable Energy for All initiative, launched in 2011, aims to provide universal access to modern energy, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency and double the share of renewables in the global energy mix, all by 2030. Over $50 billion has been committed from all sectors to make this a reality, and more than 70 countries have signed up. 65. The Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme mobilizes resources to scale up agricultural assistance to low-income countries. The Zero Hunger Challenge, launched at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, calls for universal access to adequate food year-round, steps to prevent childhood stunting, a sustainable transformation of food systems, a doubling of productivity and incomes among smallholder farmers and drastic reductions in food losses and waste. Through the “Scaling Up Nutrition” movement, a partnership effort involving governments, civil society, the United Nations system, business and researchers,
10 13-40932
A/68/202
more than 100 partners are supporting 40 countries in their efforts to reduce malnutrition and child stunting. 66. The Global Education First Initiative, launched in September 2012, aims to raise the political profile of education and seeks to ensure access, improve the quality of learning and foster global citizenship. 67. The Call to Action on Sanitation, initiated in March, has provided new momentum on an area that has received inadequate attention. The campaign for universal access to bednets by the end of 2010 made important inroads in tackling malaria. The One Million Community Health Workers campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa is expected to be critical in generating gains across the health-related Millennium Development Goals. 68. The replenishment of the Global Fund in the third quarter of 2013 will be of decisive significance for continued progress against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. I call upon all donors, public and private, to do their part to support the Fund at this moment of utmost urgency as well as opportunity. 69. Multi-stakeholder arrangements have proven successful because they expand on traditional partnerships by significantly increasing available resources, improving the effectiveness of their use and increasing policy and operational coherence. To build on those advantages, I have put forward a proposal to Member States for a new United Nations Partnership Facility, which would aim to enhance the Organization’s ability to facilitate delivery at scale at both the global and country levels.
D. Making the transition to a new sustainable development agenda that builds on the Goals
70. The adoption of the Millennium Development Goals represented a major shift in galvanizing global political will for poverty eradication. The Goals focused the world’s attention on halving extreme poverty and promoting human development by setting priorities, goals and targets. Yet the Goals represent only the halfway mark towards the aim of tackling poverty in all its forms. United Nations projections for 2015 indicate that almost 1.3 billion people will still live in extreme poverty, mothers will continue to die needlessly in childbirth and children will suffer and die from hunger, malnutrition, preventable diseases and a lack of clean water and sanitation. 71. The job we started with the Millennium Development Goals therefore needs to be finished. Careful attention will be needed as we make the transition to an agenda that embraces the three dimensions of sustainable development yet ensures that poverty eradication is its highest priority and that extreme poverty is ended within a generation. 72. Since the Millennium Development Goals were devised, major new challenges have emerged, while existing ones have been exacerbated. Inequality has deepened. Environmental degradation has increased, threatening our common future. People across the world are demanding more responsive governments and better governance and rights at all levels. Migration challenges have grown, and young people in many countries face poor prospects for decent jobs or livelihoods. Conflicts and instability have halted or reversed progress in many countries,
13-40932 11
A/68/202
affecting primarily women and children. Organized crime, including trafficking in people and drugs, violates human rights and undermines development. The deepening ways in which the lives of people and countries are linked demand a universal agenda addressing the world’s most pressing challenges and seizing the opportunities of a new era.
III. Advancing the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015
A. Vision and transformative actions of the agenda
73. The articulation of a post-2015 development agenda provides an opportunity to place sustainable development where it should be: at the core of humankind’s pursuit of shared progress. With a new sustainable development agenda, the world can make many historic achievements: eradicating extreme poverty by 2030, protecting the environment and promoting social inclusion and economic opportunities for all. Ultimately, the aspiration of the development agenda beyond 2015 is to create a just and prosperous world where all people realize their rights and live with dignity and hope. 74. As agreed at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, the framework for sustainable development reflects our commitment to three interconnected objectives: economic development, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. Each of these dimensions contributes to the others and all are necessary for the well-being of individuals and societies. Together, they are meant to enable people to fulfil their potential within the finite resources of our planet. 75. For such a sustainable development agenda to take root, four building blocks need to be agreed upon: (a) a far-reaching vision of the future firmly anchored in human rights and universally accepted values and principles, including those encapsulated in the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Millennium Declaration; (b) a set of concise goals and targets aimed at realizing the priorities of the agenda; (c) a global partnership for development to mobilize means of implementation; and (d) a participatory monitoring framework for tracking progress and mutual accountability mechanisms for all stakeholders. 76. Decisions on the shape of the next agenda rest with Member States. To support their deliberations, I put in motion an inclusive and transparent process to hear from all stakeholders. Through the efforts of the United Nations Development Group and others, I sought the views of people around the world through consultations in nearly 100 countries, global thematic consultations on 11 issue areas and a global online conversation and “My World” survey. These efforts have reached more than a million people. A large number of civil society organizations and academic institutions worldwide have also actively participated in the discussions. 77. In addition, my High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda provided critical proposals (see A/67/890, annex). I have made the report available to all Member States and recommend it as an important contribution to this process. 78. I also benefited from the expertise of the science and technology community through the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The contributions of the
12 13-40932
A/68/202
private sector around the world were conveyed through the Global Compact. The United Nations System Task Team, comprising more than 60 agencies and international organizations, conveyed the knowledge and experience of the Organization, while regional perspectives were provided by the regional commissions. 79. Reflecting on many of these inputs, the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals is conducting a series of discussions aimed at formulating goals for sustainable development to be proposed to the General Assembly at its sixty- eighth session. 80. The common ground in the findings of these processes is encouraging. Discussions point to the importance of arriving at a single and coherent development agenda centred on sustainable development, applicable to all countries while taking into account regional, national and local circumstances and priorities. 81. The key elements of the emerging vision for the development agenda beyond 2015 include: (a) universality, to mobilize all developed and developing countries and leave no one behind; (b) sustainable development, to tackle the interlinked challenges facing the world, including a clear focus on ending extreme poverty in all its forms; (c) inclusive economic transformations ensuring decent jobs, backed by sustainable technologies, to shift to sustainable patterns of consumption and production; (d) peace and governance, as key outcomes and enablers of development; (e) a new global partnership, recognizing shared interests, different needs and mutual responsibilities, to ensure commitment to and means of implementing the new vision; and (f) being “fit for purpose”, to ensure that the international community is equipped with the right institutions and tools for addressing the challenges of implementing the sustainable development agenda at the national level. 82. Bringing this vision to life will require a number of transformative and mutually reinforcing actions that apply to all countries. 83. Eradicate poverty in all its forms. Poverty has many manifestations and is aggravated by discrimination, insecurity, inequality and environmental and disaster risks. Therefore, the eradication of poverty calls for a multifaceted approach, encapsulated in the concept of sustainable development, focusing on both immediate and underlying causes. 84. Tackle exclusion and inequality. In order to leave no one behind and bring everyone forward, actions are needed to promote equality of opportunity. This implies inclusive economies in which men and women have access to decent employment, legal identification, financial services, infrastructure and social protection, as well as societies where all people can contribute and participate in national and local governance. 85. Empower women and girls. The new agenda must ensure the equal rights of women and girls, their full participation in the political, economic and public spheres and zero tolerance for violence against or exploitation of women and girls. The practice of child marriage must be ended everywhere. Women and girls must have equal access to financial services, infrastructure, the full range of health services, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, and water and sanitation; the right to own land and other assets; a safe environment in which to learn and apply their knowledge and skills; and an end to
13-40932 13
A/68/202
discrimination so they can receive equal pay for equal work and have an equal voice in decision-making. 86. Provide quality education and lifelong learning. Young people should be able to receive high-quality education and learning, from early childhood development to post-primary schooling, including not only formal schooling but also life skills and vocational education and training. 87. Improve health. Address universal health-care coverage, access and affordability; end preventable maternal and child deaths; realize women’s reproductive health and rights; increase immunization coverage; eradicate malaria and realize the vision of a future free of AIDS and tuberculosis; reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases, including mental illness, and road accidents; and promote healthy behaviours, including those related to water, sanitation and hygiene. 88. Address climate change. The international community must reconcile the challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change while supporting the growth of developing countries. While the worst effects of climate change can still be averted by building the resilience of and investing in those communities and nations most vulnerable to disasters risk, those efforts will require a greatly stepped-up response, in keeping with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. A successful outcome to the intergovernmental climate change negotiations is critical. Every effort must be made to arrive at a legally binding agreement by the end of 2015, as decided in Durban, South Africa, in 2011. 89. Address environmental challenges. Environmental change has compounded problems worldwide, especially in vulnerable countries, reducing their capacity to cope and limiting their options for addressing development challenges. Managing the natural resources base — fisheries, forests, freshwater resources, oceans, soil — is essential for sustainable development. So too is building the resilience of and investing in those communities and nations most vulnerable to disasters, especially in the least developed countries and small island developing States. 90. Promote inclusive and sustainable growth and decent employment. This can be achieved by economic diversification, financial inclusion, efficient infrastructure, productivity gains, trade, sustainable energy, relevant education and skills training. Labour market policies should focus in particular on young people, women and people with disabilities. 91. End hunger and malnutrition. Addressing hunger, malnutrition, stunting and food insecurity in a world experiencing rapid population growth will require a combination of stable and adequate incomes for all, improvements in agricultural productivity and sustainability, child and maternal care and strengthened social protection for vulnerable populations. 92. Address demographic challenges. While the population of developed countries is projected to remain unchanged at around 1.3 billion, the population of developing countries is projected to increase from 5.9 billion in 2013 to 8.2 billion in 2050. Countries with a high rate of population growth are generally on a path of falling fertility, especially as education for girls and sexual and reproductive health services become more widely available. Progress in these areas would enable many households to slow fertility rates, with consequent benefits for health, education, sustainability and the demographic dividend for economic growth. Countries with a
14 13-40932
A/68/202
high proportion of young people need to offer education and opportunities for decent work. Countries with an ageing population need policy responses to support the elderly so as to remove barriers to their full participation in society while protecting their rights and dignity. 93. Enhance the positive contribution of migrants. More than a billion people rely on international and domestic migration to improve the income, health and education of their families, escape poverty and conflict and adapt to environmental and economic shocks. Countries receiving migrants can also benefit significantly. Yet many barriers limit the positive effects of migration, including possible large economic and social gains. Discrimination is widespread and the human rights of migrants are often denied at different points in the migration process. The scourge of human trafficking, an unacceptable dimension of migration, must be ended. 94. Meet the challenges of urbanization. Some 70 per cent of the world’s population will live in cities by 2050. Urbanization poses the challenge of providing city dwellers with employment, food, income, housing, transportation, clean water and sanitation, social services and cultural amenities. At the same time, living in cities creates opportunities for the more efficient delivery and use of physical facilities and amenities. Rural prosperity, land management and secure ecosystem services should form an integral part of sustainable urbanization and economic transformation. 95. Build peace and effective governance based on the rule of law and sound institutions. Peace and stability, human rights and effective governance based on the rule of law and transparent institutions are outcomes and enablers of development. There can be no peace without development and no development without peace. Lasting peace and sustainable development cannot be fully realized without respect for human rights and the rule of law. Transparency and accountability are powerful tools for ensuring citizens’ involvement in policymaking and their oversight of the use of public resources, including to prevent waste and corruption. Legal empowerment, access to justice and an independent judiciary and universal legal identification can also be critical for gaining access to public services. 96. Foster a renewed global partnership. The Millennium Development Goals, in particular Goal 8, on the global partnership for development, speak to the importance of our common humanity and the values of equity, solidarity and human rights. The post-2015 development agenda will need to be supported by a renewed global partnership grounded on such values. As noted in the report of my High-level Panel, “the partnership should capture, and will depend on, a spirit of mutual respect and mutual benefit”. 97. The global partnership should finish the job started with Goal 8, including meeting the assistance objective of 0.7 per cent of gross national income, as well as other existing and future intergovernmental agreements, such as the Millennium Declaration, the Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for Development, the Principles set out in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and the Istanbul Programme of Action, as well as the outcome of the Ad Hoc Working Group of the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. All partners should deliver on past commitments, particularly those on official development assistance, climate finance and domestic resource mobilization.
13-40932 15
A/68/202
98. The transformative actions of the post-2015 development agenda should be supported by multi-stakeholder partnerships that respond to the sustainable development agenda. These should include not only governments but also businesses, private philanthropic foundations, international organizations, civil society, volunteer groups, local authorities, parliaments, trade unions, research institutes and academia. Such partnerships can channel commitments and actions from a wider set of actors, and their success depends on assigning roles, responsibilities and clear accountability. 99. Official development assistance will remain crucial, including for leveraging other finance, particularly for the least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States, many countries in Africa and countries emerging from conflict and disasters. In addition to delivering on past commitments, it will be critical for donors to establish a timetable for meeting official development assistance targets and enhancing development effectiveness, including through the principles and actions set out in the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. The impact of official development assistance can be magnified by other sources of finance, including innovative sources. 100. A universal development agenda beyond 2015 will require a robust framework for sustainable development finance including both private and public funding. International efforts are needed to create an environment conducive to business and thus channel capital flows and portfolio investments to the sustainable development agenda, to eliminate illicit financial flows, to enhance the regulation of secrecy jurisdictions and to promote asset recovery. Multilateral development banks have an important role to play in identifying novel sources of sustainable development financing. 101. At the same time, the financing framework for the post-2015 period will require the mobilization of domestic resources, including by broadening the tax base and improving tax administration, including in developing countries, and improving corporate and public governance of extractive industries in resource-rich countries. In addition, the financing framework will require commitment by the public and private scientific and research communities to develop new and transformative technologies. Harnessing science, technology and innovative methods will be central in areas ranging from information and communications technology to transportation, the environment and life-saving medicines. 102. South-South and triangular cooperation will also play a key role. This has increased significantly in recent years and has taken various forms, including infrastructure investment, technical cooperation, joint research and investment and information-sharing. 103. I welcome the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing, which will propose options on a strategy to facilitate the mobilization of resources and their effective use. The biennial high-level Development Cooperation Forum and the follow-up to the International Conference on Financing for Development also provide important opportunities for charting a way forward. 104. Strengthen the international development cooperation framework. In order to respond to the challenges of funding and implementing a sustainable development agenda, both national and international institutions need to be strengthened to overcome the institutional and operational separation between economic, social and
16 13-40932
A/68/202
environmental responsibilities. I particularly welcome, in that regard, General Assembly resolution 67/290, in which the mandate, organizational structure and the working methods of the high-level political forum on sustainable development were defined. There is broad agreement that the forum should bring political support at the highest level to the coordination, coherence, implementation and monitoring of the commitments in a universal sustainable development agenda.
B. Comprehensive monitoring framework and robust accountability mechanisms
105. Strong monitoring and accountability will be crucial for the implementation of the post-2015 development agenda. Governments, especially parliaments, will play a central role. The monitoring and accountability framework can be strengthened through the direct engagement of citizens and responsible businesses making use of new technologies to expand coverage, to disaggregate data and to reduce costs. 106. The availability of information has improved during the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. Still, there is an urgent need to further improve data collection, dissemination and analysis. Better baseline data and statistics are needed, especially because the post-2015 development agenda will involve measuring a broader range of indicators, requiring new and disaggregated data to capture gaps within and between population groups. Assessing the quality of outcomes should also feature more prominently in a results-based framework. As suggested by my High-level Panel, targets will be considered to have been achieved only if they are met for all relevant income and social groups. 107. In this context, the advances in information technology over the past decade provide an opportunity for a “data revolution”, which should enable countries to strengthen existing data sources and develop new and participatory sources of information. Many developing countries will require technical and financial support to build solid statistical systems and capacity so as to take advantage of these new opportunities.
C. Setting goals for the agenda
108. Experience with the Millennium Development Goals shows us that goals can be a powerful way of mobilizing common action. To be effective, they need to be limited in number, measurable, easy to communicate and adaptable to both global and local settings. 109. At the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Member States agreed that the sustainable development goals “should be coherent with and integrated into the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015”. The many consultations and reports suggest that a single, balanced and comprehensive set of goals, universal to all nations, which aims to eradicate all forms of poverty and integrate sustainable development in all its dimensions, should form the core of the agenda. 110. The framing of the set of goals for sustainable development will inevitably need to be broader than that of the Millennium Development Goals in order to reflect new challenges. Illustrative goals and targets have been proposed in a range
13-40932 17
A/68/202
of reports, including those of the High-level Panel, the Sustainable Development Solutions Network and the Global Compact, and in several initiatives from the research community. 111. Goals and targets should take into account cross-cutting issues such as gender, disability, age and other factors leading to inequality, human rights, demographics, migration and partnerships. The new goals should embrace the emphasis on human well-being and include the use of metrics that go beyond standard income measures, such as surveys of subjective well-being and happiness, as introduced by many countries and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
D. Towards the formulation and launch of the agenda
112. The special event of the President of the General Assembly to be convened on 25 September will review current efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and provide a timely opportunity for rallying political support for their acceleration. The event will also serve as an occasion to reflect on the broad contours of the development agenda beyond 2015. 113. Member States should therefore use the special event to generate clarity and a solid momentum for the important discussions and decisions that will follow. In the outcome of the event they could issue a call for convening a United Nations summit in 2015 to adopt the new development agenda. To that end, the Assembly could request its President to hold consultations on a procedural resolution for initiating preparations for the summit, in which it could request the Secretary-General to prepare a report on modalities, format and organization for submission to the Assembly by March 2014. That report could serve as the basis for the Assembly’s consultations on a comprehensive resolution on the timing, scope, format, participation and expected outcome of a summit in 2015. 114. The General Assembly could launch the final phase of the intergovernmental consultations on a post-2015 development agenda at its sixty-ninth session. Those consultations could draw on the outcomes of several intergovernmental events, including the high-level meeting on disability and development, to be held in September, the high-level dialogue on international migration and development, to be held in October, the third International Conference on Small Island Developing States, the climate change summit in 2014 as well as the next conference on financing for development. Our goal must be to make 2015 a defining moment for people and the planet and to show what the United Nations and Member States, working together, can achieve.
IV. Recommendations
115. I call upon all Member States and the entire international community to take every step possible to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. This will require political courage and enlightened leadership on the part of all countries, regardless of their level of development. But we must, as stated in the Millennium Declaration, spare no effort to deliver on our policy and financial commitments. This is our duty — our responsibility to humanity today and in the future. With political will and adequate resources, much can be accomplished before the 2015 deadline. Even then, some goals may not be met. Others, even if met, were designed
18 13-40932
A/68/202
to address only part of the challenge. The post-2015 development agenda will therefore need to complete the Millennium Development Goals, scale up their success, expand their scope and address new challenges. 116. I call upon Member States to adopt a universal post-2015 development agenda, with sustainable development at its core. Poverty eradication, inclusive growth targeting inequality, protecting and managing the natural resource base of our planet within a rights-based framework and cognizant of the nexus between peace and development — these are the overarching objectives of sustainable development. To realize this agenda, all countries need to recognize the profound transformations required to address the emerging challenges of sustainable development. These include economic shifts to sustainable patterns of production and consumption, effective governance and a renewed global partnership and means of implementation. 117. I call upon the international system, including the United Nations, to embrace a more coherent and effective response to support this agenda. I welcome the leadership of Member States as they establish the high-level political forum, tasked with providing coordination and coherence at the highest political level to foster sustainable development in every country. The United Nations system will continue to reform and make itself “fit for purpose” so as to respond to the challenges of this new path to sustainable development. 118. I encourage Member States to provide clarity on the road map to 2015. As Member States consider the processes leading up to 2015, they could be supported by a report of the Secretary-General during the main part of the sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly. This would draw upon the outcomes of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals, the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing and other bodies. The intergovernmental process could lead to an agreement on the vision, principles, goals and targets of the post-2015 development agenda, as well as on the renewed global partnership for development.
V. Con c l u si o n
119. Acting upon our common challenges demands a renewed commitment to international cooperation. Multilateralism is being tested. The United Nations, as a global beacon of solidarity, must do its part to strengthen collaboration and show that it can be effective in building the just, prosperous and sustainable world that people want and have a right to expect. Defining the post-2015 development agenda is thus a daunting yet inspiring and historic task for the United Nations and its Member States. 120. In so doing we must continue to listen to and involve the peoples of the world. We have heard their calls for peace and justice, eradicating poverty, realizing rights, eliminating inequality, enhancing accountability and preserving our planet. The world’s nations must unite behind a common programme to act on those aspirations. No one must be left behind. We must continue to build a future of justice and hope, a life of dignity for all.
13-40932 19
A NEW GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP: ERADICATE POVERTY AND TRANSFORM ECONOMIES THROUGH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda A NEW GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP: ERADICATE POVERTY AND TRANSFORM ECONOMIES THROUGH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Copyright ©2013 United Nations All rights reserved. All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to:
United Nations Publications, 300 E 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017 email: [email protected] web: un.org/publications
Disclaimer: The members of the Panel may not be in full agreement with every specific point and detail of the report, but they all endorse the report.
Produced by bocoup Post-2015
Letter from the Co-Chairs of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
30 May 2013
Secretary-General,
In July 2012 you tasked us with jointly chairing a twenty-seven person panel to make recommendations to you on the development agenda beyond 2015. We hope that you will find our resultant report both bold and practical. We have consulted extensively, in every region and across many sectors, including listening to the voices and priorities of people living in poverty themselves. We are very grateful for the valuable support provided to us by the Panel’s secretariat led by Dr Homi Kharas and have benefited greatly from the regional, national and thematic consultations organised by the UN System and member states.
Our panel conducted its work in a very positive spirit of cooperation. Through passionate and vigorous debate we have learnt much from each other. We transmit our recommendations to you with a feeling of great optimism that a transformation to end poverty through sustainable development is possible within our generation. We outline five transformational shifts, applicable to both developed and developing countries alike, including a new Global Partnership as the basis for a single, universal post-2015 agenda that will deliver this vision for the sake of humanity.
Our report provides an example of how new goals and measurable targets could be framed in the wake of these transformative shifts. This list is illustrative rather than prescriptive. While views naturally differed within the panel on the exact wording of particular illustrative goals or targets we agreed that our report would be found wanting without a collective attempt to demonstrate how a simple clear agenda building on the MDGs and the Rio+20 process might be elaborated. We hope it will stimulate debate over the prioritisation that will be needed if the international community is to agree a new development framework before the expiry of the Millennium Development Goals.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono Ellen Johnson Sirleaf David Cameron
Post-2015
Acknowledgements
The members of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel Of Eminent Persons On The Post-2015 Development Agenda wish to extend their deepest appreciation to the governments, organisations, institutions, United Nations entities and individuals who provided valuable perspectives, ideas and support throughout the course of the Panel’s work.
The Panel extends its sincere gratitude for financial and in-kind contributions received from the governments of Colombia, Denmark, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Liberia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and from the Ford Foundation, Havas, and the Hewlett Foundation.
The deliberations of the Panel were informed by the broad consultative process conducted by the United Nations, as directed by the Secretary-General in our terms of reference. This includes national and global thematic consultations under the aegis of the United Nations Development Group (UNDG), regional consultations undertaken by the Regional Commissions, consultations with businesses around the world under the guidance of the UN Global Compact, and the views of the scientific and academic community as conveyed through the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. We are grateful for the perspective these extensive consultations provided.
The Panel also wishes to thank people from more than 5000 civil society organisations and 250 chief executive officers of major corporations who shared their valuable ideas and views during a series of consultations, both in person and online.
We are grateful to all those who submitted policy briefs, research and inputs to the process, the full list of which appears at www.post2015hlp.org.
Panel members wish to express their sincere appreciation for the dedication and intellectual rigour of the Panel secretariat (listed in Annex VI), led by Dr. Homi Kharas, and to the institutions which have released them to undertake the work of supporting the Panel. They extend their appreciation to their advisers for their support and dedication throughout the report’s development.
All of these contributions and support are gratefully acknowledged and warmly appreciated.
Post-2015
Executive Summary
“Our vision and our responsibility are to end extreme poverty in all its forms in the context of sustainable development and to have in place the building blocks of sustained prosperity for all.” 1
The Panel came together with a sense of optimism and a deep respect for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The 13 years since the millennium have seen the fastest reduction in poverty in human history: there are half a billion fewer people living below an international poverty line of $1.25 a day. Child death rates have fallen by more than 30%, with about three million children’s lives saved each year compared to 2000. Deaths from malaria have fallen by one quarter. This unprecedented progress has been driven by a combination of economic growth, better policies, and the global commitment to the MDGs, which set out an inspirational rallying cry for the whole world.
Given this remarkable success, it would be a mistake to simply tear up the MDGs and start from scratch. As world leaders agreed at Rio in 2012, new goals and targets need to be grounded in respect for universal human rights, and finish the job that the MDGs started. Central to this is eradicating extreme poverty from the face of the earth by 2030. This is something that leaders have promised time and again throughout history. Today, it can actually be done.
So a new development agenda should carry forward the spirit of the Millennium Declaration and the best of the MDGs, with a practical focus on things like poverty, hunger, water, sanitation, education and healthcare. But to fulfil our vision of promoting sustainable development, we must go beyond the MDGs. They did not focus enough on reaching the very poorest and most excluded people. They were silent on the devastating effects of conflict and violence on development. The importance to development of good governance and institutions that guarantee the rule of law, free speech and open and accountable government was not included, nor the need for inclusive growth to provide jobs. Most seriously, the MDGs fell short by not integrating the economic, social, and environmental aspects of sustainable development as envisaged in the Millennium Declaration, and by not addressing the need to promote sustainable patterns of consumption and production. The result was that environment and development were never properly brought together. People were working hard – but often separately – on interlinked problems.
So the Panel asked some simple questions: starting with the current MDGs, what to keep, what to amend, and what to add. In trying to answer these questions, we listened to the views of women and men, young people, parliamentarians, civil society organisations, indigenous people and local communities, migrants, experts, business, trade unions and governments. Most important, we listened directly to the voices of hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world, in face-to-face meetings as well as through surveys, community interviews, and polling over mobile phones and the internet.
We considered the massive changes in the world since the year 2000 and the changes that are likely to unfold by 2030. There are a billion more people today, with world population at seven billion, and another billion expected by 2030. More than half of us now live in cities. Private investment in developing countries now dwarfs aid flows. The number of mobile phone subscriptions has risen from fewer than one billion to more than six billion. Thanks to the internet, seeking business or information on the other side of the world is now routine for many. Yet inequality remains and opportunity is not open to all. The 1.2 billion poorest people account for only 1 per cent of world consumption while the billion richest consume 72 per cent.
Above all, there is one trend – climate change – which will determine whether or not we can deliver on our ambitions. Scientific evidence of the direct threat from climate change has mounted. The stresses of unsustainable production and consumption Executive Summary
patterns have become clear, in areas like deforestation, 1. Leave no one behind. We must keep faith with the water scarcity, food waste, and high carbon emissions. original promise of the MDGs, and now finish the job. Losses from natural disasters–including drought, floods, After 2015 we should move from reducing to ending and storms – have increased at an alarming rate. People extreme poverty, in all its forms. We should ensure that living in poverty will suffer first and worst from climate no person – regardless of ethnicity, gender, geography, change. The cost of taking action now will be much less disability, race or other status – is denied universal than the cost of dealing with the consequences later. human rights and basic economic opportunities. We should design goals that focus on reaching excluded Thinking about and debating these trends and issues groups, for example by making sure we track progress at together, the Panellists have been on a journey. all levels of income, and by providing social protection to help people build resilience to life’s uncertainties. At our first meeting in New York, the Secretary General We can be the first generation in human history to end charged us with producing a bold yet practical vision for hunger and ensure that every person achieves a basic development beyond 2015. standard of wellbeing. There can be no excuses. This is a universal agenda, for which everyone must accept their In London, we discussed household poverty: the daily proper share of responsibility. reality of life on the margins of survival. We considered the many dimensions of poverty, including health, 2. Put sustainable development at the core. For education and livelihoods, as well as the demands twenty years, the international community has aspired for more justice, better accountability, and an end to to integrate the social, economic, and environmental violence against women. We also heard inspiring stories dimensions of sustainability, but no country has yet of how individuals and communities have worked their achieved this. We must act now to halt the alarming way to prosperity. pace of climate change and environmental degradation, which pose unprecedented threats to humanity. In Monrovia, we talked about economic transformation We must bring about more social inclusion. This is and the building blocks needed for growth that delivers a universal challenge, for every country and every social inclusion and respects the environment: how to person on earth. This will require structural change, harness the ingenuity and dynamism of business for with new solutions, and will offer new opportunities. sustainable development. And we saw with our own Developed countries have a special role to play, eyes the extraordinary progress that can be made when fostering new technologies and making the fastest a country once ravaged by conflict is able to build peace progress in reducing unsustainable consumption. Many and security. of the world’s largest companies are already leading this transformation to a green economy in the context In Bali, we agreed on the central importance of a new of sustainable development and poverty eradication. spirit to guide a global partnership for a people-centred Only by mobilising social, economic and environmental and planet-sensitive agenda, based on the principle of action together can we eradicate poverty irreversibly our common humanity. We agreed to push developed and meet the aspirations of eight billion people in 2030. countries to fulfil their side of the bargain – by honouring their aid commitments, but also reforming their trade, 3. Transform economies for jobs and inclusive tax and transparency policies, by paying more attention growth. We call for a quantum leap forward in economic to better regulating global financial and commodity opportunities and a profound economic transformation markets and by leading the way towards sustainable to end extreme poverty and improve livelihoods. development. We agreed that developing countries This means a rapid shift to sustainable patterns of have done much to finance their own development, and consumption and production--harnessing innovation, will be able to do more as incomes rise. We also agreed technology, and the potential of private business to on the need to manage the world’s consumption and create more value and drive sustainable and inclusive production patterns in more sustainable and equitable growth. Diversified economies, with equal opportunities ways. Above all, we agreed that a new vision must be for all, can unleash the dynamism that creates jobs and universal: offering hope – but also responsibilities – to livelihoods, especially for young people and women. everyone in the world. This is a challenge for every country on earth: to ensure good job possibilities while moving to the sustainable These meetings and consultations left us energised, patterns of work and life that will be necessary in a inspired and convinced of the need for a new world of limited natural resources. We should ensure paradigm. In our view, business-as-usual is not an that everyone has what they need to grow and prosper, option. We concluded that the post-2015 agenda is a including access to quality education and skills, universal agenda. It needs to be driven by five big, healthcare, clean water, electricity, telecommunications transformative shifts: and transport. We should make it easier for people to Post-2015
invest, start-up a business and to trade. And we can do free and fair trade, technology innovation, transfer and more to take advantage of rapid urbanisation: cities are diffusion, and promote financial stability. And since this the world’s engines for business and innovation. With partnership is built on principles of common humanity good management they can provide jobs, hope and and mutual respect, it must also have a new spirit and growth, while building sustainability. be completely transparent. Everyone involved must be fully accountable. 4. Build peace and effective, open and accountable institutions for all. Freedom from fear, conflict and From vision to action. We believe that these five violence is the most fundamental human right, and changes are the right, smart, and necessary thing to do. the essential foundation for building peaceful and But their impact will depend on how they are translated prosperous societies. At the same time, people the into specific priorities and actions. We realised that world over expect their governments to be honest, the vision would be incomplete unless we offered a accountable, and responsive to their needs. We are set of illustrative goals and targets to show how these calling for a fundamental shift – to recognise peace transformative changes could be expressed in precise and good governance as core elements of wellbeing, and measurable terms. This illustrative framework is set not optional extras. This is a universal agenda, for all out in Annex I, with more detailed explanation in Annex countries. Responsive and legitimate institutions should II. We hope these examples will help focus attention and encourage the rule of law, property rights, freedom of stimulate debate. speech and the media, open political choice, access to justice, and accountable government and public The suggested targets are bold, yet practical. Like institutions. We need a transparency revolution, so the MDGs, they would not be binding, but should be citizens can see exactly where and how taxes, aid and monitored closely. The indicators that track them should revenues from extractive industries are spent. These are be disaggregated to ensure no one is left behind and ends as well as means. targets should only be considered ‘achieved’ if they are met for all relevant income and social groups. We 5. Forge a new global partnership. Perhaps the most recommend that any new goals should be accompanied important transformative shift is towards a new spirit by an independent and rigorous monitoring system, of solidarity, cooperation, and mutual accountability with regular opportunities to report on progress and that must underpin the post-2015 agenda. A shortcomings at a high political level. We also call for new partnership should be based on a common a data revolution for sustainable development, with understanding of our shared humanity, underpinning a new international initiative to improve the quality mutual respect and mutual benefit in a shrinking of statistics and information available to citizens. We world. This partnership should involve governments should actively take advantage of new technology, but also include others: people living in poverty, those crowd sourcing, and improved connectivity to empower with disabilities, women, civil society and indigenous people with information on the progress towards the and local communities, traditionally marginalised targets. groups, multilateral institutions, local and national government, the business community, academia and Taken together, the Panel believes that these five private philanthropy. Each priority area identified in the fundamental shifts can remove the barriers that hold post-2015 agenda should be supported by dynamic people back, and end the inequality of opportunity partnerships. It is time for the international community that blights the lives of so many people on our planet. to use new ways of working, to go beyond an aid They can, at long last, bring together social, economic agenda and put its own house in order: to implement and environmental issues in a coherent, effective, and a swift reduction in corruption, illicit financial flows, sustainable way. Above all, we hope they can inspire a money-laundering, tax evasion, and hidden ownership new generation to believe that a better world is within of assets. We must fight climate change, champion its reach, and act accordingly.
1.Monrovia Communiqué of the High Level Panel, February 1, 2013, http://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ Monrovia-Communique-1-February-2013.pdf.
Post-2015
Contents
Chapter 1: A Vision and Framework for the post-2015 Development Agenda ������������������������ 1 Setting a New Course ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Remarkable Achievements Since 2000 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Consulting People, Gaining Perspective ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 The Panel’s Journey ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2 Opportunities and Challenges in a Changing World ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3 One World: One Sustainable Development Agenda ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4
Chapter 2: From Vision to Action—Priority Transformations for a post-2015 Agenda ��������� 7 Five Transformative Shifts ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7 1. Leave No One Behind ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 7 2. Put Sustainable Development at the Core ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8 3. Transform Economies for Jobs and Inclusive Growth ������������������������������������������������������������������������ 8 4. Build Peace and Effective, Open and Accountable Public Institutions ���������������������������������������������� 9 5. Forge a new Global Partnership �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 Ensure More and Better Long-term Finance ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 12
Chapter 3: Illustrative Goals and Global Impact ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 13 The Shape of the Post-2015 Agenda ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 13 Risks to be Managed in a Single Agenda ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 14 Learning the Lessons of MDG 8 (Global Partnership for Development) ������������������������������������������������ 15 Illustrative Goals ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 15 Addressing Cross-cutting Issues ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16 The Global Impact by 2030 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18
Chapter 4: Implementation, Accountability and Building Consensus ��������������������������������������� 21 Implementing the post-2015 framework ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21 Unifying Global Goals with National Plans for Development ���������������������������������������������������������������� 21 Global Monitoring and Peer Review ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21 Stakeholders Partnering by Theme ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 22 Holding Partners to Account ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23 Wanted: a New Data Revolution ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23 Working in Cooperation with Others ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 24 Building Political Consensus ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 24
Chapter 5: Concluding Remarks ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27
Annex I Illustrative Goals and Targets ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 29
Annex II Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals ��������������������������������������������� 32
Annex III Goals, Targets and Indicators: Using a Common Terminology ������������������������������������ 57
Annex IV Summary of Outreach Efforts ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 59
Annex V Terms of Reference and List of Panel Members ��������������������������������������������������������������� 65
Annex VI High-level Panel Secretariat ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 69
Post-2015 | 1
Chapter 1: A Vision and Framework for the post-2015 Development Agenda
Setting a New Course
We, the High-Level Panel on the post-2015 Development Agenda, were asked for recommendations that would “help respond to the global challenges of the 21st century, building on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and with a view to ending poverty”.2
We discussed two of the world’s biggest challenges – how to end poverty and how to promote sustainable development. We have not come up with all the answers, but we do believe the lives of billions of people can be improved, in a way that preserves the planet’s natural resource assets for future generations.
Progress on this scale is possible, but only if governments (at all levels), multilateral institutions, businesses, and civil society organisations are willing to change course and reject business-as-usual. They have a chance to develop and put in place a new agenda: one that confronts the challenges of the modern world head-on. They have an opportunity to transform their thinking, and their practice, to solve current problems with new ways of working. They can join forces, tackle poverty, the economy and the environment together, and bring about a paradigm shift.
Remarkable Achievements Since 2000
After the MDGs were adopted, dozens of developing-country planning ministries, hundreds of international agencies and thousands of civil society organisations (CSOs) rallied behind them. Together, they have contributed to remarkable achievements; half a billion fewer people in extreme poverty; about three million children’s lives saved each year. Four out of five children now get vaccinated for a range of diseases. Maternal mortality gets the focused attention it deserves. Deaths from malaria have fallen by one-quarter. Contracting HIV is no longer an automatic death sentence. In 2011, 590 million children in developing countries – a record number – attended primary school.
This unprecedented progress was driven by a combination of economic growth, government policies, civil society engagement and the global commitment to the MDGs.
Given this success, it would be a mistake to start a new development agenda from scratch. There is much unfinished business from the MDGs. Some countries achieved a great deal, but others, especially low-income, conflict affected countries, achieved much less. In the course of our discussions, we became aware of a gap between reality on the ground and the statistical targets that are tracked. We realised that the next development agenda must build on the real experiences, stories, ideas and solutions of people at the grassroots, and that we, as a Panel, must do our best to understand the world through their eyes and reflect on the issues that would make a difference to their lives.
Consulting People, Gaining Perspective
Over the last nine months, the Panel has spoken with people from all walks of life. We have reviewed almost one thousand written submissions from civil society and business groups working around the world. We have consulted experts from multilateral organisations, national governments and local authorities. We have debated vigorously and passionately among ourselves.
We agreed that the post-2015 agenda should reflect the concerns of people living in 2 | Chapter 1: A Vision and Framework for the post-2015 Development Agenda
poverty, whose voices often go unheard or unheeded. of speech and association and to monitor where their To gather these perspectives, Panel members spoke to government’s money is going. farmers, indigenous and local communities, workers in the informal sector, migrants, people with disabilities, Women and girls asked in particular for protection of small business owners, traders, young people and their property rights, their access to land, and to have children, women’s groups, older people, faith-based a voice and to participate in economic and political life. groups, trade unions and many others. We also They also asked the Panel to focus on ending violence heard from academics and experts, politicians and against women and discrimination at work, at school philosophers. and in the law.
In all, we heard voices and reviewed recommendations People with disabilities also asked for an end to for goals and targets from over 5000 civil society discrimination and for equal opportunity. They are organisations – ranging from grassroots organisations looking for guarantees of minimum basic living to global alliances – working in about 120 countries standards. Representatives of indigenous groups and across every major region of the world. We also local communities wanted recognition of their need consulted the chief executive officers of 250 companies to live more balanced lives in harmony with nature. in 30 countries, with annual revenues exceeding $8 They want restitution, non-discrimination and respect trillion, academics from developed and developing for their ancestral ways. Those working in the informal countries, international and local NGOs and civil society sector also called for social protection and for reducing movements, and parliamentarians. inequalities, as well as for opportunities to secure good and decent jobs and livelihoods. In these meetings, people living in poverty told us how powerless they felt because their jobs and livelihoods Businesses spoke of their potential contribution to a were precarious. They said they fear getting sick, and post-2015 development agenda. Not just providing lack safety. They talked about insecurity, corruption, and good and decent jobs and growth, but delivering violence in the home. They spoke of being excluded and essential services and helping billions of people abused by society’s institutions and of the importance access clean and sustainable energy and adapt to of transparent, open and responsive government that climate change. They spoke of being willing to share recognises their dignity and human rights. accountability for the next agenda, and about what they need from governments if they are to do more – sound The Panel heard some similar priorities voiced by macroeconomic policies, good infrastructure, skilled mayors and local elected officials. These leaders deal workers, open markets, a level playing field, and efficient daily with marginalised groups asking for help getting and accountable public administration. food, shelter, health care, meals at school, education and school supplies. They strive to supply their constituents All these groups asked that when the post-2015 agenda with safe water, sanitation, and street lighting. They told is put into place, it includes a plan for measuring progress us that the urban poor want jobs that are better than that compares how people with different income levels, selling small items on the street or picking through gender, disability and age, and those living in different rubbish dumps. And, like people everywhere, they want localities, are faring – and that this information be easily security so their families can safely go about their lives. available to all.
Young people asked for education beyond primary The Panel’s Journey schooling, not just formal learning but life skills and vocational training to prepare them for jobs. In These views and perspectives helped us to understand countries where they have acquired good education better how to think about the post-2015 agenda and and skills, they want access to decent jobs. They want how to put flesh on the idea of a bold yet practical vision opportunities to lift themselves out of poverty. They for development that the Secretary-General challenged crave mentoring, career development, and programmes us to produce at our first meeting in New York. led by youth, serving youth. Young people said they want to be able to make informed decisions about In London, we discussed household poverty: the daily their health and bodies, to fully realise their sexual and reality of life on the margins of survival. We agreed to reproductive health and rights (SRHR). They want access seek to end extreme poverty by 2030. We learned how to information and technology so they can participate important it is to tackle poverty in all its dimensions, in their nation’s public life, especially charting its path including basic human needs like health, education, to economic development. They want to be able to hold safe water and shelter as well as fundamental human those in charge to account, to have the right to freedom rights: personal security, dignity, justice, voice and Post-2015 | 3
empowerment, equality of opportunity, and access to Opportunities and Challenges in a SRHR. Several of these issues were not covered in the MDGs and we agreed they must be added in a new Changing World agenda. We recognised the need to focus on the quality Our conversations with people added to our own of public services, as well as on access to their delivery. experiences about how significantly the world has We realised that providing access to nutritious food and changed since the Millennium Declaration was adopted drinking water would not endure unless food and water in 2000. We are also aware of how much more the world systems are also addressed. will change by 2030. It will be more urban, more middle class, older, more connected, more interdependent, In Monrovia, we talked about economic transformation more vulnerable and more constrained in its resources and the building blocks needed for growth that delivers – and still working to ensure that globalisation brings social inclusion and respects the environment – how maximum benefits to all. to harness the ingenuity and dynamism of business for sustainable development. We saw with our own eyes the For many, the world today feels more uncertain than it extraordinary progress that can be made when a country did in 2000. In developed countries, the financial crisis once ravaged by conflict is able to build peace and has shaken belief that every generation will be better security, but also the enormous challenge of providing off than the last. Developing countries, for their part, are basic services, like power, roads and telecommunications full of optimism and confidence as a result of a decade- to connect people and firms to a modern economy. We long growth spurt, but many also fear that slow progress heard about the business opportunities in pursuing in reforming global trade and stabilising the world green growth to promote sustainable development, financial system may harm their prospects. Half the and about the potential for individual entrepreneurs to world’s extreme poor live in conflict-affected countries, fulfil their dreams, and for large businesses to connect while many others are suffering the effects of natural to smallholder farmers. We learned that there are critical disasters that have cost $2.5 trillion so far this century.3 In shortages of the skilled professionals who are needed to today’s world, we see that no country, however powerful make governments and firms more efficient. We saw the or rich, can sustain its prosperity without working in need for the agenda to include jobs, institutions, and partnership to find integrated solutions. modern, reliable and sustainable energy. This is a world of challenges, but these challenges can In Bali, we discussed common global challenges, also present opportunities, if they kindle a new spirit including the dangers posed by climate change and of solidarity, mutual respect and mutual benefit, based the need for development strategies to include making on our common humanity and the Rio principles. Such households and countries more resilient. We focused a spirit could inspire us to address global challenges on the elements of a new global partnership. We through a new global partnership, bringing together agreed that developed countries had to do more to the many groups in the world concerned with economic, put their own house in order. They must honour their social and environmental progress: people living in aid commitments but go beyond aid to lead global poverty, women, young people, people with disabilities, efforts to reform trade, crack down on illicit capital flows, indigenous and local communities, marginalised return stolen assets, and promote sustainable patterns groups, multilateral institutions, local and national of consumption and production. We asked where governments, businesses, civil society and private the money would come from to finance the massive philanthropists, scientists and other academics. These investments that will be needed for infrastructure in groups are more organised than before, better able to developing countries, and concluded that we need to communicate with each other, willing to learn about find new ways of using aid and other public funds to real experiences and real challenges in policymaking, mobilise private capital. committed to solving problems together.
Envisioning a new Global Partnership “We agreed on the need for a renewed Global Partnership that enables a transformative, people-centred and planet-sensitive development agenda which is realised through the equal partnership of all stakeholders. Such partnership should be based on the principles of equity, sustainability, solidarity, respect for humanity, and shared responsibilities in accordance with respective capabilities.” Bali Communiqué of the High-Level Panel, March 28, 20134 4 | Chapter 1: A Vision and Framework for the post-2015 Development Agenda
We are deeply aware of the hunger, vulnerability, and Yet the Panel is impressed by the extraordinary innovations deprivation that still shape the daily lives of more than that have occurred, especially the rate at which new a billion people in the world today. At the same time we technologies are adopted and diffused, and by the are struck by the level of inequality in the world, both opportunities these technologies offer for sustainable among and within countries. Of all the goods and services development. The number of mobile phone subscriptions consumed in the world each year, the 1.2 billion people has risen from fewer than a billion to more than 6 billion, living in extreme poverty only account for one per cent, and with it many mobile (m-) applications – m-banking, while the richest 1 billion people consume 72 per cent.5 m-health, m-learning, m-taxes – that can radically change Every year, one billion women are subject to sexual or economies and service delivery in sustainable ways. physical violence because they lack equal protection under the law;6 and 200 million young people despair because The powerful in today’s world can no longer expect to set they lack equal opportunities to acquire the skills they the rules and go unchallenged. People everywhere expect need to get decent jobs and livelihoods.7 businesses and governments to be open, accountable, and responsive to their needs. There is an opportunity At the same time there is unprecedented prosperity and now to give people the power to influence and control dynamism in many countries. Two billion people already things in their everyday lives, and to give all countries more enjoy middle class lifestyles, and another three billion are say in how the world is governed. Without sound domestic set to join them by 2030. Low- and middle-income countries and global institutions there can be no chance of making are now growing faster than high-income ones – which poverty reduction permanent. helps to reduce global inequality. And many countries are using public social protection programmes and social and There are 21 countries that have experienced armed environmental regulations to bring down high levels of conflict since 2000 and many others where criminal domestic inequality by improving the lives of the worst-off, violence is common. Between them, these claim 7.9 million while also transforming their economies so that growth lives each year.11 In order to develop peacefully, countries is sustained over the long term and provides more good afflicted by or emerging from conflict need institutions jobs and secure livelihoods. This means it is now possible that are capable and responsive, and able to meet people’s to leave no one behind – to give every child a fair chance core demands for security, justice and well-being. A in life, and to achieve a pattern of development where minimally functional state machinery is a pre-requisite and dignity and human rights become a reality for all, where an a foundation for lasting development that breaks the cycle agenda can be built around human security. of conflict and distrust.
While we were writing this report, the world passed People care no less about sound institutions than they do an alarming threshold: atmospheric carbon dioxide about preventing illness or ensuring that their children can concentration was measured at over 400 parts per million, read and write – if only because they understand that the probably the highest level in at least 800,000 years.8 There is former play an essential role in achieving the latter. Good no evidence yet that the upward trend has been slowed or institutions are, in fact, the essential building blocks of a reversed, as it must be if potentially catastrophic changes prosperous and sustainable future. The rule of law, freedom in climate are to be avoided. Despite all the rhetoric about of speech and the media, open political choice and active alternative energy sources, fossil fuels still make up 81 per citizen participation, access to justice, non-discriminatory cent of global energy production--unchanged since 1990.9 and accountable governments and public institutions help To continue on this business-as-usual path would be very drive development and have their own intrinsic value. They dangerous. Changes in consumption and production are both means to an end and an end in themselves. patterns are essential, and they must be led by the developed countries. One World: One Sustainable Recent food and energy crises, and high prices for many Development Agenda commodities, point to a world where increasing resource scarcity is the norm. In environmental “hot spots,” the The Panel believes there is a chance now to do something harm that is coming if we don’t halt current trends will that has never before been done – to eradicate extreme be irreversible. Of the 24 most important ways the poor poverty, once and for all, and to end hunger, illiteracy, depend on natural resources, 15 are in serious decline, and preventable deaths. This would be a truly historic including: more than 40 per cent of global fisheries that achievement. have crashed or are overfished; loss of 130 million hectares of forests in the last decade; loss of 20 percent of mangrove But we wanted to do more and we thought: ending forests since 1980; threats to 75 per cent of the world’s extreme poverty is just the beginning, not the end. It is coral reefs, mostly in small island developing states where vital, but our vision must be broader: to start countries on dependence on reefs is high.10 the path of sustainable development – building on the Post-2015 | 5
foundations established by the 2012 UN Conference on when it comes to developing specific programs and Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro12, and meeting projects on the ground. It is time to streamline the a challenge that no country, developed or developing, has agenda. met so far. It is also unrealistic to think we can help another one We recommend to the Secretary-General that deliberations billion people to lift themselves out of poverty by on a new development agenda must be guided by the growing their national economies without making vision of eradicating extreme poverty once and for all, in structural changes in the world economy. There is an the context of sustainable development. urgent need for developed countries to re-imagine their growth models. They must lead the world towards We came to the conclusion that the moment is right solutions to climate change by creating and adopting to merge the social, economic and environmental low-carbon and other sustainable development dimensions of sustainability guiding international technologies and passing them on to others. Otherwise, development. Why now? Because 2015 is the target further strains on food, water and energy supplies and date set in the year 2000 for the achievement of the increases in global carbon emissions will be inevitable MDGs and the logical date to begin a second phase – with added pressures from billions more people that will finish the job they started and build on their expected to join the middle class in the next two achievements. Member states of the General Assembly decades. People still living in poverty, or those in near- of the United Nations have also agreed at Rio+20 to poverty, who have been the most vulnerable to recent develop a set of sustainable development goals that food, fuel and financial crises, would then be at grave are coherent with and integrated into the development risk of slipping back into poverty once more. agenda beyond 2015. 2015 also marks the deadline for countries to negotiate a new treaty to limit greenhouse This is why we need to think differently. Ending poverty gas emissions. is not a matter for aid or international cooperation alone. It is an essential part of sustainable development, in Developing a single, sustainable development agenda developed and developing countries alike. Developed is critical. Without ending poverty, we cannot build countries have a great responsibility to keep the prosperity; too many people get left behind. Without promises they have made to help the less fortunate. building prosperity, we cannot tackle environmental The billions of dollars of aid that they give each year challenges; we need to mobilise massive investments are vital to many low-income countries. But it is not in new technologies to reduce the footprint of enough: they can also co-operate more effectively to unsustainable production and consumption patterns. stem aggressive tax avoidance and evasion, and illicit Without environmental sustainability, we cannot end capital flows. Governments can work with business poverty; the poor are too deeply affected by natural to create a more coherent, transparent and equitable disasters and too dependent on deteriorating oceans, system for collecting corporate tax in a globalised world. forests and soils. They can tighten the enforcement of rules that prohibit companies from bribing foreign officials. They can The need for a single agenda is glaring, as soon as one prompt their large multinational corporations to report starts thinking practically about what needs to be done. on the social, environmental, and economic impact of Right now, development, sustainable development and their activities. climate change are often seen as separate. They have separate mandates, separate financing streams, and Developing countries, too, have a vital part to play in separate processes for tracking progress and holding the transformative shifts that are needed. Most of them people accountable. This creates overlap and confusion are growing rapidly and raising their own resources to
Our Vision and Our Responsibility
“Our vision and our responsibility is to end extreme poverty in all its forms in the context of sustainable development and to have in place the building blocks of sustained prosperity for all. The gains in poverty eradication should be irreversible. This is a global, people-centred and planet-sensitive agenda to address the universal challenges of the 21st century: promoting sustainable development, supporting job-creating growth, protecting the environment and providing peace, security, justice, freedom and equity at all levels.”
Monrovia Communiqué of the High-Level Panel February 1, 2013 6 | Chapter 1: A Vision and Framework for the post-2015 Development Agenda
fund their own development. They already contribute development are high. Every dollar invested in stopping the most to global growth and expansion of global chronic malnutrition returns $30 in higher lifetime trade. They have young, dynamic populations. They productivity.13 Expanded childhood immunisation are urbanising, modernising and absorbing new improves health in later life, with benefits worth 20 times technologies faster than ever before. But they face the cost.14 The value of the productive time gained when critical choices. The infrastructure investments they households have access to safe drinking water in the make today will lock-in energy use and pollution levels home is worth 3 times the cost of providing it.15 And we tomorrow. The way they manage natural resource cannot wait before moving to sustainable development. revenues today will determine the options available Scientists warn us that we must aggressively move to their young people tomorrow. They must make beyond current voluntary pledges and commitments to smart choices to turn cities into vibrant places full of reduce carbon emissions or else we will be on a path to opportunities, services and different lifestyles, where at least a 4-degree Celsius warming over pre-industrial people want to work and live. levels by this century’s end. According to the World Bank, such “4°C scenarios” would be devastating.16 There is a global ethic for a globalised world, based on our common humanity, the Rio principles and the Pursuing a single, sustainable development agenda is shared ethos of all traditions: “do as you would be done the right thing, the smart thing and the necessary thing by.” Moreover, the benefits of investing in sustainable to do.
2. See Terms of Reference, Annex V. 3. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, 15 May, 2013, http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=6821. 4. Bali Communiqué of the High Level Panel, March 27, 2013, http://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Final- Communique-Bali.pdf. 5. HLP Secretariat calculations. 6. UNiTE to end violence against women. Fact Sheet. http://www.un.org/en/women/endviolence/pdf/VAW.pdf. 7. Education For All (EFA) monitoring report (2012). Youth and Skills: Putting Education to Work. (p. 16). 8. Luthi et al., 2008, Nature 453, 379-382. 9. World Energy Outlook Factsheet, 2011, International Energy Agency, http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/ factsheets/factsheets.pdf. 10. UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). This was a four-year, multi-volume scientific appraisal by more than 1,000 experts. 11. The World Development Report, 2011: Conflict, Security and Development, World Bank. 12. The Future We Want, United Nations, A/RES/66/288*, 11 September 2012. 13. Copenhagen Consensus (2012). Expert Panel Findings, (p. 4) and Hoddinott et al. (2012). Hunger and Malnutrition. Challenge Paper Copenhagen Consensus 2012 (p. 68). 14. Jamison, D., Jha, P., Bloom, D. (2008). The Challenge of Diseases. Challenge Paper Copenhagen Consensus 2008 (p. 51). 15. Whittington, D. et al. (2008). The Challenge of Water and Sanitation. Challenge Paper Copenhagen Consensus 2008 (p. 126). 16. Turn Down the Heat, The World Bank, November 2012, http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_ the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf . Post-2015 | 7
Chapter 2: From Vision to Action—Priority Transformations for a post-2015 Agenda
Five Transformative Shifts
The Panel views five big, transformative shifts as the priorities for a forward-looking, compelling and integrated sustainable development agenda based on the Rio principles. The first four shifts are where the focus for action is mostly at the country level, while the fifth transformative shift, forging a new global partnership, is an overarching change in international cooperation that provides the policy space for domestic transformations.
We believe there is a need for a paradigm shift, a profound structural transformation that will overcome the obstacles to sustained prosperity.
The transformations described below apply to all countries. They are universally relevant and actionable. The details may vary, and responsibilities and accountabilities will inevitably differ, in line with the circumstances and capabilities of each country. We recognise that there are enormous differences among countries in resources and capabilities, differences rooted in long-ago history and often beyond their individual control. But every country has something to contribute. Countries are not being told what to do: each country is being asked what it wants to do, on a voluntary basis, both at home and to help others in meeting jointly identified challenges.
1. Leave No One Behind
The next development agenda must ensure that in the future neither income nor gender, nor ethnicity, nor disability, nor geography, will determine whether people live or die, whether a mother can give birth safely, or whether her child has a fair chance in life. We must keep faith with the promise of the MDGs and now finish the job. The MDGs aspired to halve poverty. After 2015 we should aspire to put an end to hunger and extreme poverty as well as addressing poverty in all its other forms. This is a major new commitment to everyone on the planet who feels marginalised or excluded, and to the neediest and most vulnerable people, to make sure their concerns are addressed and that they can enjoy their human rights.
The new agenda must tackle the causes of poverty, exclusion and inequality. It must connect people in rural and urban areas to the modern economy through quality infrastructure – electricity, irrigation, roads, ports, and telecommunications. It must provide quality health care and education for all. It must establish and enforce clear rules, without discrimination, so that women can inherit and own property and run a business, communities can control local environmental resources, and farmers and urban slum-dwellers have secure property rights. It must give people the assurance of personal safety. It must make it easy for them to follow their dreams and start a business. It must give them a say in what their government does for them, and how it spends their tax money. It must end discrimination and promote equality between men and women, girls and boys.
These are issues of basic social justice. Many people living in poverty have not had a fair chance in life because they are victims of illness or poor healthcare, unemployment, a natural disaster, climate change, local conflict, instability, poor local leadership, or low-quality education – or have been given no schooling at all. Others face discrimination. Remedying these fundamental inequalities and injustices is a matter of respect for people’s universal human rights. A focus on the poorest and most marginalised, a disproportionate number of whom are women, follows directly from the principles agreed to in the Millennium Declaration and at Rio.17 These principles should remain the foundation of the post-2015 agenda.
To be sure that our actions are helping not just the largest number of people, but the neediest and most vulnerable, we will need new ways of measuring success. Strategies 8 | Chapter 2: From Vision to Action—Priority Transformations for a post-2015 Agenda
and plans will have to be developed to reach those not There are other ways to reduce carbon emissions at very adequately covered by existing programmes. The cost of little cost; for example restoring soil, managing grasslands delivering services in remote areas may be only 15 to 20 per and forests in a sustainable way.18 Healthcare costs can cent higher than average, to judge by practical experience fall significantly with a switch to clean transport or power in many countries. This seems reasonable and affordable, generation, helping offset the costs. But incentives – taxes, given higher tax revenues expected in most countries, and subsidies and regulations – must be in place to encourage sustained aid to the lowest income countries. Above all it is this – incentives that are largely not in place now. With the the right thing to do. right incentives, and some certainty about the rules, many of the world’s largest companies are prepared to commit 2. Put Sustainable Development at the Core themselves to moving to sustainable modes of production on a large scale. For twenty years, the international community has aspired to integrate the social, economic, and environmental In developing countries too, the benefits of investing in dimensions of sustainability, but no country has yet sustainable development are high, especially if they get achieved patterns of consumption and production that access to new technologies. Small investments to allow could sustain global prosperity in the coming decades. cross-border trading in electricity could save sub-Saharan A new agenda will need to set out the core elements of Africa $2.7 billion every year, by substituting hydro for sustainable lifestyles that can work for all. thermal power plants.19 Sustainable production is far cheaper than “Grow now, clean later.” The Panel is convinced that national and local governments, businesses and individuals must transform the way they Already, some industries have developed global standards generate and consume energy, travel and transport to guide foreign investment in sustainable development. goods, use water and grow food. Especially in developed Examples can be found in mining, palm oil, forestry, countries, incentives and new mind-sets can spark agricultural land purchases, and banking. Certification and massive investment in moving towards a green economy compliance programmes put all companies on the same in the context of sustainable development and poverty footing. eradication, while promoting more sustainable and more efficient consumption and production. Developing As more industries develop sustainability certification, it countries, when they get access to new technologies, will be easier for civil society and shareholders to become can leapfrog straight to new, more sustainable and more watchdogs, holding firms accountable for adhering to efficient consumption and production. Both approaches industry standards and worker safety issues, and being are simply smart public policy. ready to disinvest if they do not. Today, however, only 25 per cent of large companies report to shareholders It is sometimes argued that global limits on carbon on sustainability practices; by 2030, this should be emissions will force developing countries to sacrifice commonplace. growth to accommodate the lifestyles of the rich, or that developed countries will have to stop growing so that 3. Transform Economies for Jobs and Inclusive developing countries can develop – substituting one Growth source of pollution for another. We do not believe that such The Panel calls for a quantum leap forward in economic trade-offs are necessary. Mankind’s capacity for innovation, opportunities and a profound economic transformation and the many alternatives that already exist, mean that to end extreme poverty and improve livelihoods. There sustainable development can, and must, allow people in must be a commitment to rapid, equitable growth – not all countries to achieve their aspirations. growth at any cost or just short-term spurts in growth, but sustained, long-term, inclusive growth that can overcome At least one-third of the activities needed to lower global the challenges of unemployment (especially youth carbon emissions to reasonable levels, such as switching unemployment), resource scarcity and – perhaps the to LED lighting to conserve electricity, more than pay for biggest challenge of all – adaptation to climate change. This themselves under current market conditions. Consumers kind of inclusive growth has to be supported by a global will pay more up front if they can see future savings economy that ensures financial stability, promotes stable, clearly and if the right incentives are in place to make the long-term private financial investment, and encourages switch. Examples abound of smart, feasible, cost-effective, open, fair and development-friendly trade. green economy policies: improved vehicle aerodynamics, constructing buildings for energy efficiency, recycling The first priority must be to create opportunities for good waste, generating electricity from landfill gas—and and decent jobs and secure livelihoods, so as to make new technologies are constantly coming on-stream. But growth inclusive and ensure that it reduces poverty and concerted efforts are needed to develop and adopt them. inequality. When people escape from poverty, it is most often by joining the middle class, but to do so they will need Post-2015 | 9
the education, training and skills to be successful in the job building peaceful and prosperous societies. At the same market and respond to demands by business for more time, people the world over want their governments workers. Billions more people could become middle-class to be transparent, accountable and responsive to their by 2030, most of them in cities, and this would strengthen needs. Personal security, access to justice, freedom from economic growth the world over. Better government discrimination and persecution, and a voice in the decisions policies, fair and accountable public institutions, and that affect their lives are development outcomes as well inclusive and sustainable business practices will support as enablers. So we are calling for a fundamental shift—to this and are essential parts of a post-2015 agenda. recognise peace and good governance as core elements of well-being, not an optional extra. A second priority is to constantly strive to add value and raise productivity, so that growth begets more growth. Capable and responsive states need to build effective and Some fundamentals will accelerate growth everywhere – accountable public institutions that support the rule of law, infrastructure and other investments, skills development, freedom of speech and the media, open political choice, supportive policies towards micro, small and medium sized and access to justice. We need a transparency revolution so enterprises, and the capacity to innovate and absorb new citizens can see exactly where their taxes, aid and revenues technologies, and produce higher quality and a greater from extractive industries are spent. We need governments range of products. In some countries, this can be achieved that tackle the causes of poverty, empower people, are through industrialisation, in others through expanding a transparent, and permit scrutiny of their affairs. modern service sector or intensifying agriculture. Some specialise, others diversify. There is no single recipe. But it is Transparency and accountability are also powerful tools for clear that some growth patterns – essentially those that are preventing the theft and waste of scarce natural resources. supported by open and fair trade, globally and regionally Without sound institutions, there can be no chance of – offer more opportunities than others for future growth. sustainable development. The Panel believes that creating them is a central part of the transformation needed Third, countries must put in place a stable environment to eradicate poverty irreversibly and enable countries that enables business to flourish. Business wants, above across the world, especially those prone to or emerging all, a level playing field and to be connected to major from conflict, to develop sustainably – and that therefore markets. For small firms, this often means finding the institutions must be addressed in the new development right business linkages, through supply chains or co- agenda. operatives, for example. Business also wants a simple regulatory framework which makes it easy to start, Societies organise their dialogues through institutions. operate and close a business. Small and medium firms, In order to play a substantive role, citizens need a legal that employ the most people, are especially hamstrung environment which enables them to form and join CSOs, at present by unnecessarily complicated regulations to protest and express opinions peacefully, and which that can also breed corruption. This is not a call for total protects their right to due process. deregulation: social and environmental standards are of great importance. But it is a call for regulation to be smart, Internationally, too, institutions are important channels stable and implemented in a transparent way. Of course, of dialogue and cooperation. Working together, in businesses themselves also have a role to play: adopting and through domestic and international institutions, good practices and paying fair taxes in the countries where governments could bring about a swift reduction in they operate, and being transparent about the financial, corruption, money laundering, tax evasion and aggressive social and environmental impact of their activities. avoidance, hidden ownership of assets, and the illicit trade in drugs and arms. They must commit themselves to doing Fourth, in order to bring new prosperity and new so. opportunities, growth will also need to usher in new ways 5. Forge a new Global Partnership to support sustainable consumption and production, and enable sustainable development. Governments should A fifth, but perhaps most important, transformative shift develop and implement detailed approaches to encourage for the post-2015 agenda is to bring a new sense of global sustainable activities and properly cost environmentally partnership into national and international politics. This and socially hazardous behaviour. Business should indicate must provide a fresh vision and framework, based on how it can invest to reduce environmental stresses and our common humanity and the principles established improve working conditions for employees. at Rio. Included among those principles: universality, equity, sustainability, solidarity, human rights, the right to 4. Build Peace and Effective, Open and development and responsibilities shared in accordance Accountable Public Institutions with capabilities. The partnership should capture, and will depend on, a spirit of mutual respect and mutual benefit. Freedom from conflict and violence is the most fundamental human entitlement, and the essential foundation for One simple idea lies behind the principle of global 10 | Chapter 2: From Vision to Action—Priority Transformations for a post-2015 Agenda
partnership. People and countries understand that their – from negotiating international trade or environmental fates are linked together. What happens in one part of the agreements to creating an enabling environment for world can affect us all. Some issues can only be tackled business and setting environmental standards at home. by acting together. Countries have resources, expertise Developed countries must keep their promises to or technology that, if shared, can result in mutual benefit developing countries. North-South aid is still vital for many Working together is not just a moral obligation to help countries: it must be maintained, and increased wherever those less fortunate but is an investment in the long-term possible. But more than aid is needed to implement prosperity of all. sustainable development worldwide. Developed countries A renewed global partnership will require a new spirit are important markets and exporters. Their trade and from national leaders, but also – no less important – it agriculture practices have huge potential to assist, or will require many others to adopt new mind-sets and hinder, other countries’ development. They can encourage change their behaviour. These changes will not happen innovation, diffusion and transfer of technology. With other overnight. But we must move beyond business-as-usual major economies, they have a central role in ensuring the – and we must start today. The new global partnership stability of the international financial system. They have should encourage everyone to alter their worldview, special responsibilities in ensuring that there can be no profoundly and dramatically. It should lead all countries to safe haven for illicit capital and the proceeds of corruption, move willingly towards merging the environmental and and that multinational companies pay taxes fairly in the development agendas, and tackling poverty’s symptoms countries in which they operate. And, as the world’s largest and causes in a unified and universal way. per-capita consumers, developed countries must show leadership on sustainable consumption and production What are the components of a new global partnership? and adopting and sharing green technologies. It starts with a shared, common vision, one that allows different solutions for different contexts but is uniformly Developing countries are much more diverse than when ambitious. From vision comes a plan for action, at the level the MDGs were agreed – they include large emerging of the individual country and of smaller regions, cities or economies as well as countries struggling to tackle high localities. Each needs to contribute and cooperate to levels of deprivation and facing severe capacity constraints. secure a better future. These changing circumstances are reflected in changing A new global partnership should engage national roles. Developing country links in trade, investment, and governments of all countries, local authorities, international finance are growing fast. They can share experiences organisations, businesses, civil society, foundations and of how best to reform policy and institutions to foster other philanthropists, and people – all sitting at the table development. Developing countries, including ones to go beyond aid to discuss a truly international framework with major pockets of poverty, are cooperating among of policies to achieve sustainable development. It should themselves, and jointly with developed countries and move beyond the MDGs’ orientation of state-to-state international institutions, in South-South and Triangular partnerships between high-income and low-income cooperation activities that have become highly valued. governments to be inclusive of more players. These could be an even stronger force with development of a repository of good practices, networks of knowledge A new global partnership should have new ways of working exchange, and more regional cooperation.20 – a clear process through which to measure progress towards goals and targets and to hold people accountable Local authorities form a vital bridge between national for meeting their commitments. The United Nations can governments, communities and citizens and will have a take the lead on monitoring at the global level, drawing on critical role in a new global partnership. The Panel believes information from national and local governments, as well that one way to support this is by recognising that targets as from regional dialogues. Partnerships in each thematic might be pursued differently at the sub-national level – so area, at global, national and local levels, can assign that urban poverty is not treated the same as rural poverty, responsibilities and accountabilities for putting policies for example. and programmes in place. Local authorities have a critical role in setting priorities, Each participant in the global partnership has a specific executing plans, monitoring results and engaging with role to play: local firms and communities. In many cases, it is local authorities that deliver essential public services in health, National governments have the central role and education, policing, water and sanitation. And, even if not responsibility for their own development and for ensuring directly delivering services, local government often has a universal human rights. They decide on national targets, role in establishing the planning, regulatory and enabling taxes, policies, plans and regulations that will translate the environment—for business, for energy supply, mass vision and goals of the post-2015 agenda into practical transit and building standards. They have a central role in reality. They have a role in every sector and at many levels disaster risk reduction – identifying risks, early warning and Post-2015 | 11
building resilience. Local authorities have a role in helping providers of basic services, often able to reach the neediest slum-dwellers access better housing and jobs and are the and most vulnerable, for example in slums and remote source of most successful programmes to support the areas. informal sector and micro-enterprises. In a new partnership, CSOs will have a crucial role in International institutions will play a key role. The United making sure that government at all levels and businesses Nations, of course, has a central normative and convening act responsibly and create genuine opportunities and role, and can join partnerships through its development sustainable livelihoods in an open-market economy. Their funds, programmes and specialised agencies. International ability to perform this role depends on an enabling legal financial institutions can compensate for the market’s environment and access to due process under the law, failures to supply long-term finance for sustainable but they should also commit to full transparency and projects in low- and middle-income countries, but they accountability to those whom they represent. need to be more innovative, flexible and nimble in the way Foundations, other philanthropists and social impact they operate. The Panel noted the huge potential to use investors can innovate and be nimble and opportunistic, public money to catalyse and scale up private financing forming bridges between government bureaucracies, for sustainable development. For example, only 2 per cent international institutions and the business and CSO sectors. of the $5 trillion in sovereign wealth fund assets has so far Foundations and philanthropists can take risks, show been invested in sustainable development projects.21 that an idea works, and create new markets where none Business is an essential partner that can drive economic existed before. This can give governments and business growth. Small- and medium-sized firms will create most of the confidence to take the initiative and scale up successes. the jobs that will be needed to help today’s poor escape Social impact investors show that there can be a “third poverty and for the 470 million who will enter the labour way” for sustainable development – a hybrid between a market by 2030. Large firms have the money and expertise fully for-profit private sector and a pure grant or charity aid to build the infrastructure that will allow all people to programmes. Because they make money, their efforts can connect to the modern economy. Big businesses can also be sustainable over time. But because they are new, neither link microenterprises and small entrepreneurs with larger business nor charity, they do not fall neatly into traditional markets. When they find a business model that works for legal frames. Some countries may need to consider how to sustainable development, they can scale it up fast, using modify their laws to take better advantage of this sector. their geographic spread to reach hundreds of millions of people. Scientists and academics can make scientific and technological breakthroughs that will be essential to the A growing number of business leaders with whom we post-2015 agenda. Every country that has experienced discussed these issues are already integrating sustainable sustained high growth has done so through absorbing development into their corporate strategies. They spoke knowledge, technology and ideas from the rest of the of a business case with three components that goes well world, and adapting them to local conditions.22 What beyond corporate social responsibility. First, use innovation matters is not just having technology, but understanding to open up new growth markets, and address the needs of how to use it well and locally. This requires universities, poor consumers. Second, promote sustainable practices technical colleges, public administration schools and well- and stay cost-competitive by conserving land, water, trained, skilled workers in all countries. This is one example energy and minerals and eliminating waste. Third, attract of the need for the post-2015 agenda to go well beyond the highest calibre employees and promote labour rights. the MDG’s focus on primary education. Many companies recognise, however, that if they are to be trusted partners of governments and CSOs, they need to Energy is a good example of where a global technology strengthen their own governance mechanisms and adopt breakthrough is needed. When governments cooperate “integrated reporting”, on their social and environmental with academia and the private sector, new ways of impact as well as financial performance. Many businesses producing clean and sustainable energy can be found today are committed to doing this; the new global and put into practice.23 This needs to happen quickly: the partnership should encourage others to follow suit. infrastructure decisions of today will affect the energy use of tomorrow. Civil society organisations can play a vital role in giving a voice to people living in poverty, who include Science in many fields, like drought-resistant crops, can disproportionate numbers of women, children, people be advanced by using open platforms where scientists with disabilities, indigenous and local communities everywhere have access to each other’s findings and can and members of other marginalised groups. They have build on them freely and collaborate broadly, adding important parts to play in designing, realising, and useful features without limit. Open platform science can monitoring this new agenda. They are also important speed the development of new ideas for sustainable 12 | Chapter 2: From Vision to Action—Priority Transformations for a post-2015 Agenda
development and rapidly bring them to scale. It can new savings will come from by 2030. These private capital support innovation, diffusion and transfer of technology flows will grow and become less prone to sudden surges throughout the world. and stops, if the global financial system is stable and well regulated, and if they finance projects backstopped by People must be central to a new global partnership. international financial institutions. To do this they need the freedom to voice their views and participate in the decisions that affect their lives The money is there – world savings this year will likely be without fear. They need access to information and to over $18 trillion – and sponsors of sustainable projects are an independent media. And new forms of participation searching for capital, but new channels and innovative such as social media and crowd-sourcing can enable financial instruments are needed to link the two. Support governments, businesses, CSOs and academia to interact systems (know-how, financial institutions, policies, laws) with, understand and respond to citizens’ needs in new must be built and, where they exist, must be strengthened. ways. A broad vision of how to fund development has already Ensure More and Better Long-term been agreed by governments at a conference held in Finance Monterrey, Mexico in 2002. The Monterrey Consensus agreed that “each country has primary responsibility for The Panel believes that most of the money to finance its own economic and social development, and the role sustainable development will come from domestic sources, of national policies and development strategies cannot be and the Panel urges countries to continue efforts to invest overemphasised. At the same time, domestic economies in stronger tax systems, broaden their domestic tax base are now interwoven with the global economic system…”24 and build local financial markets. Low- and middle-income So these efforts should be supported by commitments country governments have made great strides in raising made on aid, trade and investment patterns, as well as domestic revenues, and this has helped expand public technical cooperation for development. services and investments, vital for sustainable growth, as well as creating ownership and accountability for public The Panel believes the principles and agreements spending. established at Monterrey remain valid for the post-2015 agenda. It recommends that an international conference But developing countries will also need substantial should take up in more detail the question of finance external funding. The main part of this will not be aid for sustainable development. This could be convened from developed countries, although aid remains vital by the UN in the first half of 2015 to address in practical for low-income countries and the promises made on aid terms how to finance the post-2015 agenda. The Panel must be kept. The most important source of long-term suggests that this conference should discuss how to finance will be private capital, coming from major pension integrate development, sustainable development and funds, mutual funds, sovereign wealth funds, private environmental financing streams. A single agenda should corporations, development banks, and other investors, have a coherent overall financing structure. including those in middle-income countries where most
17. The Millennium Declaration urged “efforts to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all internationally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development.” It also supported the “freedom of the media to perform their essential role and the right of the public to have access to information.” 18. Towards a Global Climate Change Agreement, McKinsey (2009). 19. Rosnes et al. (2009), Powering Up: Costing Power Infrastructure Spending Needs in sub-Saharan Africa, Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic, Paper 5 (Phase II). 20. South-South Cooperation is guided by the “principles of respect for national sovereignty, national ownership and independence, equality, non-conditionality, non-interference in domestic affairs and mutual benefit.” High-level United Nations Conference on South-South Cooperation, Nairobi, Kenya (2009). 21. UNCTAD (2012) World Investment Report. Towards a New Generation of Investment Policies. http://www.unctad-docs.org/files/ UNCTAD-WIR2012-Full-en.pdf. 22. Commission on Growth and Development (2008) The Growth Report. Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development. World Bank: Washington DC. 23. For example, the US-India Partnership to Advance Clean Energy has already generated $1.7 billion in public and private resources for clean energy. 24. United Nations, Monterrey Consensus on the International Conference on Financing for Development, in Monterrey, Mexico. United Nations, 2002. Post-2015 | 13
Chapter 3: Illustrative Goals and Global Impact
The Shape of the Post-2015 Agenda
Bold commitments in these five areas – leave no one behind, put sustainable development at the core, transform economies, build peace and effective and accountable institutions, and forge a new global partnership – would allow the international community to keep the promises made under the MDGs, raise the bar where experience shows we can do more, and add key issues that are missing. Together, these would be significant steps towards poverty eradication as an essential part of sustainable development.
Precisely because the scope of the post-2015 agenda is so broad – blending social progress, equitable growth and environmental management – it must have clear priorities, and include shared global metrics as well as national targets. It is around these that the global community can organise itself.
We believe that the combination of goals, targets, and indicators under the MDGs was a powerful instrument for mobilising resources and motivating action. For this reason, we recommend that the post-2015 agenda should also feature a limited number of high- priority goals and targets, with a clear time horizon and supported by measurable indicators. With this in mind, the Panel recommends that targets in the post-2015 agenda should be set for 2030.25 Longer time frames would lack urgency and might seem implausible, given the volatility of today’s world, while shorter ones would not allow the truly transformative changes that are needed to take effect.
Goals can be a powerful force for change. But a goal framework is not the best solution to every social, economic and environmental challenge. They are most effective where a clear and compelling ambition can be described in clearly measurable terms. Goals cannot substitute for detailed regulations or multilateral treaties that codify delicately-balanced international bargains. And unlike treaties, goals similar to the MDGs are not binding in international law. They stand or fall as tools of communication, inspiration, policy formulation and resource mobilisation.
The agenda should also include monitoring and accountability mechanisms involving states, civil society, the private sector, foundations, and the international development community. It should recognise each party’s contribution to development finance, recognising common challenges but also different capabilities and needs. It will need to be informed by evidence of what works, and focus on areas where, by acting together, the global community can achieve the transformations needed for sustainable development.
A goal framework that drives transformations is valuable in focusing global efforts, building momentum and developing a sense of global urgency. It can be instrumental in crystallising consensus and defining international norms. It can provide a rallying cry for a global campaign to generate international support, as has been the case with the MDGs.
The Panel recommends that a limited number of goals and targets be adopted in the post-2015 development agenda, and that each should be SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound. A set of clear and easily applicable criteria, to guide the shape of the post-2015 agenda in line with the Rio+20 Outcome, is that each goal should:
• Solve a critical issue, and have a strong impact on sustainable development, based on existing research;
• Encapsulate a compelling message on issues that energise people, companies and governments;
• Be easy to understand and communicate without jargon;
• Be measurable, using credible and internationally comparable indicators, metrics and data, and subject to monitoring; 14 | Chapter 3: Illustrative Goals and Global Impact
• Be widely applicable in countries with different levels extreme poverty. Landlocked countries often call for of income, and in those emerging from conflict or better connections to the global economy; small island recovering from natural disaster; developing states for economic diversification, and a stronger response to climate change. • Be grounded in the voice of people, and the priorities identified during consultations, especially children, All countries have an interest in a better managed global youth, women and marginalised and excluded groups; economy, one that is more stable, more fair, more attentive to common resources, and more willing to cooperate in • Be consensus-based, whenever possible built on UN scientific and technical exchange. All would benefit from member states’ existing agreements, while also striving shared early-warning systems to identify and prevent to go beyond previous agreements to make people’s natural disasters and pandemics. lives better. Risks to be Managed in a Single Agenda Whenever possible, goals and targets should reflect what people want, without dictating how they should get there. If the new development agenda is to be truly For example, all countries might subscribe to a target of transformational, there are several major risks to be reducing food waste by a given percentage. But a low- managed. The international community will need to income country might achieve this by investing in better ensure that a single, sustainable development agenda is storage and transport facilities, to keep food from spoiling not: before it gets to market, while a high-income country might do it by changing how food is packaged, sold, and • over-loaded with too many priorities, a product of consumed to reduce the amount of food thrown away by compromises rather than decisions – lacklustre and households. bland instead of transformative and focused; The Panel recommends that the post-2015 goals, while • Focused on the agenda of the past – and not oriented keeping those living in extreme poverty, and the promises towards future challenges; made to them, at the heart of the agenda, should raise the level of ambition for 2030 to reach all the neediest • insufficiently stretching – business as usual; and most vulnerable. They should call for improving the quality of services. They should capture the priorities for • unworkably utopian; sustainable development. And they should connect to one • intellectually coherent, but not compelling; another in an integrated way. • narrowly focused on one set of issues, failing to Of course, given vastly different capabilities, histories, recognise that poverty, good governance, social starting points and circumstances, every country cannot inclusion, environment and growth are connected and be asked to reach the same absolute target. All countries cannot be addressed in silos. would be expected to contribute to achieving all targets, but how much, and at what speed, will differ. Ideally, The best way of managing these risks is to make sure nations would use inclusive processes to make these that the post-2015 development agenda includes clear decisions and then develop strategies, plans, policies, laws, priorities for action that the international community can or budgets to implement them.26 rally behind. These should be in areas where there are genuinely shared global aspirations, and which will make a A few examples that came up during Panel discussions transformative difference to sustainable development and illustrate how priorities might vary, depending on country poverty reduction. circumstances. The Panel agreed that some high-income countries might be expected to move further and faster on The MDGs show how a goal framework can be used. One clean energy targets, because most start from a low base reason why they are successful is that they are inspirational, and all have responsibilities to do more to move towards limited in number – eight goals and 21 targets – and sustainable consumption and production patterns. Many easy to understand. The more successful targets are also can also do more to provide equitable access to health measurable with clear deadlines. With eyes on the goals, and education services for isolated, poor or immigrant money has been raised, partnerships built and strategies communities at home. And youth unemployment is a designed. When new technologies were needed, partners serious problem everywhere. The priorities expressed designed them. Good practices were shared. Field workers in consultations in middle-income countries focused on the ground and policymakers in capitals learned and more on reducing inequality, a good education, better adapted. Of course, much progress would have happened quality healthcare, reliable infrastructure, a transparent even without the MDGs, but there is little doubt in our and responsible government, especially at local levels minds that they made a dramatic impact in some key areas. for improved city management, creating more and better jobs and livelihoods and freedom from violence. The same should apply to the development agenda after Similar priorities are expressed in low-income countries, 2015. Those priorities that can be addressed through as well as the need to transform economies and reduce a goal framework should be. Goals have shown their Post-2015 | 15
value in focusing global efforts, building momentum to affordable essential drugs. A technology revolution has and developing a sense of global jeopardy. They can occurred in information and communications, but with be instrumental in crystallising consensus and defining little contribution from MDG8. international norms. Despite the shortcomings of MDG8, aggravated by the lack Making sure that countries stretch themselves is a risk in of quantitative and time-bound targets, the Panel views a a universal agenda. Setting the same targets for everyone, stronger global partnership for development, the objective as happened with the MDGs in practice (though not of MDG8, as central to a new development agenda. The by design), will not work because countries have such Panel puts this new global partnership at the heart of different starting points. But in a few cases the ambition all its recommendations, and we believe a goal must be for the whole world should be the same: to establish included in the post-2015 agenda as a tangible way to minimum standards for every citizen. No one should live in express key elements of the new global partnership. The extreme poverty, or tolerate violence against women and most important changes to MDG8 that we recommend are girls. No one should be denied freedom of speech or access to: to information. No child should go hungry or be unable to read, write or do simple sums. All should be vaccinated • Develop targets that are universal; against major diseases. Everyone should have access to modern infrastructure – drinking water, sanitation, • Quantify targets, wherever feasible; roads, transport and information and communications technologies (ICT). All countries should have access to • Pay more attention to raising stable, long-term finance cost-effective clean and sustainable energy. Everyone for development; should have a legal identity. • Signal priorities in areas that go beyond aid, so these can be monitored; It is tempting to apply universal targets at a high level everywhere, but for some countries that risks becoming • Infuse global partnerships and cooperation into all the utopian. The Panel would like every child not to suffer from goals. stunting or anaemia, but that can probably not be achieved in all countries by 2030. We would like everyone to be The Panel believes that the international community must covered by social protection systems, but not if that means come together and agree on ways to create a more open, reducing the quality of such systems to a meaningless more fair global trading system. An intergovernmental level. We would like everyone to have a decent job, but that committee of experts, mandated by Rio+20, will propose too is probably unachievable in a mere 15 years, even in options for an effective sustainable development financing the most developed countries. strategy. Reforms in the international financial architecture are needed to ensure stability of the global financial We found it useful to balance ambition and realism using system and allow it to contribute to real economic growth. some guidelines. In most cases, national targets should The international agreement to hold the increase in global be set to be as ambitious as practical, and in some cases average temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius above pre- global minimum standards that apply to every individual industrial levels must be kept. This would help countries or country should be set. We would suggest that in all adapt to and mitigate the dangerous effects of climate cases where a target applies to outcomes for individuals, it change. The world has the opportunity to work together should only be deemed to be met if every group – defined in new ways to reduce illicit flows, increase the recovery of by income quintile, gender, location or otherwise – has met stolen assets, promote access to technology and science the target. In this way, countries would only be able to meet and develop a global partnership on development data. their commitments if they focus on the most vulnerable. Where data for indicators are not yet available, investments Illustrative Goals in data gathering will be needed. When indicators are not already agreed or are unclear (for example in defining The Panel has concluded that its agreed vision and quality), we suggest inviting technical experts to discuss recommended priorities for the shape of the post- and refine their models and methods. 2015 development agenda cannot be communicated effectively without offering an example of how goals Learning the Lessons of MDG 8 (Global might be framed. For this reason, a set of illustrative goals is Partnership for Development) set out in Annex I, with supporting detail in Annex II. These illustrative goals show how priorities can be translated The Panel saw some progress in the areas which are into compelling and measurable targets. To be completely covered in MDG8, but was disappointed with the pace of clear, the Annex material is not offered as a prescriptive progress in several areas. Many countries lowered tariffs, blueprint, but as examples that can be used to promote but the Doha Development Round was not concluded. continued deliberation and debate. But we hope that they Official agencies wrote down tens of billions of dollars of inspire, and that UN member states, and the many outside debts, but still left many countries financially exposed. constituencies from whom we have already heard, will find There has been substantial progress in improving the them a useful contribution to their deliberations on the affordability of medicines, but many people still lack access post-2015 agenda. 16 | Chapter 3: Illustrative Goals and Global Impact
A key issue is the balance among any proposed goals, and livelihoods and equitable growth; (ix) manage natural the connections between them. A true transformation to resource assets sustainably; (x) ensure good governance sustainable development will only happen when countries and effective institutions; (xi) ensure stable and peaceful move forward on several fronts at the same time. For societies; and (xii) create a global enabling environment example, to reduce child deaths we may typically look and catalyse long-term finance. to the medical community and health solutions such as vaccinations or insecticide-treated bed-nets. These are We believe that if these goals and their accompanying indeed crucial. But empowering women and educating targets were pursued, they would drive the five key girls is also very important in saving children’s lives; so for transformations – leave no one behind, transform the best results, work on all these fronts must be combined. economies, implement sustainable development, build Equally, doubling the share of renewable energy in the effective institutions and forge a new global partnership. global energy mix will reduce carbon intensity, but so will increasing consideration of sustainability in public Addressing Cross-cutting Issues procurement, led by developed countries. Several issues are not directly addressed through a single To take another example, smallholder farmers’ incomes goal, but are treated in many of them. These include might be rapidly raised by giving them land security peace, inequality, climate change, cities, concerns of young and access to credit, but even more so if they are able to people, girls, and women, and sustainable consumption transport their produce to market and have mobile phones and production patterns. and electronic banking, so that they know how prices are moving and can get paid straight away. And if global food Peace. The Panel strongly believes that conflict – a markets work better – are more transparent and stable – condition that has been called development in reverse – smallholder farmers will have better information on what must be tackled head-on, even within a universal agenda. to plant to get the most value from their farms. Similarly, We included in our illustrative list a goal on ensuring stable education can help reach many goals, by raising awareness and peaceful societies, with targets that cover violent and thus leading to mass movements for recycling and deaths, access to justice, stemming the external causes renewable energy, or to a demand for better governance of conflict, such as organised crime, and enhancing the and an end to corruption. The goals chosen should be ones legitimacy and accountability of security forces, police and that amplify each other’s impact and generate sustainable the judiciary. But these targets alone would not guarantee growth and poverty reduction together. peace or development in countries emerging from conflict. Other issues, like jobs, participation in political The Panel wanted to test if there were indeed a few goals processes and local civic engagement, and the transparent and targets that would satisfy the criteria laid out above management of public resources are also important. and achieve its vision to end extreme poverty in all its These countries should also benefit from a strengthened forms in the context of sustainable development – and financing framework that allows resources to be allocated we considered many options. This led us to settle on a set to those countries most in need. of goals and targets that we think would fulfil the vision we expressed. Without being prescriptive, we believe it Inequality. Likewise, our illustrative framework tackles is important to show, through specific examples, that it is inequality of opportunity head on, across all goals. When possible to express our ambition in a simple and concrete everyone, irrespective of household income, gender, way, despite the complexities of sustainable development location, ethnicity, age, or disability, has access to health, and countries’ vastly different circumstances and priorities. nutrition, education, and other vital services, many of the worst effects of inequality will be over. Other aspects The evidence leaves much room for judgment on what of inequality more relevant to social inclusion, such as goals would be most transformative, and relevant to the security of tenure and access to justice, are also addressed most countries. But based on the criteria above, we have as explicit targets. We recognised that every country is narrowed down the illustrative list to 12 goals and 54 wrestling with how to address income inequality, but targets, the achievement of which would dramatically felt that national policy in each country, not global goal- improve the condition of people and the planet by 2030. setting, must provide the answer. History also shows that countries tend to have cycles in their income inequality We have deliberately not divided the goals into categories as conventionally measured; and countries differ widely corresponding to the specific transformative shifts both in their view of what levels of income inequality are described earlier. Our strong belief is that all the goals must acceptable and in the strategies they adopt to reduce interact to provide results. In our illustration, we decided to it. However, the Panel believes that truly inclusive, suggest the following goals: (i) end poverty; (ii) empower broad-based growth, which benefits the very poorest, is girls and women and achieve gender equality; (iii) provide essential to end extreme poverty. We propose targets that quality education and lifelong learning; (iv) ensure healthy deliberately build in efforts to tackle inequality and which lives; (v) ensure food security and good nutrition; (vi) can only be met with a specific focus on the most excluded achieve universal access to water and sanitation; (vii) and vulnerable groups. For example, we believe that many secure sustainable energy; (viii) create jobs, sustainable targets should be monitored using data broken down by Post-2015 | 17
income quintiles and other groups. Targets will only be in decision-making, and be treated as the vital asset for considered achieved if they are met for all relevant income society that they are. and social groups. Girls and Women. The majority of those living in extreme Climate change. In our illustrative targets, we address the poverty are female. A people-centred agenda must work to most important contributors to a low-carbon trajectory: ensure the equal rights of women and girls, and empower more sustainable transport infrastructure; improved them to participate and take on leadership roles in public energy efficiency and use of renewable energy; the life. Women across the world have to work hard to overcome spread of more sustainable agricultural practices; tackling significant barriers to opportunity. These barriers can only deforestation and increasing reforestation in the context be removed when there is zero tolerance of violence of improving peoples’ livelihoods, and food security, against and exploitation of women and girls, and when taking into account the value of natural resources, and they have full and equal rights in political, economic and bio-diversity. We also encourage incorporation of social public spheres. Women and girls must have equal access and environmental metrics into accounting practices. to financial services, infrastructure, the full range of health These should be part of any sustainable development services including SRHR, water and sanitation, the equal agenda, even if there were no concern over rising global right to own land and other assets, a safe environment in temperatures, and are deservedly part of a universal which to learn and apply their knowledge and skills, and framework. We also strongly endorse the call to hold the an end to discrimination so they can receive equal pay for increase in global average temperature to 2⁰ C above pre- equal work, and have an equal voice in decision-making. industrial levels, in line with international agreements. Gender equality is integrated across all of the goals, both But we also recognise that already there is a need to build in specific targets and by making sure that targets are climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction into measured separately for women and men, or girls and regional and national strategies, and encourage countries boys, where appropriate. But gender equality is also an to focus on these plans. important issue in its own right, and a stand-alone goal can catalyse progress. Cities. The Panel recognised that city governments have great responsibilities for urban management. They have Sustainable consumption and production patterns. specific problems of poverty, slum up-grading, solid waste Our main focus has been on food, water and energy management, service delivery, resource use, and planning systems—the basics of life. But we also strongly believe that will become even more important in the decades that a wider change towards sustainable consumption and ahead. The post-2015 agenda must be relevant for urban production patterns is vital. The most important changes dwellers. Cities are where the battle for sustainable will be driven by technology, by innovations in product development will be won or lost. Yet the Panel also believes design, by detailed policy guidelines, by education and that it is critical to pay attention to rural areas, where three changed behavior, and by social innovations embedded billion near-poor will still be living in 2030. The most in communities. But change is already happening fast, and pressing issue is not urban versus rural, but how to foster today’s aspiration may be tomorrow’s discarded idea. For a local, geographic approach to the post-2015 agenda. this reason, we have framed illustrative targets that set a The Panel believes this can be done by disaggregating high ambition but allow for details to evolve over time. data by place, and giving local authorities a bigger role in setting priorities, executing plans, monitoring results and Much of the new technology and most of the new engaging with local firms and communities. products will come from business. We embrace the positive contribution to sustainable development that Young people. Today’s adolescents and youth are 1.8 billion business must make. But this contribution must include a strong and one quarter of the world’s population. They are willingness, on the part of all large corporations as well as shaping social and economic development, challenging governments, to report on their social and environmental social norms and values, and building the foundation of the impact, in addition to releasing financial accounts. Already world’s future. They have high expectations for themselves about one quarter of all large corporations do so. We and their societies, and are imagining how the world suggest that a mandatory ‘comply or explain’ regime be can be better. Connected to each other as never before phased in for all companies with a market capitalisation through new media, they are driving social progress and above $100 million equivalent.28 directly influencing the sustainability and the resilience of their communities and of their countries. These young The same principle should apply to governments. National people face many obstacles, ranging from discrimination, accounting for social and environmental effects should marginalisation, and poverty, to violence. They find it hard be mainstreamed by 2030. Governments, especially in to find a first job, so we believe a jobs target with a specific developed countries, should explore policy options for indicator for youth employment, should be included in the green growth as one of the important tools available to next goal framework.27 Young people must be subjects, promote sustainable development. Besides protecting not objects, of the post-2015 development agenda. They natural resources, these measures will support a movement need access to the right kind of health (including access towards sustainable consumption and production. And, if to SRHR) and education to improve their job prospects sustainable consumption is to be a part of everyday life, and life skills, but they must also be active participants as it must, tomorrow’s consumers will need to be socially 18 | Chapter 3: Illustrative Goals and Global Impact
aware and environmentally conscious. Awareness-raising new revenues will often be only temporary, and must be in schools, and public information campaigns more managed wisely. broadly, could play a big part in changing mind-sets by showing the advantages of moving towards sustainable Demographic change: Global population growth is consumption and production. expected to slow to just one per cent per year between now and 2030, when the global population will likely reach The Global Impact by 2030 8 billion, on its way to more than 9 billion by 2050.29 There will be more people and older people. The impact of both What would happen if developed and developing trends must be taken into account. The world’s labour countries, and other partners too, committed themselves force will grow by about 470 million. For many developing to implementing the goals and targets we describe? countries, this surge is a demographic dividend in waiting, if We can imagine a world in 2030 that is more equal, the extra people are given the right opportunities, services more prosperous, more peaceful and more just than and skills. Creating so many jobs sounds daunting, but it is that of today. A world where extreme poverty has been less than what nations achieved between 1995 and 2010, eradicated and where the building blocks for sustained when the global labour force grew by almost 700 million. prosperity are in place. A world where no one has been left behind, where economies are transformed, and where International Migration: The universal human rights and transparent and representative governments are in charge. fundamental freedoms of migrants must be respected. A world of peace where sustainable development is the These migrants make a positive economic contribution overarching goal. A world with a new spirit of cooperation to their host countries, by building up their labour force. and partnership. Sending countries benefit from getting foreign exchange in the form of remittances and from greater trade and This is not wishful thinking. The resources, know-how and financial flows with countries where they have a large technology that are needed already exist, and are growing diaspora. By 2030, as global population rises, there could every year. Using these, much has already been achieved. be 30 million more international migrants, remitting an Twenty-five years ago, few would have imagined that by additional $60 billion to their home countries through low- 2015, one billion people would have lifted themselves cost channels. out of extreme poverty. If a messenger from the future had told us that polio would be gone from all but three Urbanisation: The world is now more urban than rural, countries; that four out of five of the world’s children would thanks to internal migration. By 2030 there will be over be vaccinated, or that 590 million children would attend one billion more urban residents and, for the first time ever, school, we would not have believed it. Yet it has happened. the number of rural residents will be starting to shrink. This matters because inclusive growth emanates from vibrant In shaping the scenario for what the world can achieve and sustainable cities, the only locale where it is possible by 2030, the Panel considered several factors and made to generate the number of good jobs that young people several assumptions. are seeking. Good local governance, management and planning are the keys to making sure that migration to Growth: Global output is set to double by 2030. On current cities does not replace one form of poverty by another, trajectories, although the per capita income gap between where even if incomes are slightly above $1.25 a day, the developed and developing countries will remain large, it cost of meeting basic needs is higher. will have narrowed. By 2030, most developing countries should have experienced fast enough economic growth, Technology: Many efficient and affordable products are averaging 5 per cent per year, to bring extreme poverty already being engineered and adapted to meet the needs down below five per cent. Specific policy measures must of sustainable development.30 Examples include energy- do the rest of the job to ensure that no one is left behind. efficient buildings and turning waste into energy—proving We cannot take growth for granted, however, and must that it is possible to generate revenues while reducing redouble our efforts to ensure that it can continue at pollution. Among other proven new technologies are these levels, and be made more inclusive and sustainable, smart grids, low-carbon cities, mass transit, efficient through structural transformations in every economy. transport and zoning policies, integrated storm-water We believe that with the right policy measures, strong management, mini-grids for rural electrification, and solar political leadership and strengthened institutions, growth cookers and lanterns. New vaccines, mobile banking and can accelerate further – even, and perhaps especially, in improved safety-nets are also potential game-changers. low-income countries where the potential for catch-up is Other technologies need to be developed: for that, we see greatest. huge potential from international research collaborations and voluntary open innovation platforms. Finance: As more countries graduate into middle-income status and are able to access private capital markets, official By 2030, if the transformative shifts we have described are development assistance (ODA) can be concentrated on the made, the barriers that hold people back would be broken remaining low-income countries and grow proportionately down, poverty and the inequality of opportunity that to match their needs. With large mineral projects about to blights the lives of so many on our planet would end. This come on stream in many low-income countries, there is is the world that today’s young people can create. great potential for raising domestic revenues. But these Post-2015 | 19
Examples of Potential Impact31
By 2030 the world would have:
1.2 billion fewer people hungry and in extreme poverty32 100 million more children who would otherwise have died before they were five33 4.4 million more women who would otherwise have died during pregnancy or childbirth34 1.3 billion tons of food per year saved from going to waste35 470 million more workers with good jobs and livelihoods36 200 million more young people employed with the skills they need to get good work37 1.2 billion more people connected to electricity38 190 to 240 million hectares more of forest cover39 $30 trillion spent by governments worldwide transparently accounted for40 People everywhere participating in decision-making and holding officials accountable Average global temperatures on a path to stabilise at less than 2° C above pre-industrial levels 220 million fewer people who suffer crippling effects of natural disasters41
25. Local and regional authorities are already working with a horizon of 2030 (Manifesto for the City of 2030) balancing a long-term vision with the fast changing nature of the world today. 26. Similar national target setting was used after the Jomtien Summit on Education (1990) and the World Summit on Children in New York (1990). 27. Young people are defined here as those aged 15 to 24. 28. This recommendation was previously made by the United Nations Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability (2012). Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing, New York. 29. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011). World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, Highlights and Advance Tables. ESA/P/WP.220. 30. World Bank (2012) World Bank Inclusive Green Growth: The Pathway to Sustainable Development. World Bank: Washington DC. 31. All figures assume a baseline of 2015, unless otherwise noted (figures are approximate). 32 World Bank, PovcalNet (as of 2010): http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1. 33. WHO Factsheet 2012: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs290/en/. 34. WHO Factsheet 2012: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs348/en/. 35. FAO, Global Food Losses and Food Waste (2011). 36. International Labour Organisation, Global Employment Trends 2013. 37. International Labour Organisation, World Employment Report, 2012. 38. World Bank, Energy – The Facts, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTENERGY2/0,,contentMDK:22855502~pa gePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:4114200,00.html. 39. Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, 2010, http://www.fao.org/news/story/pt/item/40893/icode/. 40. General government total expenditure in Purchasing Power Parity, based on IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, April, 2013. 41. UN Development Programme, http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/fast-facts/english/FF_ DRR_05102012(fv).pdf. 20 Post-2015 | 21
Chapter 4: Implementation, Accountability and Building Consensus
Implementing the Post-2015 Agenda
The illustrative goals and targets we have set out are bold, yet practical. Like the MDGs, they would not be legally binding, but must be monitored closely. The indicators that track them should be broken down in many different ways to ensure no one is left behind. We recommend that any new goals should be accompanied by an independent and rigorous monitoring system, with regular opportunities to discuss results at a high political level. We also call for a data revolution for sustainable development, with a new international initiative to improve the quality of statistics and information available to people and governments. We should actively take advantage of new technology, crowd sourcing, and improved connectivity to empower people with information on the progress towards the targets. We see an opportunity in the post-2015 agenda to include new players in partnerships at all levels, to introduce new ways of working across an agenda that goes beyond aid, and to introduce a new spirit of multilateralism and international cooperation. Implementing an agenda of this breadth and scope, holding people accountable for progress and keeping the agenda high on the political radar of world leaders cannot be taken for granted. But this time, unlike with the MDGs, we do not have to start from scratch. There are established processes to move from an agreement in New York to a programme in a remote village, agencies that are collaborating with statistical offices around the world, a willingness of global leaders to pay more attention to sustainable development, and local initiatives that can be scaled up.
Unifying Global Goals with National Plans for Development
The post-2015 agenda must enable every nation to realise its own hopes and plans. We learned from the MDGs that global targets are only effectively executed when they are locally-owned – embedded in national plans as national targets – and this is an important lesson for the new agenda. Through their national planning processes each government could choose an appropriate level of ambition for each target, taking account of its starting point, its capacity and the resources it can expect to command. They could receive input on what is realistic and achievable in each target area from citizens, officials, businesses and civil society in villages, towns, cities, provinces and communities. This is an opportunity for governments to ensure access of citizens to public information that can be used as the basis of national strategies and plans.
In many circumstances international partners and agencies will be invited to assist in helping countries implement their plans and achieve their targets—on average 30 official development partners, many with more than one development agency, are operating in each developing country. These agencies have a responsibility to harmonise their efforts with national plans, operate through the government budget where practicable, and collaborate with each other to ensure the maximum impact for the least effort.
Global Monitoring and Peer Review
The post-2015 development agenda must signal a new era for multilateralism and international cooperation. The United Nations can lead in setting the agenda because of its unique and universal legitimacy and its ability to coordinate and monitor globally. But the UN system has yet to fully realise the vision of “working as one’”. It is beyond the scope of this report to propose options for reform at the UN, but the Panel calls for every step to be taken to improve coordination and deliver on a single, integrated sustainable development agenda, including building on positive recent steps to improve collaboration between the UN’s agencies, funds and programmes, and with the international financial institutions. 22 | Chapter 4: Implementation, Accountability and Building Consensus
The Panel has three suggestions that could assist with regional commissions, with regional development banks, a coordinated and cooperative international approach member governments and regional organisations, could to monitoring and peer review. The monitoring must be form part of an improved coordinating mechanism in each seen by everyone as a way of motivating progress and region of the world, which would discuss and report on enhancing cooperation, not as a tool for conditionality. the sustainable development agenda in advance of each global forum.43 First, the Panel suggests that the UN identifies a single locus of accountability for the post-2015 agenda that would Stakeholders Partnering by Theme be responsible for consolidating its multiple reports on development into one review of how well the post-2015 We live in an age when global problems can best be solved agenda is being implemented. Starting in 2015, the UN by thousands, even millions, of people working together. could produce a single Global Sustainable Development These partnerships can guide the way to meeting targets Outlook, jointly written every one or two years by a and ensuring that programmes are effective on the ground. consortium of UN agencies and other international organisations.42 This would monitor trends and results, Such groups are sometimes called ‘multi-stakeholder as well as risks that threaten to derail achievement of the partnerships’. They bring together governments (local, targets. It would also recommend ways of implementing city, national), experts, CSOs, businesses, philanthropists, programmes more effectively. universities and others, to work on a single theme. These partnerships are powerful because each partner comes Second, the Panel suggests that the UN should periodically to the table with direct knowledge and strong evidence, convene a global forum at a high political level to review based on thorough research. This enables them to progress and challenges ahead. An independent advisory innovate, to advocate convincingly for good policies, committee should give advice and recommendations as and thus to secure funding. They have the skills to apply background for this forum. Such a body should be invited knowledge of what has worked before to new operations, to comment in a blunt and unvarnished way, and include and to scale up promising ideas to reach large populations business, civil society and other voices. in many countries – ‘implementation and scaling up.’ There are already a number of such global multi-stakeholder Third, reporting and peer-review at the regional level partnerships delivering promising results, at scale: in could complement global monitoring. It is often easier health, nutrition, education, agriculture, water, energy, to review policies in-depth with friendly and constructive information and communications technology, financial neighbours than with the whole world. The UN’s five services, cities and open government.
An Example of a Multistakeholder Partnership in Practice: Delivering Quality Education
The Global Partnership for Education is getting quality education to marginalised children, coordinating education’s many players, offering aid without wasteful replication, and following local leadership.
It directs funds to a single local group in a country. 70 low-income countries are eligible. A typical group includes educators, development agencies, corporations (domestic and global), regional development banks, state education ministries, civil society and philanthropic organisations, sometimes UNESCO and UNICEF representatives, and other experts—with the ministry of education leading.
GPE’s funds come with technical support to strengthen the national (or provincial) education plan. GPE helps create capacity to monitor progress. Its work is whatever the country deems necessary: building latrines or early-childhood centres; training teachers or writing curricula in mother tongues; distributing textbooks, adding vocational programmes or digital learning systems with corporate partners (Microsoft, Nokia and publisher Pearson now offer digital, mobile educational tools around Africa).
GPE’s board of directors is global, with a tilt toward developing-country representation. Funding is long-term, phasing out when national income rises. Its budget today exceeds $2 billion.
GPE is single-sector (education) but shows how collaboration can bring better results. Similar models might prove useful in other areas. Post-2015 | 23
A decade or more ago, when the first global partnerships line with that spirit, all parties should respect these lines started in earnest, they mostly shared the costs, benefits of accountability and trust their partners to fulfil their and risks of financing large projects. Today they do much commitments. more. They can bring know-how and training, and in other ways tackle obstacles that no single government But accountability only works when people have the right ministry, private business or CSO could surmount alone. information, easily available and easy to use. New types They are especially good at scaling up, because they of transparent accounting make this possible. We need are global and experienced. Bringing evidence from data to be available, and we need the accountability that business, civil society and experts worldwide to bear on follows. Without them, the global partnership will not a single topic, they can be persuasive about fixing weak work. policies and institutions. And when they see that their task cannot be accomplished by business-as-usual, they The MDGs brought together an inspirational vision innovate to develop new solutions, always in line with with a set of concrete and time-bound goals and national policies and priorities. targets that could be monitored by robust statistical indicators. This was a great strength of the MDGs and, One of their most exciting features is that they can bring as time progressed, data coverage and availability have about a change in mind-sets, altering the thinking of increased. However, much more needs to be done. Even millions of people worldwide. It may be a simple issue: now, over 40 developing countries lack sufficient data the campaign to encourage hand-washing or to use to track performance against MDG1 (eradicate extreme insecticide-treated bed nets against malaria. It may poverty and hunger), and time lags for reporting MDG be complex, like a campaign to recognise and address outcomes remain unsatisfactorily high. human contributions to climate change, or the need to change to sustainable consumption patterns. But always Wanted: a New Data Revolution it involves reaching people in every country and in every walk of life. The revolution in information technology over the last decade provides an opportunity to strengthen data The Panel suggests that the concept of goal- or sector- and statistics for accountability and decision-making specific global partnerships should be a central part purposes. There have been innovative initiatives to of the new development agenda. These should aspire use mobile technology and other advances to enable to a high standard of transparency, evaluation and real-time monitoring of development results. But this monitoring, and involving business, civil society, movement remains largely disconnected from the philanthropic organisations, international organisations traditional statistics community at both global and and governments. national levels. The post-2015 process needs to bring them together and start now to improve development Holding Partners to Account data.
Accountability must be exercised at the right level: Data must also enable us to reach the neediest, and find governments to their own citizens, local governments out whether they are receiving essential services. This to their communities, corporations to their shareholders, means that data gathered will need to be disaggregated civil society to the constituencies they represent. by gender, geography, income, disability, and other Accountability is central to the global partnership and, in categories, to make sure that no group is being left behind.
A New Data Revolution
“Too often, development efforts have been hampered by a lack of the most basic data about the social and economic circumstances in which people live... Stronger monitoring and evaluation at all levels, and in all processes of development (from planning to implementation) will help guide decision making, update priorities and ensure accountability. This will require substantial investments in building capacity in advance of 2015. A regularly updated registry of commitments is one idea to ensure accountability and monitor delivery gaps. We must also take advantage of new technologies and access to open data for all people.”
Bali Communiqué of the High-Level Panel, March 28, 2013 24 | Chapter 4: Implementation, Accountability and Building Consensus
Better data and statistics will help governments track and bring to life the spirit of global partnership in their progress and make sure their decisions are evidence- respective forums. based; they can also strengthen accountability. This is not just about governments. International agencies, • The g7+, for instance, has drawn attention to the special CSOs and the private sector should be involved. A true challenges faced by fragile states in defining country- data revolution would draw on existing and new sources owned and country-led plans to move from conflict to of data to fully integrate statistics into decision making, peaceful and sustainably developing societies. promote open access to, and use of, data and ensure increased support for statistical systems. • The G-20 has worked to address global bottlenecks in food and energy security, financial stability and To support this, the Panel recommends establishing inclusion, and infrastructure. a Global Partnership on Development Data that brings together diverse but interested stakeholders • The BRICS are working to develop a large new bank for – government statistical offices, international financing sustainable infrastructure projects. organisations, CSOs, foundations and the private sector. This partnership would, as a first step, develop a global • The Global Partnership for Effective Development strategy to fill critical gaps, expand data accessibility, Cooperation established in Busan in 2011, is working to and galvanise international efforts to ensure a baseline help countries and thematic groups establish effective for post-2015 targets is in place by January 2016. partnerships involving many different stakeholders.
A further aspect of accountability and information is • Regional platforms in Asia, Latin America, Africa, the how governments and businesses account for their Middle East and Europe are stepping in to cooperate impact on sustainable development. Only a few successfully in areas of specific concern to the region progressive, large businesses try to account for their and to form unified approaches towards trade, climate social and environmental footprint. The Panel proposes adaptation and mitigation, finance, infrastructure and that, in future – at latest by 2030 – all large businesses other cross-border issues. should be reporting on their environmental and social impact – or explain why if they are not doing so. In each of these cases an existing international forum Similarly, governments should adopt the UN’s System is already actively promoting an aspect of sustainable of Environmental-Economic Accounting, along with development. They, and others, can make an important the Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem contribution to the post-2015 development agenda. Services (WAVES) introduced by the World Bank, with help provided to those who need help to do this. Building Political Consensus These metrics can then be used to monitor national development strategies and results in a universally International agreement on a single, universal agenda consistent way. to succeed the MDGs is vital, but not assured. One challenge is to agree on clear, compelling, and ambitious This will help sustainable development evolve, because goals, through a transparent and inclusive process in new and better accounting will give governments, and the UN. And to do so within a timescale that enables a firms clear information on their bottom line, keeping smooth transition from the MDGs to a new development them accountable for their actions, and will give agenda from January 2016. consumers the chance to make informed choices. Success will drive forward efforts to help hundreds of Working in Cooperation with Others millions of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable Countries already come together informally in many people as well as efforts to achieve sustainable settings to discuss what they can do to achieve more, development. Furthermore, the Panel believes that and more sustainable, development. These global international trust and belief in the credibility of the cooperation forums, such as the g7+, G-20, the BRICS UN would be at stake if the MDG targets were to expire (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), the Global without agreement on what will succeed them. Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, and regional forums, are playing important roles. None Already several important milestones are in view on the tackle the whole agenda, but each one tackles important path to 2015. A special event convened by the President parts. These groups may be informal, but they can be of the General Assembly on the MDGs is planned for 25 of enormous help in providing political leadership and September 2013. This presents an opportunity for the UN practical suggestions to sustain the post-2015 agenda to set a clear path towards final agreement on the post- 2015 development agenda and we encourage member Post-2015 | 25
states to seize that opportunity. During 2014, an Open of the world would also support a strong and credible Working Group, established at Rio+20, will report to the process. UN General Assembly with recommendations on a set of sustainable development goals. A transparent and inclusive process will help build the conditions for political agreement, but it alone is Another UN working group is expected to begin work insufficient. The courage and personal commitment soon on financing for sustainable development. And the of political leaders will be needed to reconcile myriad UN Secretary-General will again report to the General national views, and to embrace useful insights from Assembly on the MDGs and the post-2015 development others. We must develop trust through dialogue, agenda during 2014. The Panel believes that these and learn lessons on reaching consensus from other discussions and processes could culminate in a summit multilateral processes. There will be difficult decisions meeting in 2015 for member states to agree the new to be made and not everyone will get everything they goals and to mobilise global action so that the new want. But global agreement is essential and we believe agenda can become a reality from January 2016. strongly that the global community and member states of the United Nations can and will rise to the occasion. The Panel calls for the continued constructive engagement of UN Member States and their affiliated At the Millennium Summit in 2000, the world’s leaders groupings, such as the G77 and other country groupings, renewed their commitment to the ideals of the United to reach such an agreement within a timescale that Nations, paving the way for the MDGs. The significance enables a smooth transition from the MDGs to a new and value of such global goals has steadily grown since development agenda. Only UN member states can the Millennium Declaration was universally agreed. define the post-2015 agenda. However, we believe Today’s leaders – whether from government, business that the participation of civil society representatives in or civil society – must be as ambitious and practical the UN processes will bring important perspectives to about a new development agenda. They must embrace the discussions and help raise public awareness and a dynamic, innovative approach to partnership, if we are interest. And we suggest that private sector experience to fulfil the hopes and expectations of humanity. and the insights of academic experts from every region
42. This reiterates the recommendation made by the High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability (2012). 43. The joint Asian Development Bank, UNESCAP and UNDP, for example, recently reported jointly on the achievements of the MDGs and the post-2015 development agenda in South-East Asia. 26 Post-2015 | 27
Chapter 5: Concluding Remarks
We envision a world in 2030 where extreme poverty and hunger have been ended. We envision a world where no person has been left behind, and where there are schools, clinics, and clean water for all. It is a world where there are jobs for young people, where businesses thrive, and where we have brought patterns of consumption and production into balance. Where everyone has equal opportunity and a say over the government decisions that affect their lives. We envision a world where the principles of equity, sustainability, solidarity, respect for human rights and shared responsibilities in accordance with respective capabilities, has been brought to life by our common action.
We envision a world in 2030 where a renewed global partnership, building on the solid foundations of the Millennium Declaration and the Rio principles and outcomes, has transformed the world through a universal, people-centred and planet-sensitive development agenda achieved with the shared commitment and accountability of all.
We have a historic opportunity to do what no other generation has ever done before: to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030 and end poverty in many of its other forms. But we will not be able to do this if we neglect other imperatives of the sustainable development agenda today – the desire to build prosperity in all countries, the need to slow or reverse environmental degradation and man-made contributions to global warming, the urgent need to end conflict and violence while building effective and accountable institutions for all. Tackling these social, economic and environmental issues at the same time, while bringing to bear the energy and resources of everyone concerned with development – governments at all levels, international organisations, civil society, businesses, foundations, academics and people in all walks of life – is our singular challenge.
We recognise that the world has changed significantly since the Millennium Declaration in 2000, and are aware how much it will change by 2030. There will be more people in the middle class, and more retired people. People will be more connected to each other, using modern communication technologies, but perhaps more uncertain about what the future may bring. We are convinced that the next 15 years can be some of the most transformative in human history and that the world possesses the tools and resources it needs to achieve a bold and ambitious vision.
We envision a new global partnership as the basic framework for a single, universal post-2015 agenda that will deliver this vision for the sake of humanity. We have a choice to make: to muddle through as we have done, making progress on some fronts but suffering setbacks elsewhere. Or we can be bold and set our eyes on a higher target, where the end of many aspects of poverty is in sight in all countries and where we have transformed our economies and societies to blend social progress, equitable growth and environmental management.
The illustrative goals and targets annexed to this report are offered as a basis for further discussion. We do not know all the answers to how to reach these objectives, but it is our fervent hope that by coming together we can inspire a new generation to act in a common interest. 28 Post-2015 | 29
Annex I: Illustrative Goals and Targets
The world faces a historic opportunity. Not only to end poverty – but also to tackle the challenges to people and planet so that we can end extreme poverty in all its forms irreversibly in the context of sustainable development.
The destination is clear: a world in 2030 that is more equal, more prosperous, more peaceful, and more just. A world where development is sustainable. Making this vision a reality must be a universal endeavor. There is much work to be done, but ending extreme poverty – and creating lasting prosperity – is within our reach. We do not need to wait for others to act to start moving. We can, each one of us, begin taking steps towards a more prosperous and sustainable 2030. Here’s how:
Commit. Commit to changing the way we think and the way we act. In the new global partnership, each of us has a role and a responsibility.
Prioritise. We believe five transformative shifts can create the conditions – and build the momentum – to meet our ambitions.
• Leave No One Behind. We must ensure that no person – regardless of ethnicity, gender, geography, disability, race or other status – is denied basic economic opportunities and human rights.
• Put Sustainable Development at the Core. We must make a rapid shift to sustainable patterns of production and consumption, with developed countries in the lead. We must act now to slow the alarming pace of climate change and environmental degradation, which pose unprecedented threats to humanity.
• Transform Economies for Jobs and Inclusive Growth. A profound economic transformation can end extreme poverty and promote sustainable development, improving livelihoods, by harnessing innovation, technology, and the potential of business. More diversified economies, with equal opportunities for all, can drive social inclusion, especially for young people, and foster respect for the environment.
• Build Peace and Effective, Open and Accountable Institutions for All. Freedom from violence, conflict, and oppression is essential to human existence, and the foundation for building peaceful and prosperous societies. We are calling for a fundamental shift – to recognise peace and good governance as a core element of wellbeing, not an optional extra.
• Forge a New Global Partnership. A new spirit of solidarity, cooperation, and mutual accountability must underpin the post-2015 agenda. This new partnership should be built on our shared humanity, and based on mutual respect and mutual benefit.
Make a Roadmap. We believe that a goal framework that drives transformations is valuable in focusing global efforts, mobilising action and resources, and developing a sense of global jeopardy. It can be instrumental in crystallising consensus and defining international norms. It can provide a rallying cry for a global campaign to generate international support, as has been the case with the MDGs. Goals are the crucial first steps to get us, as a global community, moving in the same direction. They must, therefore, be few, focused and with quantitative targets. Here we set out an example of what such a set of goals might look like. Over the next year and a half, we expect goals to be debated, discussed, and improved. But every journey must start somewhere.
The Panel recommends that all these goals should be universal, in that they present a common aspiration for all countries. Almost all targets should be set at the national level or even local level, to account for different starting points and contexts (e.g. 8a increase the number of good and decent jobs and livelihoods by x). A few targets are global, setting a common and measurable standard to be monitored in all countries (e.g. 7a doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix). Some targets will require further technical work to agree robust, measurable indicators (e.g. 11d on external stressors). And some targets could represent a global minimum standard if a common numerical target could be agreed internationally (e.g. 4c if a global standard for maternal mortality was set at 40 per 100,000). To ensure equality of opportunity, relevant indicators should be disaggregated with respect to income (especially for the bottom 20%), gender, location, age, people living with disabilities, and relevant social group. Targets will only be considered ‘achieved’ if they are met for all relevant income and social groups. 30 | Annex I: Illustrative Goals and Targets
Universal Goals, National Targets
1 Candidates for global minimum standards, including ‘zero’ goals. 2 Indicators to be disaggregated. 3 Targets require further technical work to find appropriate indicators.
. End 1a. Bring the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day to zero and reduce by x% the share of 1 1, 2 Poverty people living below their country’s 2015 national poverty line 1b. Increase by x% the share of women and men, communities, and businesses with secure rights to land, property, and other assets 2, 3 1c. Cover x% of people who are poor and vulnerable with social protection systems 2, 3 1d. Build resilience and reduce deaths from natural disasters by x% 2
1, 2, 3 2. Empower 2a. Prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against girls and women Girls and 2b. End child marriage 1, 2 Women and 2c. Ensure equal right of women to own and inherit property, sign a contract, register a business and Achieve open a bank account 1, 2 Gender Equality 2d. Eliminate discrimination against women in political, economic, and public life 1, 2, 3
2 3. Provide 3a. Increase by x% the proportion of children able to access and complete pre-primary education + Quality 3b. Ensure every child, regardless of circumstance, completes primary education able to read, write and Education count well enough to meet minimum learning standards 1, 2 and Lifelong 3c. Ensure every child, regardless of circumstance, has access to lower secondary education and increase Learning the proportion of adolescents who achieve recognised and measurable learning outcomes to x% 1, 2 3d. Increase the number of young and adult women and men with the skills, including technical and vocational, needed for work by x% 2, 3
1, 2 4. Ensure 4a. End preventable infant and under-5 deaths Healthy 4b. Increase by x% the proportion of children, adolescents, at-risk adults and older people that are Lives fully vaccinated 1, 2 4c. Decrease the maternal mortality ratio to no more than x per 100,000 1, 2 4d. Ensure universal sexual and reproductive health and rights 1, 2 4e. Reduce the burden of disease from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, neglected tropical diseases and priority non-communicable diseases 2
5a. End hunger and protect the right of everyone to have access to sufficient, safe, affordable, and . Ensure 5 nutritious food 1, 2 Food Security 5b. Reduce stunting by x%, wasting by y%, and anemia by z% for all children under five1, 2 and Good 5c. Increase agricultural productivity by x%, with a focus on sustainably increasing smallholder yields Nutrition and access to irrigation 3 5d. Adopt sustainable agricultural, ocean and freshwater fishery practices and rebuild designated fish stocks to sustainable levels 1 5e. Reduce postharvest loss and food waste by x% 3
. Achieve 6a. Provide universal access to safe drinking water at home, and in schools, health centres, and 6 1, 2 Universal refugee camps Access to 6b. End open defecation and ensure universal access to sanitation at school and work, and increase Water and access to sanitation at home by x% 1, 2 Sanitation 6c. Bring freshwater withdrawals in line with supply and increase water efficiency in agriculture by x%, industry by y% and urban areas by z% 6d. Recycle or treat all municipal and industrial wastewater prior to discharge 1, 3 Post-2015 | 31
7. Secure 7a. Double the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix Sustainable 7b. Ensure universal access to modern energy services 1, 2 Energy 7c. Double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency in buildings, industry, agriculture and transport 7d. Phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption1,3
2 8. Create Jobs, 8a. Increase the number of good and decent jobs and livelihoods by x Sustainable 8b. Decrease the number of young people not in education, employment or training by x% 2 Livelihoods, 8c. Strengthen productive capacity by providing universal access to financial services and infrastructure and Equitable such as transportation and ICT 1, 2, 3 Growth 8d. Increase new start-ups by x and value added from new products by y through creating an enabling business environment and boosting entrepreneurship 2, 3
1 9. Manage 9a. Publish and use economic, social and environmental accounts in all governments and major companies Natural 9b. Increase consideration of sustainability in x% of government procurements 3 Resource 9c. Safeguard ecosystems, species and genetic diversity Assets Sustainably 9d. Reduce deforestation by x% and increase reforestation by y% 9e. Improve soil quality, reduce soil erosion by x tonnes and combat desertification
1,2 10. Ensure 10a. Provide free and universal legal identity, such as birth registrations Good 10b. Ensure people enjoy freedom of speech, association, peaceful protest and access to independent Governance media and information 1, 3 and Effective 10c. Increase public participation in political processes and civic engagement at all levels 2,3 Institutions 10d. Guarantee the public’s right to information and access to government data 1 10e. Reduce bribery and corruption and ensure officials can be held accountable3
11a. Reduce violent deaths per 100,000 by x and eliminate all forms of violence against children 1, 2, 3 11. Ensure Stable and 11b. Ensure justice institutions are accessible, independent, well-resourced and respect due-process rights 1, 2 , 3 Peaceful 11c. Stem the external stressors that lead to conflict, including those related to organised crime 3 Societies 11d. Enhance the capacity, professionalism and accountability of the security forces, police and judiciary 3
. Create 12a. Support an open, fair and development-friendly trading system, substantially reducing trade-distorting 12 3 a Global measures, including agricultural subsidies, while improving market access of developing country products Enabling 12b. Implement reforms to ensure stability of the global financial system and encourage stable, long-term Environment private foreign investment 3 and Catalyse 12c. Hold the increase in global average temperature below 2⁰ C above pre-industrial levels, in line with Long-Term international agreements Finance 12d. Developed countries that have not done so to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20% of GNP of developed countries to least developed countries; other countries should move toward voluntary targets for complementary financial assistance 12e Reduce illicit flows and tax evasion and increase stolen-asset recovery by $x3 12f. Promote collaboration on and access to science, technology, innovation, and development data 3 32
Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 1 End Poverty
a) Bring the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day to zero and reduce by x% the share of people living below their country’s 2015 national poverty line
b) Increase by x% the share of women and men, communities and businesses with secure rights to land, property, and other assets
c) Cover x% of people who are poor and vulnerable with social protection systems
d) Build resilience and reduce deaths from natural disasters by x%
Every day, poverty condemns 1 out of 7 people on the planet to a struggle to survive. Many of those living in extreme poverty are ignored, excluded from opportunities, sometimes for generations. Today, 1.2 billion people suffer under the hardship of living on less than the equivalent of $1.25 per person per day.1 This means that they can only buy the same amount of goods and services as $1.25 would buy in the United States. For more than a billion people, $1.25 a day is all there is to feed and clothe, to heal and educate, to build a future. We can be the first generation to eradicate this extreme poverty. This is a global minimum standard and must apply to everyone, regardless of gender, location, disability or social group.
Continuing on current growth trends, about 5% of people will be in extreme poverty by 2030, compared with 43.1% in 1990 and a forecast 16.1% in 2015. With slightly faster growth and attention to ensuring that no one is left behind we can eradicate extreme poverty altogether.
Poverty is not, of course, just about income. People who live in poverty in whatever country are always on the edge, chronically vulnerable to falling sick, losing a job, forced eviction, climate change or natural disaster. Their earnings vary by day, by season and by year. When shocks hit, it is catastrophic. Since 2000, deaths related to natural hazards have exceeded 1.1 million and over 2.7 billion people have been affected. Poor people often lack the resources or support to recover.
Global leaders have agreed that “poverty has various manifestations, including lack of income and productive resources sufficient to ensure sustainable livelihoods, hunger and malnutrition, ill-health, limited or lack of access to education and other basic services, increased morbidity and mortality from illness, homelessness and inadequate housing, unsafe environments, and social discrimination and exclusion. It is also characterised by a lack of participation in decision-making and in civil, social, and cultural life.” 2
The post-2015 agenda should tackle all of these aspects of poverty and confront inequality to make sure no one is left behind. People want the chance to lift themselves out of poverty and they aspire for prosperity. We considered suggesting a higher target – perhaps $2 a day – to reflect that escaping extreme poverty is only a start. However, we noted that each country, and places within countries, often have their own threshold for what constitutes poverty. Many such poverty lines are well above $1.25 or $2 a day. It is our hope and
1. Based on World Bank’s PovcalNet data from 2010 (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/ index.htm?1). These figures may change considerably when updated purchasing power parity figures become available later this year. 2. WSSD (1995): http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf166/aconf166-9.htm. Paragraph 193. WSSD (1995): http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf166/aconf166-9.htm. Paragraph 19. Post-2015 | 33
expectation that countries will continuously raise the bar when they feel secure on their property.3 Tenancy reform on the living standards they deem minimally acceptable in West Bengal led to a 20% increase in rice productivity. for their citizens and adjust their poverty line upwards over Indigenous peoples and local communities often time, and that the global poverty line will follow suit to at have traditional rights over land.4 But when people or least $2 by 2030. That is why we have included a target for communities lack legal property rights they face the risk reducing the share of people below the national poverty that they will be forced to leave their land. Business will also line as well as for extreme poverty. invest less and be less able to contribute to the economy. We know property rights are important, but also realise the People in poverty need the tools to cope with adverse and challenges of measurement. We urge further work on this potentially devastating shocks. They have a strong interest issue. in good management of their environment because on average they get more than half their income from farming Social assistance programmes are another potential marginal lands, fishing coastal waters and scouring forests game-changer that can directly improve equality. They for wild foods, medicinal plants, fodder, building materials have been extraordinarily successful in Mexico, Brazil and and fuel. No one is more vulnerable than people in poverty other countries. We can build on these successes and to desertification, deforestation and overfishing, or less adopt them more widely. We can aim to improve the able to cope with floods, storms, and droughts. Natural effectiveness of these programmes by ensuring greater disasters can pull them into a cycle of debt and illness, coherence, reducing overheads and overall costs. And to further degradation of the land, and a fall deeper into we can use modern technology and increasing evidence poverty. of what works to more precisely target specific needs. But social assistance programmes vary considerably in quality To address these challenges, one target focuses on and perverse incentives can be created if the focus is just resilience. Resilience means individuals being ready on access. We do not yet know how to measure all aspects to withstand, able to adapt–when it comes to health, of quality, but encourage experts to think about the proper economic or climatic shocks—and able to recover quickly. standards. Resilience enables people to move from the fringes of survival to making long-term investments in their own Targets found under other goals address non-income future through education, better health, increased savings dimensions of poverty: basic needs like health, education, and protection for their most valuable physical assets such water, sanitation, electricity and other infrastructure; as home, property and means of livelihood. For society, the basic freedoms like legal registration, freedom from fear by-product is greater economic productivity. and violence, peace, freedom to access information and participate in civic life. People are more likely to make long-term investments Number of Developing Countries with Social Protection Coverage5
60 50 School Feeding Cash Transfer 40 30 20 10 0 Countries
Source: Nora Lustig, Author’s construction based on information from the World Bank and Asian Food Rations Food for Work Development Bank.
3.Tenure security was originally included in the MDGs, but a lack of globally comparable data at the time led to its replacement; since then, UN Habitat and partners have made progress in developing a methodology consistent across countries and regions. See MDG Report (2012), p. 57. Secure tenure is defined by UN Habitat as “evidence of documentation that can be used as proof of sencure tenure status; or when there is either de facto or perceived protection against forced evictions.” 4. Karlan, D. et al. (2012). Agricultural decisions after relaxing credit and risk constraints. Yale University, Processed; Banerjee, A. et al. (2002). Empowerment and efficiency: the economics of tenancy reform. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 110 (2): 239-280. 5. Estimate based on sample size of 144 countries. 34 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Empower Girls and Women and Goal 2 Achieve Gender Equality
a) Prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against girls and women
b) End child marriage
c) Ensure equal right of women to own and inherit property, sign a contract, register a business and open a bank account
d) Eliminate discrimination against women in political, economic, and public life
Far too many women continue to face oppression and deeply embedded discrimination. This affects everything from access to health and education to the right to own land and earn a living, to equal pay and access to financial services, to participation in decision- making at local and national levels, to freedom from violence. Gender equality is integrated across all of our illustrative goals, but the empowerment of women and girls and gender equality is an important issue in its own right. Half of the world’s people are women – and a people-centred agenda must work to realise their equal rights and full participation.
Gender-based violence is both persistent and widespread. This violence takes many different forms: rape, domestic violence, acid attacks, so-called “honor” killings. It cuts across the boundaries of age, race, culture, wealth and geography. It takes place in the home, on the streets, in schools, the workplace, in farm fields, refugee camps, during conflicts and crises. Our first target on preventing and eliminating all forms of violence against girls and women is universal. But measurement is complex. When women feel more empowered and believe justice will be done, reported incidents of violence may rise.
Child marriage is a global issue across, but sensitive to, culture, religions, ethnicity and countries. When children marry young, their education can be cut short, their risk of maternal mortality is higher and they can become trapped in poverty. Over the last decade, 15 million girls aged 10-14 have been married.6
Women should be able to live in safety and enjoy their basic human rights. This is a first and very basic step. But we must go further. Women across the world strive to overcome significant barriers keeping them from realising their potential. We must demolish these barriers. Women with equal rights are an irreplaceable asset for every society and economy.
We know that gender equality transforms not only households but societies. When women can decide how to spend their household’s money, they tend to invest more in their children.7 A woman who receives more years of schooling is more likely to make decisions about immunisation and nutrition that will improve her child’s chances in life; indeed, more schooling for girls girls and women between 1970 and 2009 saved the lives of 4.2 million children.8, 9
No society has become prosperous without a major contribution from its women.10 The World Economic Forum finds that the countries with small gender gaps are the same
6. Who Speaks for Me? Ending Child Marriage (Washington DC); Population Reference Bureau 2011. 7. Source: World Bank, 2012. “World Development Report. Gender Equality and Development.” From: http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2012/0,,c ontentMDK:22999750~menuPK:8154981~pagePK:64167689~piPK:64167673~theSitePK:7778063,00. html. p 5. 8. Decreases in child mortality 1970-2009 meant that 8.2 million more children survived. The survival of more than half of these children (4.2 million) can be attributed to increased years of schooling for girls. 9. Gakidou, E, et al. 2010. “Increased Educational Attainment and its Effect on Child Mortality in 175 Countries between 1970 and 2009: a Systematic Analysis.” The Lancet 376(9745), p. 969. 10. With the potential exception of some natural resource-rich principalities. Post-2015 | 35
countries with the highest ratings for “international they receive less pay than their male counterparts for the competitiveness”—and microeconomic studies suggest same work. that the economic participation of women drives household income growth.11 We must work to fulfill the promise of women’s equal access to, and full participation in, decision-making, and Considerable progress has been made in bringing about end discrimination on every front. This must happen in greater gender equality in access to health and education. governments, companies and in civil society. In countries This momentum must be maintained by making sure that where women’s interests are strongly represented, targets in these areas are broken down by gender. Much laws have been passed to secure land rights, tackle less progress has been made in narrowing social, economic violence against women and improve health care and and political gaps, so our focus is on these two issues. employment.13 Yet women currently occupy less than 20 percent of parliamentary seats worldwide.14 Half of the women in the labour force are in vulnerable employment, with no job security and no protection The message is simple. Women who are safe, healthy, against economic shocks. Women are far more likely than educated, and fully empowered to realise their potential men to be in vulnerable employment in many places, with transform their families, their communities, their economies rates from 32 per cent to 85 per cent in different regions, and their societies. We must create the conditions so they versus 55 per cent to 70 per cent for men.12 All too often, can do so.
Higher Gender Equality Associated with Higher Income 15
Human 0.2 Development Index 0.9
0.8
0.4 0.7 0.6
0.5
0.4
Gender Inequality Index 0.6 0.3
6 8 10 GDP per Capita in constant 2005 Dollars, log scale
11. Hausmann,R, L.Tyson,Y.Bekhouche & S.Zahidi (2012) The Global Gender Gap Report 2012. World Economic Forum: Geneva. 12. ILO, 2012. “Global Employment Trends: Preventing a deeper jobs crisis.” From: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/--- dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_171571.pdf.p 11. 13. UN WOMEN, 2012. “In pursuit of justice” From: http://progress.unwomen.org/pdfs/EN-Report-Progress.pdf. 14. UN WOMEN, 2012. “In pursuit of justice” From: http://progress.unwomen.org/pdfs/EN-Report-Progress.pdf. 15. Based on UNDP Public Data Explorer: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/explorer/. 36 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Provide Quality Education and Lifelong Goal 3 Learning
a) Increase by x% the proportion of children able to access and complete pre- primary education + b) Ensure every child, regardless of circumstance, completes primary education able to read, write and count well enough to meet minimum learning standards
c) Ensure every child, regardless of circumstance, has access to lower secondary education and increase the proportion of adolescents who achieve recognised and measurable learning outcomes to x%
d) Increase the number of young and adult women and men with the skills, including technical and vocational, needed for work by x%
Education is a fundamental right. It is one of the most basic ways people can achieve well- being. It lifts lifetime earnings as well as how much a person can engage with and contribute to society. Quality education positively effects health, and lowers family size and fertility rates. Availability of workers with the right skills is one of the key determinants of success for any business—and of capable and professional public bureaucracies and services. Investing in education brings individuals and societies enormous benefits, socially, environmentally and economically. But to realise these benefits, children and adolescents must have access to education and learn from it.16
Across the world, investment in education clearly benefits individuals and societies. A study of 98 countries found that each additional year of education results in, on average, a 10 per cent increase in lifetime earnings – a huge impact on an individual’s opportunities and livelihood. In countries emerging from conflict, giving children who couldn’t attend school a second chance is one way to rebuild individual capabilities and move into national recovery.17
However, globally, there is an education, learning and skills crisis. Some 60 million primary school-age children and 71 million adolescents do not attend school. Even in countries where overall enrolment is high, significant numbers of students leave school early. On average, 14 per cent of young people in the European Union reach no further than lower secondary education.18 Among the world’s 650 million children of primary school age, 130 million are not learning the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic.19 A recent study of 28 countries found that more than one out of every three students (23 million primary school children) could not read or do basic maths after multiple years of schooling.20
We believe it important to target learning outcomes, to make sure every child performs up to a global minimum standard upon completing primary education. To do this, many countries have found that pre-primary education, getting children ready to learn, is also needed, so we have added a target on that.21
All around the world, we are nearing universal primary school enrollment, although 28 million children in countries emerging from conflict are still not in school. In more than
16. Brookings Institution (2013) Toward Universal Learning: What Every Child Should Learn. 17. Psacharopoulos, G., Patrinos, H. Returns to Investment in Education: A Further Update. Educa- tion Economics 12(2). 2004. 18. EFA Global Monitoring Report (2012). Youth and skills: Putting education to work. (Page 21). 19. EFA Global Monitoring Report (2012). Youth and skills: Putting education to work. (Page 7). 20. Africa Learning Barometer. http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/01/16-africa-learning-watkins. 21. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2010). Head Start Impact Study. Final Report. Washington, DC. esco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/efareport/reports/2012- skills/. Post-2015 | 37
20 countries, at least one in five children has never even with skills for life, work and earning a livelihood. been to school.22 There, the unfinished business of MDG 2, universal primary education, continues to be a priority. Teachers are often early mentors who inspire children to We need to ensure all children, regardless of circumstance, advance. The quality of education in all countries depends are able to enroll and complete a full course of primary on having a sufficient number of motived teachers, well and lower secondary education and, in most cases, meet trained and possessing strong subject-area knowledge. minimum learning standards. Equity must be a core principle of education. Educational disparities persist among and within countries. In many Of course, education is about far more than basic literacy countries where average enrolment rates have risen, the and numeracy. While the targets are about access to school gaps between, for example, rural girls from a minority and learning, education’s aims are wider. As set out in the community and urban boys from the majority group are Convention on the Rights of the Child, education enables vast. Some countries have made significant gains in the children to realise their talents and full potential, earn last decade in reducing disparities based on disability, respect for human rights and prepares them for their role as ethnicity, language, being a religious minority and being adults.23 Education should also encourage creative thinking, displaced. teamwork and problem solving. It can also lead people to learn to appreciate natural resources, become aware of the As children move on to higher levels of education the importance of sustainable consumption and production education gap still remains enormous. Many children who and climate change, and gain an understanding of sexual finish primary school do not go on to secondary school. and reproductive health. Education supplies young people They should, and we have included a target to reflect this.
Education Benefits Individuals and Societies24
Asia Europe/ MENA LAC OECD SSA
20%
10% Return on Investment (%) Return on Investment
0%
Primary Higher Primary Higher Primary Higher Primary Higher Primary Higher Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary
Skills learned in school must also help young people and professionalism in governments and business, to get a job. Some are non-cognitive skills—teamwork, especially in fragile states. leadership, problem solving. Others come from technical and vocational training. Wherever it takes The barriers to education, and the most effective place, these skills are important components of inclusive solutions, will vary by country. But the commitment to and equitable growth. They are needed to build capacity learning must be constant and unwavering
22. EFA Monitoring Report October 2012 Youth & Skills: Putting Education to Workhttp://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/ themes/leading-the-international-agenda/efareport/reports/2012-skills/. 23. UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations. 24. Psacharopoulos, G., Patrinos, H. Returns to Investment in Education: A Further Update. Education Economics 12(2). 2004. 38 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 4 Ensure Healthy Lives
a) End preventable infant and under-5 deaths
b) Increase by x% the proportion of children, adolescents, at-risk adults and older people that are fully vaccinated
c) Decrease the maternal mortality ratio to no more than x per 100,000
d) Ensure universal sexual and reproductive health and rights
e) Reduce the burden of disease from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, neglected tropical diseases and priority non-communicable diseases
Health enables people to reach their potential. Healthy children learn better. They become healthy adults. Healthy adults work longer and more regularly, earning higher and more regular wages. Though we focus on health outcomes in this goal, to achieve these outcomes requires universal access to basic healthcare.
We must start with a basic commitment to ensure equity in all the interconnected areas that contribute to health (social, economic and environmental). But in addition, we must make steady progress in ensuring Universal Health Coverage and access to quality essential health services. That means reaching more people, broadening the range of integrated, essential services available to every person, and ensuring that services are affordable for all. Countries at all income levels have work to do to reach this ideal.
The Panel chose to focus on health outcomes in this goal, recognising that to achieve these outcomes requires universal access to basic healthcare. Health outcomes are often determined by social, economic and environmental factors. Discrimination can create barriers to health services for vulnerable groups and lack of protection leaves many individual and families exposed to sudden illness and the catastrophic financial effects this can bring. Investing more in health, especially in health promotion and disease prevention, like vaccinations, is a smart strategy to empower people and build stronger societies and economies.
Almost 7 million children die before their fifth birthday, every single year.25 For the most part, these deaths are easily preventable. We know that the solutions are simple and affordable: having skilled birth attendants present; keeping babies warm and getting them safe water, nutritious food, proper sanitation, and basic vaccinations.26 Many children who die before they reach their fifth birthdays are born to mothers living in poverty, or in rural communities, or who are still in adolescence27 or otherwise vulnerable. By ending preventable child deaths, we are aiming for an upper threshold of 20 deaths per 1000 live births in all income quintiles of the population.28
Women continue to die unnecessarily in childbirth. The World Health Organization estimates that every minute and a half, a woman dies from complications of pregnancy or childbirth. Women living in poverty, in rural areas, and adolescents are especially at risk.29 Timely access to well-equipped facilities and skilled birth attendants will
25. WHO (2012). Fact sheet No. 290. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs290/en/. 26. UNICEF/WHO (2012). Global Immunization Data. http://www.who.int/immunization_monitor- ing/Global_Immunization_Data.pdf. 27. WHO (2012). Adolescent pregnancy. Fact sheet N°364. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/fact- sheets/fs364/en/. 28. Child Survival Call to Action, http://apromiserenewed.org/files/APR_Progress_Report_2012_fi- nal_web3.pdf. 29. WHO (2013): http://www.who.int/features/qa/12/en/. Post-2015 | 39
drastically reduce this risk. Universal access to sexual live longer, they face increased rates of cancer, heart and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) is an disease, arthritis, diabetes and other chronic illness. On essential component of a healthy society. There are still average, people lose 10 years of their lives to illness, 222 million women in the world who want to prevent mostly to non-communicable diseases.32 These should pregnancy but are not using effective, modern methods be addressed, but the priorities will vary by country. of contraception. This results in 80 million unplanned pregnancies, 30 million unplanned births and 20 million The benefits of investing in health are immediate unsafe abortions every year. About 340 million people and obvious, both for specific interventions and a year are infected by sexually-transmitted disease.30 for strengthening health systems more broadly. Every $1 spent on modern contraception would save Immunisations save 2 to 3 million lives each year.33 Bed- $1.40 in maternal and newborn health care.31 But access nets are a well-known and affordable way to ward off to SRHR, especially by adolescents, is low. The quality malaria. Education that leads people to understand and of such services is generally poor. The public health use quality health services is a useful complement. case is clear – ensuring these rights benefits not only individuals, but broader communities. The table below shows how the benefits of investing in health outweigh the costs.34 Every $1 spent generates In high-income countries, rising health costs are a up to $30 through improved health and increased major threat to fiscal stability and long-term economic productivity. growth. Obesity is a growing problem. When people
Health Solutions are Affordable and Available
Tuberculosis: case finding & treatment Heart attacks: acute low cost management
Expanded immunisation
Malaria: prevention & treatment HIV: combination prevention
Local surgical capacity
0 10 20 30
Ratio
Affordable solutions are within reach. Modern medicine other parts of the interconnected post-2015 agenda. and improved treatment can help, as can a range of other Ensuring healthy lives will be an ongoing process in all factors, such as cleaner air, more nutritious food and countries and communities.
30. Glasier, A. et al. (2006). Sexual and reproductive health: a matter of life and death. The Lancet Vol. 368: 1595–1607. Singh, S., Darroch, J. (2012). Adding it up: Costs and benefits of contraceptive services. Estimates for 2012. Guttmacher Institute: p.16. 31. Singh, S., Darroch, J. (2012). Adding it up: Costs and benefits of contraceptive services.Estimates for 2012. Guttmacher Institute: p.16. 32. Salomon et al. (2012). Healthy life expectancy for 187 countries, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden Disease Study 2010. The Lancet Vol. 380: 2144–2162. 33. UNICEF/WHO (2012). Global Immunization Data. http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/Global_Immunization_Data.pdf 34. Jamison, D., Jha, P., Bloom, D. (2008). The Challenge of Diseases. Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Challenge Paper. 40 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Ensure Food Security and Good Goal 5 Nutrition
a) End hunger and protect the right of everyone to have access to sufficient, safe, affordable, and nutritious food
b) Reduce by x% stunting, wasting by y% and anemia by z% for all children under 5
c) Increase agricultural productivity by x%, with a focus on sustainably increasing smallholder yields and access to irrigation.
d) Adopt sustainable agricultural, ocean, and freshwater fishery practices and rebuild designated fish stocks to sustainable levels
e) Reduce postharvest loss and food waste by x%
Food is essential to all living beings. Producing it takes energy, land, technology and water. Food security is not just about getting everyone enough nutritious food. It is also about access, ending waste, moving toward sustainable, efficient production and consumption. The world will need about 50 percent more food by 203035; to produce enough food sustainably is a global challenge. Irrigation and other investments in agriculture and rural development can help millions of smallholder farmers earn a better living, provide enough nutritious food for growing populations, and build pathways to sustainable future growth.
Today, 870 million people in the world do not have enough to eat.36 Undernourished women give birth to underweight babies, who are less likely to live to their fifth birthday and more likely to develop chronic diseases and other limitations. The first 1,000 days of a child’s life are crucial to giving a child a fair chance; 165 million children are ‘stunted’ or smaller than they should be for their age; others are ‘wasted’ and anaemic. Inadequate nutrition prevents their brains from developing fully and, ultimately, limits their ability to make a living.37
Poverty is the main cause of hunger – most people are hungry or undernourished because they cannot afford sufficient nutritious food, not because of supply failures. Recent increases in food price volatility have shown how sharp rises in the price of food can worsen poverty. Producing more food will be essential. But it will not alone ensure food security and good nutrition.
In developed countries, the lack of a nutritious diet in childhood increases the risk of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. In all countries, adequate nutrition in childhood improves learning as well as lifelong physical, emotional and cognitive development. It lifts the individual’s potential, and the country’s.
Childhood nutrition programmes have proven successful. Reducing malnutrition, especially among the youngest children, is one of the most cost-effective of all development interventions. Every $1 spent to reduce stunting can yield up to $44.50 through increased future earnings.38
Moving to large-scale sustainable agriculture, while increasing the volume of food produced, is the great challenge we face. It can be done, but this will require a dramatic shift. Agriculture has for many years suffered from neglect. Too few policies are in place to improve rural livelihoods. Too little investment has been made in research. This is true even as the goods and services produced in rural areas are in high demand— food as well as biofuels, eco-system services and carbon sequestration, to name a few.
35. http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/who-will-feed-the-world-rr-260411-en.pdf 36. FAO (2012). The state of food insecurity in the World. 37. UNICEF / WHO (2012). Information sheet. http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/jme_infosheet.pdf. 38. Hoddinott, J. et al. (2012). Hunger and malnutrition. Copenhagen Consensus 2012 Challenge Paper. Post-2015 | 41
In many places, food production tripled in the 20th Small Island Developing States. Reducing wastewater in century, thanks in part to high-yield crop varieties. But coastal areas, as outlined the illustrative goal on water in many places, soils have eroded and been depleted and sanitation, will help. But overfishing is another of nutrients, holding back food production, despite problem, reducing an important source of protein incredible potential.39 Improved land management, for billions of people. Three-quarters of the world’s fertilisers, more efficient irrigation systems and crop fish stocks are being harvested faster than they can diversification can reverse land degradation. reproduce and 8-25 per cent of global catch is discarded. This degradation and waste creates a cycle which Specific investments, interventions and policies can depletes necessary fish stocks to unsustainable levels. deliver results. Agricultural investments reduce poverty It also harms the ocean’s biosystems. We can and must more than investments in any other sector. In developed correct this misuse; properly managing fish stocks gives countries, agricultural research provides returns of 20 fish enough time to reproduce and ensure sustainable to 80 per cent – a great investment in any economy.40 fisheries. Currently, 30 per cent of fish that are harvested Greater yields, sustainable agricultural intensification are overfished, while 12.7 per cent have greater capacity and less postharvest loss can help smallholder farmers and could be fished more before reaching their natural produce enough to feed their families and earn a limit.41 living. At the same time, less food waste in developed countries can help reduce demand for food. With these Sustainable food production will also require changes towards sustainable agricultural consumption infrastructure and access to markets and financing, and production, we can continue to feed this generation agricultural extension services to spread the benefits and the 8 billion people on the planet in 2030. of technology and innovation, more predictable global markets and enhanced tenure security. Together, they We cannot forget the world’s oceans. Poor management can overcome the constraints that limit agricultural of the oceans can have particularly adverse impacts for productivity.
Benefit-Cost Ratios of Investments Reducing Stunting
Bangladesh 24
Ethiopia 15
India 44.5
Kenya 24.4
0 10 20 30 40
Ratio
39. Sanchez, Pedro. Tripling crop yields in tropical Africa. Nature Geoscience 3, 299 - 300 (2010). 40. Alston, J. (2010). The benefits from agricultural research and development, innovation and productivity growth. OECD Food, Agricul- ture and Fisheries Papers. No. 31. OECD Publishing. 41. FAO: The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012. 42 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Achieve Universal Access to Water and Goal 6 Sanitation
a) Provide universal access to safe drinking water at home and in schools, health centres and refugee camps
b) End open defecation and ensure universal access to sanitation at school and work, and increase access to sanitation at home by x%
c) Bring freshwater withdrawals in line with supply and increase water efficiency in agriculture by x%, industry by y% and urban areas by z%
d) Recycle or treat all municipal and industrial wastewater prior to discharge
Access to water is a basic human right. Safe drinking water is something everyone in the world needs. Between 1990 and 2010, more than 2 billion people gained access to basic drinking water, but 780 million people still remain without.42 Around two billion people lack access to continuous, safe water.43 Improving access – as well as quality – is becoming more urgent as the world faces increasing water scarcity. By 2025, 1.8 billion people will live in places classified as water scarce.44 People living in poverty are likely to be most at risk.
Even those who currently have access to basic drinking water do not have a guarantee of continued access. Agriculture draws 70 per cent of all freshwater for irrigation and may need even more as the demand for intensive food production rises. Already, rising demand from farms is causing water tables to fall in some areas and, at the same time, industry and energy are demanding more water as economies grow.
Better water resource management can ensure there will be enough water to meet competing demands. Distribution of water among industry, energy, agriculture, cities and households should be managed fairly and efficiently, with attention to protecting the quality of drinking water. To accomplish this, we need to establish good management practices, responsible regulation and proper pricing.
The MDG targets have focused on improving the sources of water collection and reducing the amount of time it takes, especially for women, to collect water for basic family needs. We must now act to ensure universal access to safe drinking water at home, and in schools, health centres and refugee camps. This is a global minimum standard that should be applied to everyone—regardless of income quintile, gender, location, age or other grouping.
Investing in safe drinking water complements investments in sanitation and hygiene. Water, sanitation and hygiene work together to make people healthier, and to reduce the grief, and time and money spent, when family members fall ill and need to be cared for. There is some evidence that private and adequate sanitation in schools allows menstruating girls to continue to attend school and learn, and reduces the likelihood that any child will get sick and have to leave school. Agriculture and tourism also benefit when the physical environment is cleaner and more hygienic. On average, the benefits of investing in water management, sanitation, and hygiene range from $2 to $3 per dollar invested.45
42. UNICEF/ WHO (2012). Progress on drinking water and sanitation. 2012 update. 43. UNICEF/ WHO (2012). Progress on drinking water and sanitation. 2012 update. 44. UNDESA (2013). International decade for action ‘Water for Life’ 2005-2015. http://www.un.org/ waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml. 45. Whittington, D. et al. (2008). The Challenge of Water and Sanitation: Challenge Paper. Copen- hagen Consensus 2008, p. 126. Post-2015 | 43
Benefit-Cost Ratios of ICT Interventions
Rural water 3.2
Biosand filter 2.7
Community−led total sanitation 2.7
Large dam 1.8
0 1 2 3
Ratio
The MDG target on increasing access to sanitation challenge of providing quality public sanitation services is the one we are farthest from reaching. Around 1.1 – particularly in densely populated urban areas. billion people still defecate in the open and another 1.4 billion have no toilets, septic tanks, piped sewer systems While we aspire to a global goal to have sanitation in or other means of improved sanitation.46 Such poor the home for everyone by 2030, we do not believe this sanitation contributes to widespread chronic diarrhea would be attainable. So our target is more modest, but in many lower-income areas. Each year, 760,000 children we hope still achievable. under 5 die because of diarrhea.47 Those who survive diarrhea often don’t absorb enough essential nutrients, As cities grow and people consume more, solid waste hindering their physical and mental development. management is a growing problem. Wastewater pollutes not only the natural environment, but also the Building sanitation infrastructure and public services immediate living environment, and has an enormous that work for everyone, including those living in poverty, detrimental impact on the spread of disease. Establishing and keeping human waste out of the environment, is a or strengthening policies – at national, subnational and major challenge. Billions of people in cities capture and local levels – to recycle or treat wastewater collection, store waste, but have nowhere to dispose of it once treatment and discharge can protect people from their latrines or septic tanks fill. Innovations in toilet contaminants and natural ecosystems from harmful design, emptying pits, treating sludge and reusing pollution. waste can help local governments meet the enormous
46. UNICEF/ WHO (2012). Progress on drinking water and sanitation. 2012 update. 47. WHO (2013): http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs330/en/. 44 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 7 Secure Sustainable Energy
a) Double the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix
b) Ensure universal access to modern energy services
c) Double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency in buildings, industry, agriculture and transport
d) Phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption
The stark contradictions of our modern global economy are evident in the energy sector. We need reliable energy to reduce poverty and sustain prosperity, but must increasingly get it from renewable sources to limit the impact on the environment. Globally, 1.3 billion people do not have access to electricity.48 2.6 billion people still burn wood, dung, coal and other traditional fuels inside their homes, resulting in 1.5 million deaths per year.49 At the same time, extensive energy use, especially in high-income countries, creates pollution, emits greenhouse gases and depletes non-renewable fossil fuels. The scarcity of energy resources will grow ever greater. Between now and 2030, high-income economies will continue to consume large amounts. They will be increasingly joined by countries which are growing rapidly and consuming more. And by 2030, when the planet reaches around 8 billion people, there will be 2 billion more people using more energy. All this energy use will create enormous strains on the planet.
Governments naturally seek growth, prosperity and well-being for their people. In seeking sustainable energy for all, we must ensure that countries can continue to grow, but use all the tools at our disposal to promote less carbon-intensive growth.
As high-income countries replace outdated infrastructure and technologies, they can and should transition to less energy-intensive pathways.
These challenges are enormous. But so are the opportunities. Done right, growth does not have to bring huge increases in carbon emissions. Investments in efficient energy usage, renewable energy sources, reducing waste and less carbon-intensive technologies can have financial benefits as well as environmental ones. Tools are already available. We can reach large-scale, transformative solutions worldwide with more investment, collaboration, implementation and political will.
There is considerable momentum already. The Sustainable Energy for All initiative (SE4ALL) has signed up over 50 countries, mobilised $50 billion from the private sector and investors and formed new public-private partnerships in transport, energy efficiency, solar cooking and finance.50 The G20 committed to phasing out inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption, while providing targeted support for the poorest. This means that governments can have life-line energy pricing for poor consumers—they are not the ones who are wasting consumption. It also means that large energy consumers should pay full price—including for the damages caused to health by pollution and the taxes that should be paid on energy.
We can build on and consolidate this momentum by explicitly drawing on SE4ALL and G20 targets and focusing on access, efficiency, renewable energy and reducing the waste of fossil-fuel subsidies. Up-front investment in new technologies – from
48. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTENERGY2/0,,contentMDK:22855502~pa gePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:4114200,00.html. 49. World Health Organization, Fuel For Life: Household Energy and Health, http://www.who.int/ indoorair/publications/fuelforlife.pdf. 50. United Nations (2013). Sustainable Energy for All Commitments - Highlights for Rio +20. http:// wwwsustainableenergyforall.org/actions-commitments/high-impact-opportunities/item/109-rio- plus-20. Post-2015 | 45
simple solar LED lights to advanced hydropower – environmental and social, payoffs are substantial. can save lives, reduce expenses and foster growth. In Adopting cost-effective standards for a wider range of making this transition to sustainable energy, we must technologies could, by 2030, reduce global projected pay particular attention to the poor and vulnerable. electricity consumption by buildings and industry by Subsidies are one way that countries help people in 14 per cent, avoiding roughly 1,300 mid-size power need get affordable energy, so phasing out inefficient plants.54 subsidies should not exclude targeted support for the poorest. It is crucial that technologies and innovations be widely shared. Low- and middle-income countries have the Providing people with access to modern and reliable chance to leapfrog the old model of development energy to cook and light their homes has enormous and choose more sustainable growth. But they face social, economic and environmental benefits. The use two significant constraints: technology and finance. of traditional fuels indoors is toxic, causing illness and Cleaner and more efficient technologies are often death. A lack of light prevents children from studying patented by private corporations. Finance is also a and learning and women can spend too much time problem: the benefits of more efficient technologies gathering wood for fires. Just one kilogram of ‘carbon come from future savings, while the costs are black’ particles produced by kerosene lamps contribute concentrated at the beginning. If developed countries as much warming to the atmosphere in two weeks take the lead in applying these technologies, costs will as 700 kilograms of carbon dioxide circulating in the fall and the technologies will become more accessible atmosphere for 100 years.51 to developing countries.
The solutions are available and affordable – all we must To overcome these constraints, governments can use do is act. a mix of taxes, subsidies, regulations and partnerships to encourage clean-energy innovation. Partnering Rising energy use need not parallel faster growth – as countries can use open-innovation forums to accelerate the figure shows. Between 1990 and 2006, increased the development of clean-energy technologies and energy efficiency in manufacturing by 16 member rapidly bring them to scale. These open-source forums countries of the International Energy Agency resulted should be linked to real public-works projects that can in 14-15 per cent reduction of energy use per unit of offer financing, and the chance for rapid adoption and output and reduced CO2 emissions, saving at least broad deployment. $180 billion.52 We must also reduce waste by ensuring proper But we must pick up the pace. Globally, we must pricing. About 1.9 trillion dollars, or 2.5% of the world’s double the rate of improvement in energy efficiency in total GDP, is spent every year to subsidise fossil fuel buildings, industry and transport and double the share industries and protect low prices.55 If subsidies are of renewables in the energy supply.53 reduced, these revenues could be redirected to other pressing priorities. Elimination could reduce as much Although new infrastructure requires an up-front as 10 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions by investment, the long-term financial, not to mention 2050.56
51. UC Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana published by the Journal of Environmental Science & Technology. http:// news.illinois.edu/news/12/1210kerosene_TamiBond.html47. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Indica- tors_2008-1.pdf. 52. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Indicators_2008-1.pdf. 53. This implies a 2.4% annual efficiency gain by 2030 compared to 1.2% from 1970 to 2008, according to the Global Energy Assess- ment (GEA) from the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis. 54. United Nations (2012). Sustainable Energy For All: A Framework for Action. http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/sustainableenergyforall/shared/Documents/SE%20for%20All%20-%20Framework%20for%20 Action%20FINAL.pdf. 55. International Monetary Fund, Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications (Washington: IMF, 2013) http://www.imf.org/ external/np/pp/eng/2013/012813.pdf. 56. Allaire, M and Brown (2009), S: Eliminating Subsidies For Fossil Fuel Production: Implications for U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Markets: Washington DC: Resources for the Future. http://rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-IB-09-10.pdf. 46 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Create Jobs, Sustainable Livelihoods, Goal 8 and Equitable Growth
a) Increase the number of good and decent jobs and livelihoods by x
b) Decrease the number of young people not in education, employment or training by x%
c) Strengthen productive capacity by providing universal access to financial services and infrastructure such as transportation and ICT
d) Increase new start-ups by x and value added from new products by y through creating an enabling business environment and boosting entrepreneurship
Countries at different stages of development all need to undertake profound socio- economic transformations to end extreme poverty, improve livelihoods, sustain prosperity, promote social inclusion and ensure environmental sustainability. The Panel’s discussions on “economic transformation” identified key aspects of a transformative agenda: the necessity to pursue inclusive growth; to promote economic diversification and higher value added; and to put in place a stable, enabling environment for the private sector to flourish. Changing consumption and production patterns to protect our ecosystems and societies, and putting in place good governance and effective institutions are also important for the growth agenda, but discussed under other goals.
There is no quick, easy way to create jobs for all. If there were, every politician in every country would already be doing it. Every country struggles with this challenge. Globally, the number of unemployed people has risen by about 28 million since the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, with another 39 million who have likely given up in frustration. Rising unemployment hits young people especially hard. More and more young people are not in employment, education or training, with long-lasting effects on their ability to lead a fulfilling and productive life.
We have separate targets for jobs and livelihoods, and for jobs for young people to give specific emphasis to the latter. These targets should be broken down by income quintile, gender, location and other groups. Through these targets, we want societies to focus on how well the economy is performing, through a measure that goes beyond GDP or its growth. Indicators for the jobs target could include the share of paid employment by sector (services, manufacturing, agriculture); and the share of informal and formal employment.
Between 2015 and 2030, 470 million more people will enter the global labour force, mostly in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.57 This is potentially a huge boon that could sustain growth that is already happening. Over the past decade, 6 of the 10 fastest growing economies in the world were in Africa. As more young people enter the work force and birth rates decline, Africa is set to experience the same kind of ‘demographic dividend’ that boosted growth in Asia over the last three decades. But young people in Africa, and around the world, will need jobs — jobs with security and fair pay — so they can build their lives and prepare for the future.
The ILO’s concept of “decent work” recognises and respects the rights of workers, ensures adequate social protection and social dialogue, and sets a high standard toward which every country should strive. However, it has become clear that there can be middle ground for some developing countries, where “good jobs” – those which are
57. Lam, D & M.Leibbrandt (2013) Global Demographic Trends: Key Issues and Concerns. Input Paper to HLP Panel. Processed. Post-2015 | 47
secure and fairly paid – are a significant step towards their own ways to participate. Every economy needs inclusive and sustainable economic development. The dynamism to grow and adapt to consumer demand. conditions of labour markets across countries differs This means enabling new businesses to start up and so much. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach – good creating the conditions for them to develop and market jobs and decent jobs will both be needed in the next new products, to innovate and respond to emerging development agenda. opportunities. In some economies this is about moving from primary extractive industries to value Sustained, broad-based, equitable growth requires added products and more diverse manufacturing and more than raising GDP. It takes deliberate action. services. In others it might be about specialisation. Businesses need reliable, adequate infrastructure. Financial services are critical to the growth of business, That means roads, power, transport, irrigation and but also raise the income of individuals. When people telecommunications. It means customs, government have the means to save and invest or get insurance, inspections, police and courts that function smoothly, they can raise their incomes by at least 20 per cent. and cross border arrangements that facilitate the We know this works. Farmers in Ghana, for example, movements of goods to new markets. Business also put more money into their agricultural activities adds the most lasting value when it embraces a after getting access to weather insurance, leading to responsible corporate business code with clear norms increased production and income.58 We need to ensure for transparency and accountability. that more people have access to financial services, to make the most of their own resources. People and businesses need the security and stability of a predictable environment to make good economic Policies and institutions can help ensure that decisions. The prospects for diversification and governments establish promising conditions for job moving towards higher value added—needed in creation. Clear and stable rules, such as uncomplicated some countries to go beyond reliance on commodity ways of starting a business, and fair and stable rules exports—can be measured by the number of new on taxes and regulations, encourage businesses to hire start-ups that occur each year and the value added and keep workers. Flexibly regulated labour markets from new products. As countries become richer and and low-cost, efficient access to domestic and external their economies get more sophisticated, they usually markets help the private sector thrive. Businesses and produce a larger array of goods and services. individuals alike benefit from training and research programmes that help adapt new, breakthrough There are some essential elements we know work across technologies to local conditions and foster a culture of countries and regions. Jobs and opportunities expand entrepreneurship. when the market economy expands and people find
58. Karlan et al (October 2012) Agricultural Decisions After Relaxing Credit and Risk Constraints. Yale University. 48 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Manage natural resource assets Goal 9 sustainably
a) Publish and use economic, social and environmental accounts in all governments and major companies
b) Increase consideration of sustainability in x% of government procurements
c) Safeguard ecosystems, species and genetic diversity
d) Reduce deforestation by x% and increase reforestation by y%
e) Improve soil quality, reduce soil erosion by x tonnes and combat desertification
Protecting and preserving the earth’s resources is not only the right thing to do, it is fundamental to human life and well-being. Integrating environmental, social and economic concerns is crucial to meeting the ambition of a 2030 which is more equal, more just, more prosperous, more green and more peaceful. People living in poverty suffer first and worst from environmental disasters like droughts, floods and harvest failures, yet every person on earth suffers without clean air, soil and water. If we don’t tackle the environmental challenges confronting the world, we can make gains towards eradicating poverty, but those gains may not last.
Today, natural resources are often used as if they have no economic value, as if they do not need to be managed for the benefit of future generations as well as our own. But natural resources are scarce, and damage to them can be irreversible. Once they are gone, they are gone for good.
Because we ‘treasure what we measure’, an important part of properly valuing the earth’s natural abundance is to incorporate it into accounting systems. Our current systems of accounting fail to integrate the enormous impact of environmental concerns; they become ‘externalities’, effects which matter and have real social and economic consequences, but which are not captured in calculations of profit, loss and growth.
Countries’ standard measure of progress is Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or, for companies, profit. This leaves out the value of natural assets. It does not count the exploitation of natural resources or the creation of pollution, though they clearly effect growth and well-being. Some work is already being done to make sure governments and companies do begin to account for this: the UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, the Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services and corporate sustainability accounting have been piloted and should be rolled out by 2030. More rapid and concerted movement in this direction is encouraged.
Value for money assessments in public procurement can be a powerful tool for governments to demonstrate their commitment to sustainable development. This can enable governments to use their considerable purchasing power to significantly accelerate the market for sustainable practices.
Ecosystems include forests, wetlands and oceans. Globally, over a billion people living in rural areas depend on forest resources for survival and income.59 Yet the world loses about 5.2 million hectares of forest per year to deforestation. Growing global demand for food, animal feed, fuel and fiber is driving deforestation. Many of these forests have been traditionally managed by indigenous peoples and local communities. When forests are cleared, people and communities lose a traditional source of their livelihoods while societies lose an important natural resource that could be managed for more sustainable economic development. The destruction of forests also accelerates climate change, which affects everyone.
59. Forest resources provide 30% or more of the cash and non-cash incomes of a significant num- ber of households living in and near forests. Shepherd, G. 2012. IUCN; World Bank. Post-2015 | 49
Emissions from deforestation
3
2
1 Billion tons of CO2e/yr Billion tons
0
Without REDD National Higher than Weighted Flow Annualised Cap and Historical Historical Global and Withholding Fraction of Trade for for Low National and Stock Forest Carbon REDD Deforestation Rates Payment at Risk of Emission
Africa Asia Latin America
Maintaining forests with many different species and countries economic incentives to conserve their forests planting a wide range of food crops benefits people’s and increase reforestation in the context of improving livelihoods and food security.60 Such measures would people’s livelihoods and food security, taking into keep forests providing essential services, such as account the value of natural resources, and bio-diversity. protecting the watershed, mitigating climate change, These major efforts in low-carbon development and increasing local and regional resilience to a changing carbon sequestration need more financial support. climate and hosting many species. With 60 per cent of the world’s ecosystems degraded, tens of thousands of Every year, 12 million hectares of land become species have already been lost. degraded—half the size of the United Kingdom-- losing opportunities to grow 20 million tons of food. New partnerships are needed to halt the loss of forests, World leaders have already agreed to strive for a land to capture the full value of forests to people and society, degradation-neutral world and to monitor, globally, and to tackle the drivers of deforestation. Reducing what is happening in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation areas. It is time to do this systematically in the new post- (REDD+) is an emerging global effort to give developing 2015 framework.
60. Busch, Jonah, et. al. Environmental Research Letters, author calculations (October-December 2009). Available at http://iop- science.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/044006/fulltext/. 50 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Ensure Good Governance and Effective Goal 10 Institutions
a) Provide free and universal legal identity, such as birth registrations
b) Ensure that people enjoy freedom of speech, association, peaceful protest and access to independent media and information
c) Increase public participation in political processes and civic engagement at all levels
d) Guarantee the public’s right to information and access to government data
e) Reduce bribery and corruption and ensure officials can be held accountable
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed over 60 years ago, set out the fundamental freedoms and human rights that form the foundations of human development. It reiterated a simple and powerful truth – that every person is born free and equal in dignity and rights. This truth is at the very heart of a people-centred agenda, and reminds us how high we can reach, if we reaffirm the value of every person on this planet. It is through people that we can transform our societies and our economies and form a global partnership.
People the world over are calling for better governance. From their local authorities to parliamentarians to national governments to the multilateral system, people want ethical leadership. They want their universal human rights guaranteed and to be recognised in the eyes of the law. They want their voices to be heard and they want institutions that are transparent, responsive, capable and accountable. People everywhere want more of a say in how they are governed. Every person can actively participate in realising the vision for 2030 to in bring about transformational change. Civil society should play a central, meaningful role but this requires space for people to participate in policy and decision-making. This means ensuring people’s right to freedom of speech, association, peaceful protest and access to independent media and information.
Strengthening the capacity of parliaments and all elected representatives, and promoting a vibrant, diverse and independent media can further support governments to translate commitments into action.
The word “institutions” covers rules, laws and government entities, but also the informal rules of social interactions. Institutions enable people to work together, effectively and peacefully. Fair institutions ensure that all people have equal rights and a fair chance at improving their lives, that they have access to justice when they are wronged.
Government is responsible for maintaining many of society’s central institutions. One of the most basic institutional responsibilities is providing legal identity. Every year, about 50 million births are not registered anywhere, so these children do not have a legal identity. That condemns them to anonymity, and often to being marginalised, because simple activities – from opening a bank account to attending a good school – often require a legal identity.
Openness and accountability helps institutions work properly – and ensures that those who hold power cannot use their position to favour themselves or their friends. Good governance and the fight against corruption are universal issues. Everywhere, Post-2015 | 51
institutions could be more fair and accountable. The value of all of the other natural and societal resources key is transparency. Transparency helps ensure that that bring prolonged prosperity and well-being. resources are not wasted, but are well managed and put to the best use. Accountability works best in an environment of participatory governance. The Millennium Declaration Many central institutions are public. But not every one. declared freedom one of six fundamental values, and The need for transparency extends to all institutions, stated that it is best ensured through participatory government entities as well as businesses and civil- governance. society organisations. To fulfill the aims of the post- 2015 agenda requires transparency from all of them. One target that would be useful is to decrease the When institutions openly share how much they spend, extent of bribery and corruption in society. There are and what results they are achieving, we can measure concerns with how reliably this is measured—but many progress towards each goal. Openness will make success indicators are imprecise and this should just lead to much more likely. re-doubled efforts to improve the understanding of how pervasive this may be. When evidence is found Publishing accounts – including sustainability accounts of bribery or corruption, involving public officials or – brings ownership and accountability to the entire private individuals, they should be held to account. Zero post-2015 agenda. Sustainability encourages societies tolerance. to measure more than money -- and to account for the 52 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 11 Ensure Stable and Peaceful Societies
a) Reduce violent deaths per 100,000 by x and eliminate all forms of violence against children
b) Ensure justice institutions are accessible, independent, well-resourced and respect due-process rights
c) Stem the external stressors that lead to conflict, including those related to organised crime
d) Enhance the capacity, professionalism and accountability of the security forces, police and judiciary
Without peace, there can be no development. Without development, there can be no enduring peace. Peace and justice are prerequisites for progress. We must acknowledge a principal lesson of the MDGs: that peace and access to justice are not only fundamental human aspirations but cornerstones of sustainable development. Without peace, children cannot go to school or access health clinics. Adults cannot go to their workplaces, to markets or out to cultivate their fields. Conflict can unravel years, even decades, of social and economic progress in a brief span of time.
When it does, progress against poverty becomes daunting. By 2015, more than 50 per cent of the total population in extreme poverty will reside in places affected by conflict and chronic violence.61 To end extreme poverty and empower families to pursue better lives requires peaceful and stable societies.
Children are particularly vulnerable in situations of conflict.62 In at least 13 countries, parties continue to recruit children into armed forces and groups, to kill or maim children, commit rape and other forms of sexual violence against children, or engage in attacks on schools and/or hospitals. Recognising their particular vulnerability to violence, exploitation and abuse, the Panel proposes a target to eliminate all forms of violence against children.
The character of violence has shifted dramatically in the past few decades.63 Contemporary conflict is characterised by the blurring of boundaries, the lack of clear front lines or battlefields, and the frequent targeting of civilian populations. Violence, drugs and arms spill rapidly across borders in our increasingly connected world. Stability has become a universal concern.
Physical insecurity, economic vulnerability and injustice provoke violence, and violence propels communities further into impoverishment. Powerful neighbours, or global forces beyond the control of any one government, can cause stresses. Stress alone, though, does not cause violence: the greatest danger arises when weak institutions are unable to absorb or mitigate such stress and social tensions. Safety and justice institutions are especially important for poor and marginalised communities. Security, along with justice, is consistently cited as an important priority by poor people in all countries.
In 2008, the International Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor estimated that as many as 4 billion people live outside the protection of the law.64 But every country can work towards social justice, begin to fashion stronger institutions for
61. OECD, Ensuring Fragile States are Not Left Behind, 2013 Factsheet on resource flows and trends, (2013) http://www.oecd.org/dac/incaf/factsheet%202013%20resource%20flows%20final.pdf 62. Report of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict (A/66/782–S/2012/261, April 2012). 63. WDR 2011, p.2. 64. Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor (2008), Making the Law Work for Everyone. Volume I in the Report of the Commission. United Nations: New York.61. WDR (2011), pp218-220. Post-2015 | 53
conflict resolution and mediation. Many countries have ten- to fifteen-year time horizon. This will allow enough successfully made the transition from endemic violence time to make real gains and solidify those gains. And to successful development, and we can learn important during that time, providing the basics, from safety to lessons from their powerful example. jobs, can improve social cohesion and stability. Good governance and effective institutions are crucial. Jobs It is crucial that we ensure basic safety and justice for and inclusive growth are linked to peace and stability all, regardless of a person’s economic or social status or and deter people from joining criminal networks or political affiliation. To achieve peace, leaders must tackle armed groups. the problems that matter most to people: they must prosecute corruption and unlawful violence, especially Steps to mitigate the harmful effects of external against minorities and vulnerable groups. They must stressors such as volatile commodity prices, enhance accountability. They must prove that the state international corruption, organised crime and the illicit can deliver basic services and rights, such as access trade in persons, precious minerals and arms are sorely to safety and justice, safe drinking water and health needed. Effectively implementing small arms control services, without discrimination. is especially important to these efforts. Because these threats cross borders, the responses must be regional Progress against violence and instability will require and international. Some innovative cross-border and local, national, regional and global cooperation. We regional programs exist, and regional organisations are must also offer sustained and predictable support. Too increasingly tackling these problems.65 often, we wait until a crisis hits before providing the necessary commitments to bring safety and stability. To ensure that no one is left behind in the vision for 2030, we must work collectively to ensure the most Assistance from the international community to places fundamental condition for human survival, peace. suffering from violence must plan longer-term, using a
65. WDR (2011), pp218-220. 54 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Create a Global Enabling Environment Goal 12 and Catalyse Long-Term Finance
a) Support an open, fair and development-friendly trading system, substantially reducing trade-distorting measures, including agricultural subsidies, while improving market access of developing country products
b) Implement reforms to ensure stability of the global financial system and encourage stable, long-term private foreign investment
c) Hold the increase in global average temperature below 2⁰ C above pre- industrial levels, in line with international agreements
d) Developed countries that have not done so to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20% of GNP of developed countries to least developed countries; other countries should move toward voluntary targets for complementary financial assistance
e) Reduce illicit flows and tax evasion and increase stolen-asset recovery by $x
f) Promote collaboration on and access to science, technology, innovation, and development data
An enabling global environment is a necessary condition for the post-2015 agenda to succeed, to set us on a course towards our vision of a 2030 which is more prosperous, more equitable, more peaceful and more just. An enabling environment makes concrete the spirit of a new global partnership, bringing cooperation to bear on pressing global challenges.
Creating a global trading system that actively encourages sustainable development is of paramount importance. Increasingly, countries are driving their own development, and this dynamism is driven by trade more than aid. Ensuring that the global trading system is open and fair creates the platform for countries to grow.
The WTO is the most effective tool to increase the development impact of trade, and a successful conclusion of the Doha round of trade talks is urgently needed to put the conditions in place for achieving the post-2015 agenda. Currently, goods and services produced by firms in least-developed countries (LDCs) face quotas and duties that limit their ability to cross borders and succeed in the global marketplace. Systems that provide market access for developing countries, including preference programmes and duty-free, quota-free market access, can assist LDCs. However, even when these fees and limits are reduced, other complications can arise, such as ‘rules of origin’, that can create unnecessary red tape and paperwork for LDCs. This curtails the participation of LDCs in global production chains, and reduces their competitiveness in the global marketplace. Some agricultural subsidies can distort trade and market access of developing country products.
A system that better facilitates the movement of people, goods and services would go a long way towards allowing more people and more countries to benefit fully from globalisation. Increased trade and access to markets brings more equitable growth and opportunity for all – the surest way to defeat poverty and deprivation. Post-2015 | 55
Stability of the financial system is crucial to enable long- that has been put in. Some of this is money-laundering term growth and sustainable development. The severe of bribes and stolen funds, and some is to evade taxes. downsides of an interconnected world were brought Much more can and should be done to stop this. It to life in the global financial crisis in 2008. Risky actions starts with transparency in all countries. Developed in one part of the world can wreak havoc on people countries could be more actively seizing and returning across the globe – and can reverse gains in eradicating assets that may have been stolen, acquired corruptly, or poverty. Commodities are especially volatile and we transferred abroad illegally from developing countries. urge continued commitment to initiatives such as the The average OECD country is only “largely compliant” in Agricultural Market Information System, to enhance 4 of 13 categories of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) food market transparency and encourage coordination recommendations when it comes to detecting and of policy action in response to market uncertainty. fighting illicit financial flows66.
Following the financial crisis, there is more concern If the money is openly tracked, it is harder to steal. that the international financial architecture must be That is the motivation behind the Extractive Industries reformed, and agreed regulatory reforms implemented Transparency Initiative, a voluntary global standard consistently, to ensure global financial stability. that asks companies to disclose what they pay, and Recommendations and actions are being implemented, has governments disclose what they receive. Other both in major individual financial centres and countries could adopt EITI and follow the example of the internationally. United States and the EU in legally compelling oil, gas and mining companies to disclose financial information The proper place to forge an international agreement to on every project. tackle climate change is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Panel wants to underline the Developed countries could also pay more attention importance of holding the increase in global average to exchanging information with developing countries temperatures below 2 degrees Centigrade above pre- to combat tax evasion. Together, they can also crack industrial levels, in line with international agreements. down on tax avoidance by multinational companies This is all the more important as, despite existing through the abuse of transfer pricing to artificially shift agreements, the world is missing the window to meet their profits across international borders to low-tax the promise made to limit global warming to a 2 degree havens. When developed countries detect economic rise over pre-industrial temperatures. crimes involving developing countries, they must work together to make prosecuting such crimes a priority. Without tackling climate change, we will not succeed in eradicating extreme poverty. Some of the concrete Domestic revenues are the most important source for steps outlined in this report, on renewable energy, for the funds needed to invest in sustainable development, example, are critical to limiting future warming and relieve poverty and deliver public services. Only through building resilience to respond to the changes that sufficient domestic resource mobilisation can countries warming will bring. ensure fiscal reliance and promote sustainable growth. Data is one of the keys to transparency, which is the The 2002 Monterrey Consensus was an historic cornerstone of accountability. Too often, development agreement on development finance that guides policy efforts have been hampered by a lack of the most basic today. Developed countries that have not done so data about the social and economic circumstances in agreed to make concrete efforts towards lifting their which people live. aid budgets towards the target of 0.7% of GNP. As part of that, they reaffirmed their commitments to To understand whether we are achieving the goals, offer assistance equal to 0.15 to 0.2% of GNP to least- data on progress needs to be open, accessible, easy developed countries. This is still the right thing to do. to understand and easy to use. As goals get more Official development assistance (ODA) that flows to ambitious, the quality, frequency, disaggregation and developing countries is still a very important source availability of relevant statistics must be improved. To of financing: 55 cents of every dollar of foreign capital accomplish this requires a commitment to changing the that comes into low-income countries is ODA. Other way we collect and share data. countries should also move toward voluntary targets for complementary financial assistance. Systems are not in place today to generate good data. This is a special problem for poor countries, but even the Developed countries have to go beyond aid, however. most powerful and wealthy countries have only a limited There are signs that the money illegally taken out of understanding of, for example, how many patients in a sub-Saharan Africa and put in overseas tax havens and given area are accessing healthcare services, and how secrecy jurisdictions is greater than all the aid money and what happens when they do.
66. OECD, “Measuring OECD Responses to Illicit Financial Flows,” Issue Paper for DAC Senior Level Meeting 2013, DCD/ DAC(2013)13, 2013, p.4. 56 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
The availability of information has improved during the The innovation, diffusion and transfer of technology implementation of the MDGs, but not rapidly enough is critical to realising true transformation. Whether in to foster innovations and improvements the delivery of information, transportation, communications or life- vital services. Learning from data – and adapting actions saving medicines, new technologies can help countries based on what we learn from it – is one of the best ways leapfrog to new levels of sustainable development. to ensure that goals are reached. Some technologies exist which can help us reach our vision for 2030, and science is making ever greater To be able to do this, we need to start now, well ahead progress in this direction, but some technologies have of 2015. We need to build better data-collection yet to be developed. Partnerships can help us develop systems, especially in developing countries. Without the tools we need, and ensure that these innovations them, measuring the goals and targets set out here are more broadly shared. can become an undue and unfeasible burden. With them, a global goal framework is an effective way of At its heart, a global enabling environment must uniting efforts across the globe. Building the statistical encourage substantial new flows for development, capacities of national, subnational and local systems is better integrate resources by engaging the talents of key to ensuring that policymakers have the information new partners from civil society and the private sectors, they need to make good policy. The UN Statistical and use new approaches. This goal underpins the action Commission should play a key role. and partnerships needed to fully achieve the ambitious aims of the post-2015 agenda. Data are a true public good, and are underfunded, especially in low-income countries. That must change. Technical and financial support from high-income countries is sorely needed to fill this crucial gap. Post-2015 | 57
Annex III: Goals, Targets and Indicators: Using a Common Terminology
In consultations for the report, we talked a lot about goals and targets and found that people use these words in quite different ways. Since the global community will continue with this discussion over the next year and a half, we hope that a clear understanding of and a commonly-shared terminology will make those discussions as productive as possible.
For the sake of clarity, we use definitions for goals, targets and indicators as shown in Table 1.
Term How it is Used in this Report Example from MDGs
Goal Expresses an ambitious, but Reduce child mortality specific, commitment. Always starts with a verb/action.
Targets Quantified sub-components that Reduce by two-thirds, between will contribute in a major way to 1990 and 2015, the under-five achievement of goal. Should be mortality rate an outcome variable.
Indicators Precise metric from identified Under-5 mortality rate databases to assess if target is being met (often multiple Infant mortality rate indicators are used). Proportion of 1-year olds immunised against measles
A goal should be specific and relate to only one objective. By now, most of the proposals for post-2015 goals agree that they should be few in number in order to force choices and establish priorities. But there are different ways of doing this. In some proposals, each goal tackles several issues. For example, we have seen proposals to combine food and water into one goal, but these are distinct challenges, each with their own constituencies, resources, and issues. When they are combined into a single goal, it does not lead to more focus or prioritisation; it just obscures the reality of needing to do two things.
It is important that goals be as specific as possible in laying out a single challenge and ambition.
We believe that the focus of goals should be on issues with the greatest impact on sustainable development, measured in terms of the number of people affected, the contribution to social inclusion, and the need to move towards sustainable consumption and production patterns. Ideally each goal has ‘knock on’ effects in other areas so that the set of goals, taken together, is truly transformative. So for example, quality education is important in itself, but it also has an enormous impact on growth and jobs, gender equality, and improved health outcomes.
Targets translate the ambition of goals into practical outcomes. They may be outcomes for people, like access to safe drinking water or justice, or outcomes for countries or communities, like reforestation or the registration of criminal complaints. Targets should always be measurable although some may require further technical work to develop reliable and rigorous indicators. 58 | Annex III: Goals, Targets and Indicators: Using a Common Terminology
The target specifies the level of ambition of each in value chains; but it could just as easily be that there country, by determining the speed with which a country is an increase in rural jobs because there aren’t enough pursues a goal. That speed can be a function of many jobs being created in cities and migrants are returning things: the priorities of the country, its initial starting home. In the first case, more rural jobs are a sign of point, the technical and organisational possibilities for improvement. In the latter case, they are a signal of improvement, and the level of resources and number of decline. Hence, the number of rural jobs is probably partners that can be brought to bear on the problem. not a good candidate for a target. The interpretation of the direction of change depends too much on country We believe that a process of allowing countries to set context. their own targets, in a highly visible way, will create a “race to the top”, both internationally and within It is important to be clear that allowing countries to set countries. Countries and sub-national regions should the speed they want for each target is only one approach be applauded for setting ambitious targets and for to the idea of national targets. The other suggestion promising to make large efforts. Likewise, if countries considered by the Panel is to have a “menu”, whereby a and sub-national regions are too conservative in their set of internationally agreed targets are established, and target setting, civil society and their peers can challenge then countries can select the ones most applicable to them to move faster. Transparency and accountability their particular circumstances. For example, one country are central to implementing a goals framework. might choose to focus on obesity and another on non- communicable disease when thinking about their In some cases, there may be a case for having a global priorities for health. minimum standard for a target, where the international community commits itself to do everything possible In the terminology used in this report, national targets to help a country reach a threshold level. That applies refer only to the national differences in the speed with to the eradication of extreme poverty by 2030, for which targets are to be achieved. As an example, every example. This could be extended in several other areas, country should set a target to increase the number of including ending gender discrimination, education, good or decent jobs and livelihoods by x but every health, food, water, energy, personal safety, and access country could determine what x should be based upon to justice. Such minimum standards can be set where the specific circumstances of that country or locality. this is a universal right that every person on the planet Then these can be aggregated up so that you can should expect to realise by 2030. compare achievements in job creation across countries and over time. The only global targets we kept were those that have already been set out as objectives by the Secretary- The indicator reflects the exact metric by which we General’s Sustainable Energy for All Initiative; and those will know if the target has been met. The Panel did that are truly global problems for which only a global not discuss specific indicators, but it does recommend target would work, such as reform of the international that indicators be disaggregated to allow targets to be financial and trade systems. measured in various dimensions, by gender, geography, age, and ethnicity, for example. In the report, we often talk about “universal access” or “eradicating extreme poverty”. These terms need to be Averages conceal more than they reveal. The more interpreted in each country context. Social issues are not disaggregated the indicator, the easier it is to identify like diseases. It is possible to be clear about eradicating trends and anomalies. If a target is universal, like access small-pox, but it may be harder to demonstrate that to basic drinking water at home, it is not enough just extreme poverty has been eradicated. Someone, to measure the average trend and expect that will somewhere, may be excluded or still living in poverty, continue. For example, the national average trend on even if the proper social safety nets are in place. The basic drinking water may be very good if a major urban intention is that such exceptions should be very rare; project is being implemented, but rural homes may be specialists in each area should be called upon to define left out completely. Universal access requires sufficient when the target can be said to be reached. disaggregation of the indicator to allow discrepancies from the average trend to be identified early on. We Targets should be easy to understand. This means suggest that a target should only be considered achieved one direction should be a clear ‘better’ outcome. For if it is met for relevant income and social groups. example, a reduction in child mortality is always a good thing; an increase in literacy rates is always a good thing. The Panel reiterates the vital importance of building data Some potential targets, however, are less clear-cut. Take systems to provide timely, disaggregated indicators to rural jobs, for example, a target that was suggested at measure progress, in all countries, and at all levels (local, one point. It could be that more rural jobs are due to sub-national, and national). improved market access, infrastructure or participation Post-2015 | 59
Annex IV: Summary of Outreach Efforts
The High Level Panel and its individual members have undertaken an extensive and multi-faceted outreach effort, spanning every major region of the world and bringing together a diverse cross-section of stakeholders and interest groups. Widespread interactions have created an active and deliberate process to listen to people’s voices and aspirations as an input into the Panel report. Many groups, including UN entities, helped organise these meetings, and the Panel would like to express its deep appreciation for these efforts.
Global, Regional and Thematic Consultations
During its meetings in New York (September 2012), London (November 2012), Monrovia (January 2013) and Bali (March 2013), the Panel held global meetings with youth, academia, private sector, parliamentarians and elected representatives of civil society. Social media channels were also used to enable individuals to contribute virtually to these interactions.
Panel members have also hosted regional and thematic consultations. These have enabled a deeper understanding of regional specificities - Latin American and the Caribbean, Asia, Arab States, Africa, the g7+ group of fragile states, Pacific Island countries and the group of Portuguese-speaking African countries (PALOP) - as well as engagement with specific issues and constituencies - including Conflict and Fragility, Governance and the Rule of Law, Migration, Local Authorities, Businesses, and Health. These meetings are listed on the Panel website.
Written outcomes of these and other consultations with recommendations for Panel consideration are available on the Panel’s website (www.post2015hlp.org).
Online Outreach Efforts
Online consultations, eliciting more than 800 responses from civil society to the 24 Framing Questions guiding the work of the High Level Panel, were undertaken in two phases between October 2012 and January 2013. The summary is on the Panel website. A third online consultation on partnerships was also undertaken in March 2013.
Teleconferences and ‘Twitter town halls’ have also been organised by Panelists to facilitate engagement with sub-national and youth groups. Online and social media channels – including the use of the ‘World We Want’ platform and HLP linked Facebook and Twitter accounts – have helped to share updates and invite responses to the Panel’s work. The HLP website has been used to disseminate information on the Panel’s outreach efforts in multiple languages.
Key Recommendations:
Each conversation enabled an appreciation of the complex, multi-dimensional and yet integral nature of the lessons and aspirations for the post-2015 agenda, and each has deeply influenced and informed the Panel’s work, even if not all recommendations were taken on board. While it would be impossible to capture all the insights, recommendations that have emerged from the major consultations held as part of the Panel’s outreach include: 60 | Annex IV: Summary of Outreach Efforts
Theme Examples of Some of the Issues Raised (More Extensive List and Inputs at www.post2015hlp.org)
Inequality; • Metrics should be put in place to track progress on equal access and opportunity across Universal age, gender, ethnicity, disability, geography, and income Access and Equal • Social protection floors should be established, alongside the right to decent work; A Opportunity Global Fund for Social Protection should be established • Inequality should be a stand-alone goal and cross-cutting theme; it should address inequality within and between countries • Goals and targets on universal access to health (including sexual and reproductive rights); access to inclusive education and life-long learning; access to water, sanitation, hygiene, food sovereignty and nutrition security are included • Investments are made in essential services and participatory and accountable systems for the sustainable management of resources are created; • Participation is emphasised and people are empowered with the right information • Infrastructure with improved access to roads, land and energy is developed; Social partnerships must supersede public-private partnerships
Employment • A goal on decent work with targets on employment creation, reduction of vulnerable and Inclusive work with indicators for women and young people is included Growth • Sustained access to productive assets by the poor communities, or nations is enabled; Green jobs for sustainable development are promoted • Specific benefits and safeguards are provided for the informal sector; Innovative ways for them to organise such as through unions and cooperatives is encouraged • A new trade system based on expanding production capabilities is encouraged and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is not the only measure of economic progress • Global Future studies and foresight are emphasised; Alternative paths such as delinking growth from natural resource extraction and consumption are researched • Better use of sovereign funds, development finance institutions and a global knowledge commons is promoted
Environment, • A single framework integrates environmental sustainability and poverty elimination Natural • New goals are considered within planetary boundaries; polluters pay and patterns of Resource consumption are addressed Management and Climate • International support for climate change mitigation, adaptation, disaster risk reduction Change; (DRR) and humanitarian response is mobilised; DRR is integrated into sustainable Challenges of development strategies Urbanisation • Means of resilience for vulnerable communities are defined – with a focus on women • Scientific knowledge is built at every level and shared across countries • Specific measures to improve the lives of the urban poor are taken; their right to housing; essential services, jobs and livelihoods is enabled by policies adapted to informal sectors • Environmental sustainability in cities is enhanced by improving risk prevention, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting renewable energy sources • The ‘Avoid-Shift-Improve’ approach in the transport sector is adopted • Partnerships around migration are promoted; the its role in development is recognised Post-2015 | 61
Theme Examples of Some of the Issues Raised (More Extensive List and Inputs at www.post2015hlp.org)
Conflict, • The needs of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), Fragility and Landlocked Developing Countries, and Fragile and Conflict Affected States are prioritised State Building • The New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States (Busan, 2011) is reinforced as a key step for national and international partners to work in conflict-affected and fragile states • LDCs are protected against scarcity of vital resources and destabilising price shocks • Measures to end violence against women and girls are prioritised; Steps are taken to end impunity and ensure access to justice for all social groups • All social groups must be able to express political opinion without fear and participate in decision making; Divisions within society are constructively resolved • Steps are taken to eliminate trans-national crime & stop the flow of illicit drugs, arms and war commodities • Objectives on the ‘right to self-determination’ are included and a time-bound programme to achieve development targets is set at the end of every occupation • Measures to strengthen regional, sub-regional and cross-regional cooperation, especially South-South cooperation, are undertaken • Enhanced transparency of the business sector, particularly in their relations with fragile states is ensured; along with alignment of efforts for shared prosperity.
Governance • A stand-alone goal for open, accountable and participatory governance with measurable, and Human intermediate and progressive targets on citizen engagement, rule of law, fiscal Rights transparency and procurement is established • Principles of transparency, accountability, integrity and participation are integrated into all other goals; capacities of public institutions at all levels are strengthened • Poor and socially excluded groups are part of decision making at all levels; minimum standards for an enabling environment for CSOs are promoted • Existing human rights norms, operational standards and commitments are a non- negotiable normative base of the new framework; development policies, programmes and practice at all levels reflect obligations under international human rights law • Strengthen access to justice and judicial accountability for human rights; national human rights monitoring bodies and quasi-judicial regulatory bodies are supported with the mandate, capacities and resources required to monitor violations of human rights and to act on complaints • Systematic integration of national reporting on development goals in reports to the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council and to international human rights treaty monitoring bodies is promoted • International cooperation and technical and financial assistance is consistent with human rights obligations and due diligence to prevent human rights abuses
Means of • Call for changes in the global economic and financial architecture through fair trade, Implementation stopping illicit financial flows and effectively tackling tax evasion and avoidance • Existing commitments on quantity and quality of aid must be met; climate finance must be public, obligatory, predictable, grant-based, and free from conditionalities 62 | Annex IV: Summary of Outreach Efforts
Theme Examples of Some of the Issues Raised (More Extensive List and Inputs at www.post2015hlp.org)
• International trade rules and policies must be socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable; public financing for development guarantees financial and development additionality to promote positive and sustainable development impact • Commodity markets must be regulated, and speculation banned; trade-distorting agricultural subsidies in developed countries should be eliminated • Domestic resource mobilisation must be enabled through changes to international tax regulation; loan-based forms of development cooperation should not be used to deliver financing commitments • Comprehensive and participatory debt audits should be conducted, with measures for immediate cancellation and repudiation of debts illegitimately owed • Flexibilities in the Trade Related Aspects of intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) must allow greater access to technology, knowledge, food sovereignty, access to health • Countries must build regional agreements to address tax competition and excessive tax incentives; Increase transparency and information exchange around tax havens • Reach universal domestic resource targets: corporate tax take, tax/GDP ratio; innovative, democratic financing mechanisms, with a focus on women, is prioritised
Children and • Include child rights provisions in constitutions, review national laws and codes in line with Youth international standards; increase budgets for child protection agencies • Ensure the participation of children and youth in decision making at all levels; invest in innovative and sustained youth-led and youth-serving programmes • Health care services must be sensitive to young people’s sexual and reproductive health and rights and barriers faced by groups such as youth living with HIV and young women • Young people must be able to access employment and economic opportunities that encompass fair wages, possibilities for funding and mentorship, equal opportunities, job and social security that offer chances for career development and training. • Traditional education is made relevant to youths’ daily lives, the progress of their communities, their work and economic prospects, and the exchange of knowledge and information in the digital economy • A focus on the post-conflict context and vulnerable groups - including women and girls, disabled youth, LGBT youth, and youth in war-affected areas - is necessary
Women • There is a reinforced standalone gender goal and expanded gender targets and indicators • Women’s access to land, property, productive resources, information and technology is strengthened; their unpaid care and social reproduction roles are accounted for • All forms of gender-based violence are addressed; access to justice must be prioritised and a package of critical services is made available to all victims of gender-based violence • Laws that discriminate on the basis of gender, criminalise or marginalise specific groups on the basis of their gender identify or sexual orientation must be repealed • Specific and cross-cutting financial allocations for women’s rights (gender budgeting) is ensured; disaggregated data is available to monitor implementation and outcomes • Women’s leadership in decision-making, including affirmative action measures for political participation at all levels; and in the private sector must be prioritised • The role of climate change, natural disasters, land grabbing and the extractives model of development in perpetuating women’s poverty is recognised and addressed Post-2015 | 63
Theme Examples of Some of the Issues Raised (More Extensive List and Inputs at www.post2015hlp.org)
Other Vulnerable • The new framework should be human rights-based and include stand-alone goals Groups: on inequality and non-discrimination, healthy life expectancy and universal social i. Disability and protection floors Ageing • Disaggregation of data by disability, age group and gender should be part of all targets ii. Informal Sector iii.Indigenous • Disability and ageing must be mainstreamed across policies of the government, and Groups laws that prevent discrimination against the disabled and aged must be put in place iv. Ethnic • Mechanisms to recognise and protect the collective rights of indigenous peoples to Minorities land, territories and resources and other rights under the UN Declaration on the Rights v. Dalits of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) must be ensured vi. Migrants vii. LGBTQI • Legislative and institutional mechanisms to recognise the indivisible rights of indigenous viii. Victims and peoples, ethnic minorities, dalits and other socially excluded groups must be put in place Survivors of • Discriminatory laws and policies that criminalise LGBTQI groups and sex workers must Gender Violence be repealed ix. Small–scale farmers, peasants, • Policies that defend the rights of peasants, Fisherfolk and other marginalised groups to Fisherfolk access land, water and other resources are put in place; legal status to the urban poor is communities provided and their rights as citizens is protected x. Workers and • Affirmative actions to empower women and other vulnerable groups to participate in Unemployed the formal economy are introduced xi. Urban Poor
Parliamentarians • Elected representatives at all levels are recognised as key stakeholders by virtue of their and Local legislative oversight, budget approval and representation duties Authorities • The importance of eliminating corruption, removing discriminatory laws and promoting respect for human rights, the rule of law and democracy is stressed • Establish robust strategies for enhancing the quality, production, use and timely distribution of socio-economic data, in particular disaggregated data, to inform development strategies, policies and targets at all levels • Develop a set of sustainable development goals which fully respect all the Rio principles; call for accelerated implementation of the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA) 2005-2015 and achievement of its goals. • Align national and international macroeconomic policies (fiscal, trade, monetary, financial flows) to ensure accessible and inclusive growth, human rights, social justice and sustainable development • Emphasise full delivery on all ODA commitments by OECD/DAC, including the target of 0.7% of GNI for ODA. Put in place mechanisms for accountable and transparent public expenditures, including redirecting military related resources to development purposes
Private Sector • Adopt an integrated approach reflecting all three pillars of sustainability – social, economic and environmental – with one set of combined goals • Promote scalable and transformational partnerships for development as a critical enabler; precise targets, with regular milestones and clear accountabilities are set to evaluate progress • The ten principles of the UN Global Compact (covering human rights, labour, environmental and anti-corruption measures) serve as the basis for standards for business in the post-2015 agenda. 64 | Annex IV: Summary of Outreach Efforts
Theme Examples of Some of the Issues Raised (More Extensive List and Inputs at www.post2015hlp.org)
• Businesses can adopt inclusive and sustainable business models, that benefit SMEs in developing countries and support transitions from informal to formal sectors. • Innovation and new technology in developing countries is encouraged; investment in telecommunications and infrastructure is made essential • Increased and better targeted financial flows from private finance are supported; in- country hubs of public-private partnership supported; foreign direct investment to developing countries is encouraged as way to move beyond aid Post-2015 | 65
Annex V: Terms of Reference and List of Panel Members
Terms of Reference for the High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
1. The High-level Panel of Eminent Persons will be a) The Millennium Declaration, The Outcome convened by the UN Secretary-General to advise him Document of Rio+20; on a bold and at the same time practical development agenda beyond 2015. b) The findings of the Report of the Secretary-General’s UN Task Team for the preparation of the Post-2015 UN 2. The High-level Panel will consist of 26 Eminent Development Agenda; as well as lessons learned and Persons, including representatives of governments, best practices from the MDGs. the private sector, academia, civil society and youth, with the appropriate geographical and gender balance. c) The findings of the various national and thematic Panelists are members in their personal capacity. consultations at regional and national levels which are coordinated by the UNDG as part of the preparations 3. The panel should conduct its work on the basis of for the Post-2015 Development Agenda; a rigorous analysis of credible shared evidence. The panel should engage and consult widely with relevant d) The need to build momentum for a constructive constituencies at national, regional and global levels. dialogue on the parameters of the Post-2015 Development Agenda, and propose innovative 4. The Special Advisor of the Secretary-General for Post- ways for governments, parliaments, civil society 2015 will be an ex-officio member of the HLP and serve organisations, the business sector, academia, local as link to the UN system. communities to engage continuously in such a dialogue; 5. The output of the Panel will be a report to the Secretary-General which will include: e) The ongoing work of the UN Task Team, the Special Advisor to the SG on Post-2015, the report a) Recommendations regarding the vision and shape of the Global Sustainability Panel of the Secretary- of a Post-2015 development agenda that will help General and the findings of the Global Sustainable respond to the global challenges of the 21st century, Development Network Initiative; as well as building on the MDGs and with a view to ending poverty. f) Any other relevant inputs it may deem appropriate.
b) Key principles for reshaping the global partnership 8. The HLP will be supported by a dedicated and for development and strengthened accountability independent secretariat headed by a senior official mechanisms; (Lead Author of the HLP report). The secretariat will also be able to draw from the wealth of knowledge and c) Recommendations on how to build and sustain expertise made available to it by the UN system. broad political consensus on an ambitious yet achievable Post-2015 development agenda around 9. The Deputy Secretary-General will oversee, on behalf the three dimensions of economic growth, social of the Secretary-General, the Post-2015 process. equality and environmental sustainability; taking into account the particular challenges of countries in 10. The Panel will present its report to the Secretary- conflict and post-conflict situations. General in the second quarter of 2013. The report will serve as a key input to the Secretary-General’s report 6. To this end, it would be essential for the work of the to the special event to follow up on efforts made HLP and of the intergovernmental Working Group on the towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to inform each and to discuss the possible contours of the Post-2015 other in order to ensure both processes are mutually Development Agenda to be organised by the President reinforcing. The HLP should advise the Secretary- of the sixty-eighth session of the General Assembly in General on how the SDGs relate to the broader Post- September 2013. 2015 development agenda.
7. To prepare the report, the Panel will take into consideration: 66 | Annex V: Panels Terms of Reference and List of Panel Members
List of Panel Members
H.E. Dr. Susilo Bambang H.E. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, The Right Honourable David Yudhoyono, President of President of Liberia Cameron MP, Prime Minister Indonesia of the United Kingdom Co-Chair Co-Chair Co-Chair
H.M. Queen Rania Al Abdullah Gisela Alonso Fulbert Amoussouga Géro Jordan Cuba Benin
Abhijit Banerjee Gunilla Carlsson Patricia Espinosa India Sweden Mexico Post-2015 | 67
Maria Angela Holguin Naoto Kan67 Tawakkol Karman Colombia Japan Yemen
Sung-Hwan Kim Horst Köhler Graça Machel Republic of Korea Germany Mozambique
Betty Maina Elvira Nabiullina Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala Kenya Russian Federation Nigeria
67. Mr. Naoto Kan attended the first two meetings, which were respectively held in September (New York) and November (Lon- don) of 2012. Mr.Kan subsequently stepped down from the panel. 68 | Annex V: Panels Terms of Reference and List of Panel Members
Andris Piebalgs Emilia Pires John Podesta Latvia Timor-Leste United States of America
Paul Polman Jean-Michel Severino Izabella Teixeira Netherlands France Brazil
Kadir Topbas Yingfan Wang Amina J. Mohammed Turkey China ex officio Post-2015 | 69
Annex VI: High Level Panel Secretariat And affiliated institutions
Homi Kharas, Lead Author and Executive Secretary The Brookings Institution
Karina Gerlach, Deputy Executive Secretary UN Department of Political Affairs
Molly Elgin-Cossart, Chief of Staff New York University, Center on International Cooperation
David Akopyan, Chief of Operations UN Development Programme
Asan Amza, Operations Associate UN Development Programme
Kara Alaimo, Head of Communications
Hany Besada, Research Specialist North-South Institute
Haroon Bhorat, Head of Research University of Cape Town
Lysa John, Head of Outreach
Nicole Rippin, Research Specialist German Development Institute
Nurana Sadikhova, Operations/Finance Specialist UN Development Programme
Céline Varin, Executive Associate UN Development Programme
Jiajun Xu, Junior Research Specialist Oxford University
Natabara Rollosson, Logistics Coordinator
Jill Hamburg Coplan, Editor
Trade and Investment Trade A New Agenda for Aid, A New Agenda for A World to Gain A World KampalaCapeTownLuandaTiranaBelgradeShanghaiPanamaCityBeijingAmmanTheHagueKhartoumIslamabadKievBernCopenhagenSofiaRomeBrasiliaBra
A World to Gain A New Agenda for Aid, Trade and Investment
A World to Gain
A New Agenda for Aid, Trade and Investment
April 2013
A World to Gain
Table of Contents
Summary 5 Introduction 9
1 Trends, developments and lessons learned 12 1.1 Shifts in global power relations 13 1.2 Increased global interconnectedness and interdependence 14 1.3 Changing patterns of poverty 14 1.4 Changing roles 16 1.5 Lessons learned 17
2 A new approach 20 2.1 Policy coherence 21 2.2 New forms of cooperation 23 2.3 New forms of financing, definition of ODA and transparency 24 2.4 Spending cuts 25
3 Changing relationships 26 3.1 Background 27 | 3 | 3.2 Global issues: international public goods (IPGs) 29 3.3 Aid relationships 34 3.4 Transitional relationships 40 3.5 Trade relationships 47
4 Cooperation 52 4.1 Bilateral relations with countries and regions 53 4.2 Civil society organisations 53 4.3 The private sector 54 4.4 Research institutions 55 4.5 The European Union 56 4.6 International organisations 57
5 Funding 58 5.1 Integrated budget for foreign trade and development cooperation 59 5.2 Cuts in development cooperation expenditure 59 5.3 Towards the 2017 budget 63
Annexes 66 Dutch Good Growth Fund country list 67 Abbreviations 68 References 70 | 4 | A World to Gain
Summary
The Netherlands wants to move forward in the world, and move forward with the world. We are involved in global problems. Ours is one of the most open countries in the world. We depend on other nations’ development for our own wellbeing and prosperity. Sustainable, inclusive growth is in our own interests and in the interests of others.
In 1981, 1.9 billion people were living in extreme poverty. By 2010, this figure had dropped to 900 million, and it will probably drop even further – to 600 million – by 2015. This means that the Millennium Development Goal of halving extreme poverty by 2015 will have been achieved. And achievement of other MDGs – for example on access to water, sanitation and primary education – is within reach. But this is not true of every MDG. We are still lagging far behind in reducing infant, child and maternal mortality rates, and in increasing access to reproductive health care.
Nearly three-quarters of the people living in extreme poverty are to be found in middle- income countries. They are not yet reaping the benefits of their countries’ economic growth. The people in question are mainly women and members of other vulnerable groups. Here the emergence of a middle class is important to put pressure on the government in these countries, thereby promoting democracy, the rule of law and women’s empowerment. Income inequality has however increased in many middle-income countries. The situation in | 5 | fragile states and countries in conflict is extremely alarming. These countries are in danger of falling far behind the rest of the world – politically, socially and economically. They also pose a threat in terms of regional stability, radicalisation and terrorism, cross-border crime, and illegal migration, trade flows and supplies of raw materials.
Asia, Africa and Latin America are the engines driving the world economy. They are expected to account for nearly 60% of the global economy by 2030. Asia and South America’s economic power is also reflected in global political relations. China and India have claimed their seats at international negotiation tables. And countries like Indonesia and South Africa are represented in the G20, while the Netherlands is no longer invited. Conversely, many European countries have seen their economies contract and rates of unemployment rise sharply in the wake of the financial crisis.
Nowhere is globalisation more readily apparent than in world trade. Between 1950 and 2007, world trade grew by an average of 6.2% a year, and global GNP by 3.8%. More and more countries have joined global production networks. The advantages of further integration in these networks are the greatest for low- and middle-income countries. But international interconnectedness also has a downside. The credit crisis and the European debt crisis have shown how problems in one country can spill over to the rest of the world. What is more, global population growth and the worldwide increase in Gross Domestic Product have led to sharply rising demand for energy, food, water and raw materials. This in turn is leading to scarcity, and rising and wildly fluctuating prices.
The influence of the Netherlands as a country is decreasing due to the emergence of new actors on the world stage. Increasingly, we are exerting our influence through the European Summary
Union. Our relations with low- and middle-income countries are on a more equal footing now that an increasing number are not only recipients of aid but also trading partners. It is becoming increasingly difficult to use aid to exert influence on poverty and equity issues. Recipient countries are taking a much more assertive attitude towards the aid they receive; and new actors like China, India and Brazil are providing aid under different conditions. What is more, the aid budget is shrinking, while income from private sources is growing in poor countries. Companies are increasingly active in developing countries. Both companies and research institutions are actively involved in seeking solutions to global problems relating to food security and water. Members of the public too are increasingly taking action against world poverty by, for example, adopting more sustainable patterns of consumption or setting up their own development projects.
The Netherlands will continue to stand by the poorest people. World poverty might be decreasing, but by no means everyone is benefiting. Nine hundred million people worldwide still live below the poverty line. Each year, 300,000 women die in childbirth. Women’s and workers’ rights are still under severe pressure. Low- and middle-income countries have few opportunities to choose their own path to growth. That is why we will continue to fight for an equitable world. That is why we will continue to strive for sustainable, inclusive growth. And that is why we are working on issues such as food security, water, security, migration, climate and trade. Poor | 6 | countries have much to gain from a global approach.
The market is not perfect. And yet it is indispensable in the fight against poverty. That is why this government encourages investment and trade activities that benefit both people and the environment, create employment opportunities, and, preferably, are accompanied by the transfer of knowledge and skills. The Netherlands is failing to connect with economic growth in Asia, Africa and South America. Trade still focuses on our neighbouring countries. Yet, thanks in part to our longstanding aid relationships, we often have close contacts with growing Asian, African and South American economies. These contacts present opportunities, because these countries are increasingly seeking a relationship with us based on equality.
These developments call for a new aid, trade and investment agenda. At international level, we are pursuing three important aims. First, to eradicate extreme poverty (‘getting to zero’) in a single generation; second, sustainable, inclusive growth all over the world; and third, success for Dutch companies abroad.
In the field of aid and trade, we can identify three types of bilateral relationship, within which we will continue to focus mainly on our current partner countries (aid) and focus countries (trade). Of course, we are engaged in a dialogue with these countries on what the relationship should entail.
1. Aid relationships Here, the focus is on countries that are unable to solve their poverty problems singlehandedly. This category includes conflict-affected and post-conflict countries, fragile states and countries with insufficient capacity to reduce poverty effectively without assistance. The countries in this category are Afghanistan, Burundi, Mali, the Palestinian Territories, Rwanda, South Sudan and Yemen. Where possible, a regional approach will be taken in the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa. A World to Gain
2. Transitional relationships Here, the focus is mainly on low- and middle-income countries with burgeoning economies. In a transitional relationship, a combination of aid and trade can benefit both the developing country and the Netherlands. Apart from poverty reduction programmes relating to the four priorities (see below), we will also support these countries in increasing their market access and improving their business climate. We will adopt this strategy in Bangladesh, Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Mozambique and Uganda. Apart from this specific group, we will of course remain active in other low- and middle-income countries by means, for instance, of private sector programmes, economic diplomacy, or aid through the European Union and multilateral institutions such as the World Bank.
3. Trade relationships Here, our main aim is to promote trade and investment, with activities that contribute to economic growth and employment in the Netherlands. The focus is on Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, France, Germany, the Gulf States, India, Iraq, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the UK, Ukraine, the US and Vietnam.
We fight extreme poverty out of solidarity with people. We encourage trade and investment mainly in our own interests. Where aid and trade meet, we will act out of both solidarity | 7 | and enlightened self-interest. Where such diverse motives play a role, conflicts of interest may arise. We will carefully weigh the different interests at stake, taking sustainable, inclusive growth as our guiding principle. After all, growth and equitable distribution do not automatically go hand in hand. Our aim in the longer term is to build a trade relationship with as many countries as possible.
In the interests of those countries with which we maintain an aid relationship, we will invest in a global development agenda to follow up the Millennium Development Goals. Apart from the four priorities of Dutch policy – women’s rights and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), water, food security, and security and the rule of law – the Netherlands wants sustainability and a minimum level of social rights to be included in this new agenda. The four priorities are still current and will be given more attention in Dutch policy. They are relevant to global poverty reduction efforts and to the Netherlands’ economic and other interests. In devising and implementing policy, we will make use of the knowledge and expertise gained through development cooperation, the technological and other knowledge of the leading Dutch sectors, research institutions and the expertise of civil society organisations. The purpose of the new international security budget is to protect civilian populations, prevent and manage humanitarian crises and promote sustainable security and stability in poor countries. The Netherlands will continue to be one of the main donors in the field of humanitarian aid.
We plan to increase access to international and regional markets for low- and middle- income countries with which we maintain a transitional relationship. We will do so by, for example, concluding partial agreements within the Doha Development Round. We will also improve support to entrepreneurs through, for instance, the Dutch Good Growth Fund. Summary
This instrument provides funds for entrepreneurs in low- and middle-income countries and for Dutch companies wanting to set up ventures with them. Dutch entrepreneurs seeking funding for exports to low- and middle-income countries may also apply to the fund. We will work towards equal opportunities and sustainable value chains, by for example promoting international corporate social responsibility.
In countries with which we maintain a trade relationship, we will work towards the conclusion of free trade agreements – with the US, for instance. We will also work to create a level playing field for international finance, attract foreign investors and protect Dutch investors abroad. We will also encourage the Dutch private sector, small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, to internationalise. We will simplify our regulations and procedures so that entrepreneurs can navigate them more easily. And we are going to help Dutch companies win contracts put out to tender by international institutions. International public goods play a major role in every part of our policy. Because they are transnational in nature, countries can only pursue them by working together. We will focus on trade, security, food security, water, climate and migration, areas where the Netherlands can make a real difference. What is more, these IPGs largely dovetail with the four priorities of our policy. In international organisations we will not only represent our own interests, but also call for low- and middle-income countries to be given a place at the negotiating | 8 | table as fully-fledged partners.
In our new policy, the European Union, the private sector and research institutions will continue to be major partners. We will form new coalitions and partnerships with various actors. Civil society organisations continue to be indispensable. We will focus on strategic partnerships that provide scope for these organisations to launch adventurous, innovative initiatives, and we plan to substantially reduce the administrative burden on them. We will also provide financial support to those organisations that are important to our policy priorities. It is essential to give greater emphasis to the non-governmental nature of civil society organisations.
This new policy is being launched within a context of shrinking budgetary frameworks. As a result of the Coalition Agreement, the ODA budget will be cut by €1 billion over the next four years. At the same time, the government has decided to free up extra funds for the international security budget and the revolving Dutch Good Growth Fund. The government will promote the interests of developing countries in other fields, including taxation and climate. But clear choices need to be made. We will focus our aid, trade and investment efforts on the priorities of food security, water, women’s rights and SRHR, and security and the rule of law. With the exception of women’s rights and SRHR, these priorities will unavoidably be hit by spending cuts, given that the Netherlands wishes to respect current commitments wherever possible, and needs to set aside funds for international expenditure on climate. The trend up to 2017 in the budgets for the priorities will partly depend on trends in our national income. The same applies to spending on improving the business climate in low- and middle-income countries (private sector development). The budgets for the crosscutting themes of good governance, the environment and education in low- and middle-income countries will be phased out more quickly; contributions to multilateral A World to Gain
organisations will be reduced and earmarked expenditure to civil society organisations will be lowered when the cofinancing programme MFS II ends in January 2016. Where relevant, these three themes will be reflected in the implementation of the priorities.
Financial table
Cuts compared to the budgetary framework of the first Rutte government (2013 Explanatory Memorandum). Amounts are in millions of euros. 2014 2017 Food security -60 -40 Women’s rights and SRHR 0 20 women’s rights 0 0 SRHR 0 20 Water, the environment and climate -150 -65 water -50 -25 environment and climate -100 -40 Security, the rule of law and good governance -125 -155 | 9 | security and rule of law -95 -120 good governance -30 -35 Emergency aid 0 0 Private sector development -105 5 Civil society* 0 -230 Multilateral expenditure** -60 -140 Other expenditure -70 -145 education and research -65 -125 culture, public support, etc. -5 -20 Deferral -180 0 Not yet allocated in 2013 Explanatory Memorandum 0 -250 TOTAL -750 -1000 Excluding: Dutch Good Growth Fund*** 250 International security budget 250 250
* new funding system for NGOs from 2016 (after MFS II) ** reduction in general contributions in areas outside the four policy priorities *** €250 million per year from 2014 to 2016 inclusive Introduction
Introduction
A new world … The old world order of two political and economic power blocs has been replaced by a multipolar world of new power blocs. Besides flexing their muscles economically, emerging economies like China, India, Brazil and South Africa are making their regional and international political presence felt. Countries that not so long ago we thought of as poor are developing faster than expected. Ghana, Vietnam and Ethiopia – to name just three – no longer want their relationship with the Netherlands to be founded on aid. They are seeking a trade relationship with us based on equality.
… new patterns of poverty … Poverty has declined throughout the world and considerable progress has been made in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Thanks in part to Dutch aid, the incidence of diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS has fallen sharply, more children are going to school and more people have access to clean drinking water. Less progress has been made in other areas such as reducing maternal mortality and the unsustainable use of natural resources. Some 900 million people still live below the poverty line; three-quarters of them live in middle-income countries, especially India and China. The importance of Official | 10 | Development Assistance (ODA) has fallen sharply in these countries, while that of investments, remittances, trade and private funds has grown. In many low-income countries, too, the relative importance of ODA is declining, but it remains a significant source of income.
… and a new position for the Netherlands … The Netherlands is an economic power. We are the seventh largest importer, the fifth largest exporter, the 11th largest investor and the second largest agricultural exporter in the world. Furthermore, we rank ninth among the recipients of foreign investment. Our business community enjoys a good international reputation, living up to its corporate social responsibility. To strengthen our position, we must adapt. Our trade is still strongly oriented towards neighbouring countries. The Netherlands is not benefiting as much as it could from the economic growth in Asia, Africa and Latin America, even though our long-standing aid relations have helped us establish good contacts with emerging countries on these continents. Our good contacts represent opportunities, especially as these countries are seeking a relationship with us based on equality. We must seize these opportunities, particularly given Europe’s disappointing economic growth.
… call for a new approach … These developments call for a new agenda for aid, trade and investment that contributes to global justice. It is our task to encourage investment and trade that benefit people and planet, create jobs and, preferably, are accompanied by the transfer of knowledge and skills. The new agenda is consistent with one of the key pillars of the coalition agreement: working for sustainable growth. We are adding inclusivity to this pillar, since growth and equitable distribution do not automatically go together. At the same time, the coalition agreement entails a considerable cut in the ODA budget. A World to Gain
… call for solidarity … When we weigh the interests at stake we must acknowledge the underlying motives. We combat extreme poverty principally out of solidarity. We encourage trade and investment principally out of self-interest. Trade can provide an important contribution to growth. Where aid and trade coincide, we act both out of solidarity and enlightened self-interest. Countries cannot alleviate their own poverty unless they grow. But growth does not benefit everyone. Emerging markets present an opportunity for our business community, especially in sectors where the Netherlands is an international leader. The combination of aid and trade can be mutually advantageous. But conflicts of interest can arise where diverse motives play a role. The Netherlands thinks sustainability is important, for example, but sustainability criteria make it more difficult for low- and middle-income countries to sell their products in our markets. In such cases we will carefully weigh the different interests at stake, taking sustainable and inclusive growth as our guiding principle.
… call for new relations … We are shifting from an aid to a trade relationship with ever more countries, opening up our markets to each other and supporting local authorities and entrepreneurs. Since trade and investment do not by themselves lead to sustainable and inclusive growth, we will continue to combat inequalities, emphasise sustainability, invest in the rule of law and support civil society organisations in their pursuit of human dignity for all. We will also | 11 | remind Dutch businesses of their responsibilities. It is in all our interests that international supply chains are made sustainable. At international level, we are pursuing three important aims. First, to eradicate extreme poverty (‘getting to zero’) in a single generation; second, sustainable, inclusive growth all over the world; and third, success for Dutch companies abroad.
… and call for good international cooperation. Countries are becoming ever more closely bound together. It is in all their interests to have good international trade agreements and to address transnational problems such as conflicts, migration, water scarcity, climate change, malnutrition and food insecurity. A global and regional approach to the corresponding international public goods (IPGs) is essential. Our aim is to give low- and middle-income countries a place at the international negotiating table as fully-fledged partners when these problems are discussed. These countries are the most vulnerable to such transnational problems.
Contents of this document This document is made up of the following chapters. Chapter 1 describes the trends, developments and lessons learned. Chapter 2 outlines the new approach in that changing context. Chapter 3 connects the approach to activities (including activities for IPGs). Chapter 4 looks at the consequences of our policy for cooperation with our partners. Chapter 5 presents the budgetary framework, including the spending cuts. 1 Trends, developments and lessons learned A World to Gain
This chapter outlines the relevant trends, global developments and main lessons learned about trade and aid.
1.1 Shifts in global power relations
Rapidly emerging countries … Asia, Latin America and Africa (see also figure 1) are the engines driving the world economy. And with their fast-growing populations, they will remain so for the foreseeable future. They are expected to account for nearly 60% of the global economy by 2030. China is forecast to overtake the USA and become the largest economy in the world in 2016. In Latin America, Brazil is performing particularly well however Colombia and Chile are also growing quickly. In Africa, Ethiopia (7% growth in GDP in 2012), Mozambique (8%) and Ghana (8%) are expanding rapidly. The IMF has predicted that within five years Africa will be home to no fewer than seven of the top 10 fastest growing economies.
Figure 1 Per capita GDP growth
| 13 | - - - - India EU27 China Russia South Asia (excl. India) (excl. Latin America North America Sub-Saharan Africa East Asia (excl. China) East Asia (excl.
Source: calculations based on World Development Indicators
... and the economic problems in the EU … Many European countries have seen their economies contract and unemployment rise sharply since the start of the financial crisis. More than a quarter of the people in Spain and Greece are jobless. In the Netherlands, more than 600,000 people are unemployed. Our economy went into recession again at the end of last year. A recovery is foreseen for 2014 and subsequent years as world trade picks up again. Thanks in part to the good connections with the hinterland provided by our major transport hubs, the Dutch economy will benefit significantly from any recovery. Trends, developments and lessons learned
... are causing rapid shifts in global power relations. The economic power of Asia and South America is also reflected in global political relations. China and India have claimed their seats at international negotiation tables. And countries like Indonesia and South Africa are represented in the G20, while the Netherlands is no longer invited. The new global power relations obviously affect how international institutions and bodies operate, and how the Netherlands operates within them.
1.2 Increased global interconnectedness and interdependence The importance of integration in global supply chains is increasing … Nowhere is globalisation more evident than in world trade. Between 1950 and 2007 world trade increased annually by 6.2% on average and global GNP by 3.8%. More and more countries are becoming linked up to the global supply chain and gaining easier access to new knowledge and technology as a result. Low- and middle-income countries benefit most from integration into the supply chain. They have seen their share in the chain increase from 20% in 1990 to 30% now. Their share in the services sector has nearly doubled in the same period: from 11% to 21%. This is due chiefly to trade between low- and middle-income countries. Trade | 14 | between Africa and China, for example, increased from USD 10 billion in 2000 to USD 166 billion in 2011.
… and global issues are becoming more pressing. There is also a downside to international interconnectedness. The credit crisis and the European debt crisis show how problems in one country can spread to the rest of the world. Furthermore, demand for energy, food, water and raw materials has increased sharply owing to the growth of the world’s population and global GDP. This is leading to scarcity, upward pressure on prices and wide fluctuations in prices. At the same time, the pressure on our environment is increasing, with climate change, environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity as a result. Supply chains must be made more sustainable. Historically, there is a link between scarcity and the outbreak of conflicts. Trade and the financial system, climate, food and water and certain aspects of migration, security and stability are sometimes referred to as international public goods because they affect us all. Low- and middle-income countries often suffer the most from global problems and have the fewest opportunities to withstand them.
1.3 Changing patterns of poverty
Extreme poverty is gradually declining throughout the world ... The heads of government of 189 countries adopted eight Millennium Development Goals in 2000 to reduce poverty, disease and hunger before 2015. Significant progress has been achieved in recent years (see figure 2), especially with the goal to halve extreme poverty. In 1981, 1.9 billion people lived in extreme poverty; by 2010 the number was 900 million and it will probably fall to 600 million by 2015. And achievement of other MDGs – for example on access to water, sanitation and primary education – is within reach. But this is not true of every A World to Gain
MDG. We are still lagging far behind in reducing infant, child and maternal mortality rates, and in increasing access to reproductive health care.
Figure 2 Progress towards the MDGs
Progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals ...
age group)
mortality rate | 15 | without access) sanitation (% of (total of relevant MDG 3.a Ratio of MDG 1.a Extreme MDG 7.c Access to MDG 7.c Access to >USD 1.25 per day) MDG 5.a Maternal per 100,000 births) primary education MDG 2.a Universal MDG 4.a Under- ve MDG 4.a Under- ve (per 1,000 live births) (per 1,000 live births) girls to boys in primary water (% of population mortality ratio (estimate and secondary education MDG 4.a Infant mortality poverty (% of population population without access) Progress needed by 2012 Actual progress but not everyone is benefiting from increased prosperity … Nearly three-quarters of the people living in extreme poverty – mainly women and members of other vulnerable groups – are to be found in middle-income countries. They are not yet reaping the benefits of their countries’ economic growth. Income inequality has increased in many middle-income countries. Between 1990 and 2007, the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, rose in China from 0.36 to 0.47, in Indonesia from 0.29 to 0.36 and in Ghana from 0.34 to 0.43. The higher the Gini coefficient, the greater the income inequality.
... owing to a lack of opportunities … Sustainable development requires a fair distribution of opportunities. Economic growth does not automatically trickle down to all levels of the population. In many middle-income countries, there is little if any political attention for the interests of poor men and women. The emerging assertive middle class is exerting pressure on governments and facilitating democracy, the rule of law and the empowerment of women. Positive social processes must be nurtured to increase prosperity and equality. Greater purchasing power at the lower end of the social scale increases business activity and promotes economic dynamism. Economic growth by no means always leads to jobs, access to clean drinking water and equal rights for women. Furthermore, many people – especially women – still work in the informal sector. This makes them vulnerable and difficult to reach. Two billion women do not work in a productive sector, even though a large proportion of them want paid employment. Trends, developments and lessons learned
...which can lead to social exclusion and instability. Rapid population growth is exacerbating the problem of unemployment. In 2020, the number of jobs in sub-Saharan Africa must be at least 50% higher than in 2005 to hold the official unemployment rate at the same level. In South Asia, East Asia and Oceania, a million jobs would have to be created every month. High unemployment can lead to social disorder and instability, especially in rapidly expanding cities. Half the population of low- and middle-income countries will live in cities in 2020.
Basis for growth lacking in fragile states. The situation in fragile states and conflict countries gives cause for concern. These countries are in danger of being left far behind the rest of the world politically, socially and economically. They also represent a threat in terms of regional stability, radicalisation and terrorism, transnational crime, and illegal migration, trade flows and supplies of raw materials. One and a half billion people in these countries face a difficult if not impossible task to break free from poverty. A positive development is that the number of deaths in conflicts has declined from 180,000 in the 1980s to 50,000 between 2000 and 2010. But without peace, security and the rule of law, the prospect of a better future is slim. It is thought that two-thirds of poor people will live in fragile states and conflict countries in 2025. | 16 | 1.4 Changing roles
The Netherlands will play a different role in the world … The influence of the Netherlands as a country is decreasing due to the emergence of new actors on the world stage. Increasingly, we are exerting our influence through the European Union. Our relations with low- and middle-income countries are on a more equal footing now that an increasing number are not only recipients of aid but also trading partners. It is becoming increasingly difficult to use aid to exert influence on poverty and equity issues. Recipient countries are taking a much more assertive attitude towards the aid they receive; and new actors like China, India and Brazil are providing aid under different conditions. What is more, the aid budget is shrinking, while income from private sources is growing in poor countries thanks to trade and investment flows, remittances by migrants, tax revenue and income from raw materials. Only in the case of low-income countries and fragile states does ODA remain the main external source of income.
…and the role of businesses, civil society organisations, research institutions and citizens is growing. Businesses are becoming more active in developing countries, not only as trade partners but also as investors in projects that transfer knowledge and technology to support local authorities and entrepreneurs. Businesses and research institutions are also actively involved in the search for solutions to global problems such as food security and water. More citizens are taking action to eradicate global poverty, for example by consuming more sustainable products or by carrying out their own development projects. Private donations by philanthropic institutions to low- and middle-income countries amount to about USD 55 billion per annum, nearly half of all ODA provided every year by all the members of the A World to Gain
OECD Development Committee. Civil society organisations remain important, especially in areas where it is difficult for the government to work and as promoters of citizens’ rights in low- and middle-income countries at local, national and global level.
1.5 Lessons learned
Development lessons … A good balance must be struck between social, economic and ecological development. Social development has an intrinsic value from a human rights point of view but is not tenable without sustainable economic development. Conversely, economic development requires long-term investment in social sectors. Growth is not sustainable if it is accompanied by great inequality and exclusion. Development has proven possible in a variety of political systems, but political participation by a country’s citizens is an important condition for lasting social cohesion. This calls for good leadership, an open political system and a willingness to reform and innovate. The state must play an active role, by gradually opening up to world markets and through social policy. Only people and countries can ‘develop’ themselves. External aid is seldom decisive but it is often indispensable at a low income level. Development is country specific. There are no universal recipes but certain principles are nearly always important. Macroeconomic | 17 | stability and an effective policy against inflation, for example, are essential. A sustainable agricultural sector makes a significant contribution to development. Industrialisation did not really take off in Southeast Asia, for example, until there had been a significant reduction in rural poverty. The rule of law is also a condition for the safeguarding of development. In the field of security, our experience with the integrated approach has been favourable in recent years. The idea is that development is not possible without security and, conversely, long-term security is sustainable only if there is a prospect of development. To this end, a range of instruments in the fields of development, defence and diplomacy (the ‘3D approach’) are being implemented in conflict-affected countries.
…aid… Important lessons have also been learned with regard to aid. Many of them relate to effectiveness and have been laid down in the Paris Declaration (2005), which was later elaborated upon in the Accra Agenda for Action (2008) and the Busan Declaration (2011). All these lessons highlight the importance of better cooperation: country-specific strategies (ownership), the participation of local institutions, harmonisation of donor procedures, the measuring of results and mutual accountability for them. Several other principles are also important, such as predictability: multiyear cooperation agreements with the prospect of continuity and clear phasing-out provisions. Frequent changes in the aid pattern can reduce the effectiveness of aid. This is one of the reasons to maintain the current priorities and not to change the list of partner countries until their development gives cause to do so. Aid must remain focused. Fragmentation (across countries and/or themes) creates inefficiencies owing to the donors’ high fixed management costs and higher transaction Trends, developments and lessons learned
costs for the recipients. To prevent dependency, aid must complement local efforts. Financing must be shared wherever possible so that risks are shared.
…and trade… International trade increases productivity. Companies active on the international market often employ more people and pay higher wages than those that are not. To encourage international business, the government must minimise its use of grants. Again, ‘aid’ should be both a stimulus and, above all, a complement to local efforts. If markets do not work efficiently, the government can help by, for example, offering businesses export credit insurance. The government is a dominant actor in many emerging markets. The Dutch government must use advice and economic diplomacy to help businesses open doors that would otherwise remain closed. Trade does not automatically reduce poverty. The impact is the greatest in countries that make additional reforms – appropriate investments in education, a stronger financial sector and good governance – enabling them to cope with the international competition. Trade ‘aids’ a developing country when improvements to its starting position are accompanied by the removal of barriers to trade and by corporate social responsibility.
| 18 | A World to Gain
| 19 | 2 A new approach A World to Gain
A different role in the world calls for a different approach. We are going to pay closer attention to the coherence between policy fields. We will seek a new definition of ODA, transparent financial and non-financial data and new forms of financing and cooperation. This new approach will be worked out against the background of an economic crisis and thus substantial spending cuts.
2.1 Policy coherence
Policy coherence for development means that the consequences of our policy for low- and middle-income countries will be taken into account in our decision-making. The Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation is responsible not only for the coherence of development policy but also for the coherence of foreign trade policy. Combining aid and trade can be mutually beneficial. Larger volumes of trade between the Netherlands and low- and middle-income countries will benefit us both. Nevertheless conflicts of interest can arise, for example with regard to how quickly markets are opened up, the enforcement of product standards and sustainability requirements. A number of concrete examples are provided below.
It is in the Netherlands’ interests to gain rapid access to the markets of low- and middle- | 21 | income countries. Yet it is uncertain whether these countries have developed strongly enough to compete on the international market. In the EU, we are a strong advocate of long transitional periods and complementary measures to help low- and middle-income countries develop their private sectors further.
Dutch companies that maximise their profits by employing contrived tax avoidance arrangements can damage low- and middle-income countries. Low taxes for individual companies do not weigh up against the unintended loss of tax revenue in low- and middle-income countries. Together with the Minister of Finance, we are studying whether tax treaties concluded by the Netherlands with a number of developing countries are in line with the memorandum on Dutch tax treaty policy of 2011.1 In doing so, we will see whether these treaties have unintended effects. That would be the case if, for example, the treaty with the Netherlands presents more opportunities than treaties with other countries to erode the tax base in developing countries. Should that prove to be the case, we are prepared to enter into dialogue with those countries. Of course, treaty partners themselves may launch a dialogue with the Netherlands on the treaties. The Netherlands is actively supporting an OECD action plan to combat tax avoidance and the erosion of tax bases. Products traded on European markets are subject to strict safety, sustainability and packaging standards. The standards are a barrier to products from low- and middle-income countries. They protect our consumers but indirectly give our manufacturers a competitive advantage. Rather than lowering our standards, we will encourage producers from
1 Parliamentary Papers, House of Representatives 2010-2011, no. 25 087, no. 7 A new approach
developing countries to comply with them, for example through the Centre for the Promotion of Imports from Developing Countries (CBI). We want farmers in low-income countries to be able to sell their produce on international markets. To this end, the interests of farmers in OECD countries most be brought more into line with the interests of farmers in low-income countries. This means that markets must be opened up more, for example by phasing out import tariffs. In comparison with other OECD members, the EU has long provided access to farm products from low-income countries. The Netherlands wants the reform of the common agricultural policy to lead to a further phasing out of grants that distort trade. The Netherlands also supports measures to combat food dumping by abolishing export support and by phasing out support to farmers in other OECD countries.
The revision of the EU annual accounts directive will introduce a requirement for mining and logging companies to disclose the payments they make to the governments in the countries where they operate. Transparency as regards earnings from raw materials is an important means to combat corruption in countries with a wealth of natural resources. Transparency better enables citizens to hold their governments to account for their use of revenues. The potential downside of transparency is that some governments would not be prepared to accept investments by companies that are required to disclose the payments | 22 | they make. European – including Dutch – companies therefore have less freedom and a more onerous administrative burden than those not required to disclose these payments. Nonetheless, the government expects that once a critical mass of companies and countries comply with this reporting requirement, fewer countries will claim infringements of national prohibitions on disclosing payments. The US Dodd-Frank Act contains a similar provision on transparency. As indicated in two previous letters to the House of Representatives,2 for this reason the Netherlands recently called for no exceptions to be made to the reporting requirement. Negotiations with the European Parliament on the directive are at an advanced stage, and agreement is expected to be reached between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament in the near future. It will then be up to the Commission to monitor correct implementation of the annual accounts directive by the member states.
It has become clear in recent years that the production of first-generation biofuels is detrimental to the production of food, can lead to degradation of the ecosystem and displacement of the local population. Furthermore, the contribution from biofuels to reducing CO2 emissions is less favourable than initially assumed. The blending obligation has been revised but more is needed. We do not want our biofuel blending to have negative consequences elsewhere. Together with the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and the Ministry of Economic Affairs I will seek the formulation and introduction of criteria for the sustainable production of biofuels in both an EU and an international context.
2 Letter to Parliament of 8 February 2013 on exceptions to the reporting requirement on payments to governments (House of Representatives 2012-2013, 21 501-30, no. 303) and answers to the question posed by members Bram van Ojik, Marit Maij and Mei Li Vos on the Dutch position on financial transparency in the commodities sector (House of Representatives 2012-2013, Annexe 1566) A World to Gain
The trade section of the association agreement with Central America includes agreements to improve access to each other’s markets. Dutch insurers, for example, have better opportunities on Central American markets and Dutch dredging companies can compete for public contracts on the Panama Canal. In exchange, the EU has improved access to its markets for sugar, beef and other products. In this instance, the interests of Dutch dredging companies in Central America conflict with the interests of sugar manufacturers in the Netherlands because in exchange for the opportunity to dredge the Panama Canal, the EU has opened up its sugar market. In such cases we opt for the solution that delivers the best result for the Dutch economy.
These are only a few examples of the assessments we have to make. If interests conflict, the government must make clear and measured choices in each individual case, guided by the principle of sustainable and inclusive growth.
2.2 New forms of cooperation
We will work in a different way with our partners. In accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) regarding the interaction between the actors in international cooperation, we believe the traditional division into channels (bilateral, multilateral, civil society organisations and the private sector) is becoming less | 23 | relevant today. Cooperation is becoming more ‘hybrid’. Increasingly, new forms of cooperation are required with companies, research institutions and NGOs, such as the Global Alliance to Improve Nutrition. We will also enter into new alliances with countries and philanthropic institutions to tackle problems at national and international level. We will retain the country list for bilateral cooperation, however but will increase its flexibility by reviewing it more frequently. We will opt more often for a regional approach as the best means to tackle problems such as instability and food insecurity.
Trilateral cooperation is growing in importance in our direct poverty reduction initiatives. In such alliances, the Netherlands works with an emerging middle-income country in order to support the development of a low-income country. We seek contacts with new players that have their own agenda and specific expertise, for example in combating poverty, like Brazil.
Civil society organisations have lost none of their relevance. They are vital to identify social and economic injustices. Civil society organisations in low- and middle-income countries have grown stronger in recent years. At the same time, in many countries NGOs are not guaranteed political freedom. We will therefore work in strategic partnerships with civil society organisations, seeking forms of cooperation between organisations both here in the Netherlands and in developing countries that have clear added value and are more aligned with Dutch policy priorities. We will also support civil society organisations politically. Restrictions on their freedom of action will be specifically addressed in our bilateral contacts.
Companies and research institutions will be given a new role. The trade and investment domain provides opportunities for sustainable and inclusive growth in low- and middle- income countries. Companies and research institutions are essential development partners A new approach
on account of their knowledge, technology and networks. The internationalisation initiatives of the leading Dutch economic sectors show that the business community wants to work in developing countries and in strictly regulated sectors such as energy, logistics, water, horticulture and propagation materials, and agrifood. Here too, research institutions support policy on the leading Dutch sectors: by teaching and doing targeted research they help to develop and expand knowledge within them. We will invite companies and research institutions to take part in our missions. Further support will be provided in the form of private sector instruments (see section 4.4). Trade must play a bigger role in bilateral aid relations, subject to certain conditions. Companies must commit themselves to sustainability and corporate social responsibility criteria, including compliance with the applicable EU rules on country-by-country reporting.
Our relationship with international organisations is changing. We will focus aid more sharply on international organisations that are engaged in areas where Dutch companies, research institutions and civil society organisations are among the best in the world and that are at the heart of Dutch policy. We will increasingly participate in international initiatives involving a variety of players, such as the Aid for Trade Agenda of the OECD and WTO, the agrichain and food security initiatives of the World Economic Forum and the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM). This will increase effectiveness. | 24 | In a world of radical change and new challenges, the Netherlands needs European cooperation above all else. Through the EU we can make our voice heard in such areas as trade politics and investment protection and incorporate sustainability into international trade and investment treaties. We will also work more often in an EU context in respect of other IPGs. Within the EU, we will improve the coordination of our aid efforts with those of other member states. We will also carry out more joint programmes. Furthermore, we will raise sensitive issues such as human rights and good governance through the EU wherever possible. By doing so, our voice will be better heard and our efforts will have a higher return.
2.3 New forms of financing, definition of ODA and transparency We will make greater use of new financing mechanisms, such as guarantees and venture capital. This will enable us to tap new funding sources, including banks and companies. We will continue existing initiatives such as The Currency Exchange Fund (TCX). By hedging exchange rate risks, this fund helps prevent entrepreneurs in developing countries being saddled with risks they cannot bear. We will introduce two new instruments: the Dutch Good Growth Fund (previously known as the Revolving Fund) and the International Security Budget. The Dutch Good Growth Fund will help finance entrepreneurs both in developing countries and in the Netherlands, especially small and medium-sized enterprises that want to trade with and invest in low- and middle-income countries. An initial presentation of the fund is provided in section 3.4. The international security budget is considered further in section 3.3. This budget will strengthen cooperation between the various parts of the 3D policy (Development, Defence, Diplomacy). A World to Gain
Innovative financing instruments are not always compatible with the official definition of ODA. Other, often substantial, development-related initiatives that contribute to prosperity and economic growth also fail to meet the definition. This is undesirable. In the international debate on the future of ODA to be held in the OECD and elsewhere in the years ahead, we will call for a broader definition that embraces innovative financing mechanisms and other development-related expenditure. We will take a close look at subjects that are currently covered by the ODA definition but have little relevance to development. Turkey and China, for example, are on the ODA country list. The interministerial policy review to modernise the definition of ODA will present its recommendations before the summer.
We will make our own activities and expenditure more transparent. We will take part in open data initiatives such as the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). This initiative makes data on Dutch development policy accessible to a wider public and enables us to share and re-use data with third parties, for example through the www.openaid.nl website and the ‘Where does my aid go?’ app of the OneWorld magazine. Initiatives such as IATI are directed at people and organisations in the Netherlands and at people in low- and middle-income countries. Under the banner of the IATI, we will publish more data, including data from our implementing organisations. We will publish data at country and activity level and data on ODA flows that are not the responsibility of the ministry, development-related expenditure classified as Other Official Flows, and private | 25 | contributions in the form of investments, grants and loans. We have a responsibility to show the taxpayer what we do and what we achieve.
2.4 Spending cuts
The one-billion-euro cut in the development budget over the next four years will force us to make choices. We will concentrate our aid and trade efforts on the priorities of food security, water, women’s rights and SRHR, and security and the rule of law. The government has also decided to release additional funds for the international security budget and the Dutch Good Growth Fund.
With the exception of women’s rights and SRHR, spending on the priorities will be cut because the Netherlands wishes as far as possible to respect current commitments and release funds from the development budget to finance international climate expenditure. Changes in the budgets for the priorities between now and 2017 will depend in part on the growth of national income.
Spending will be cut principally by reducing expenditure on the crosscutting themes of good governance, the environment and education faster than planned and integrating them into the priorities where relevant, by reducing contributions to multilateral organisations and by reducing earmarked expenditure on civil society organisations after the end of MFS II on 1 January 2016. The budgetary framework of this letter is considered in chapter 5. 3 Changing relationships A World to Gain
3.1 Background
Our relationships with other countries are changing in the wake of global developments. The aid, trade and investment agenda focuses on three groups in particular, i.e. countries whose relationship with the Netherlands is primarily based on aid; countries with which we have a transitional relationship, in which both aid and trade play a role; and countries with which our relationship revolves around trade and investment.
We will be focusing on a limited number of countries in each of these three groups. In deciding which, we took the following into account: income levels and levels of poverty, UNDP’s Human Development Index, the activities of other donors, the knowledge and expertise the Netherlands has to offer, opportunities for the Dutch private sector and the historical relationship with the Netherlands. In order to increase the effectiveness of past and current efforts, we have aimed for a degree of continuity in our choice of countries. At the same time, however, we also need to ensure sufficient flexibility to enable us to respond to economic and political developments. For this reason, we will regularly take a critical look at the country lists presented below. We will enter into dialogue with each country to decide what our relationship should entail.
1. Aid relationships | 27 | This category includes conflict-affected and post-conflict countries, fragile states and countries with insufficient institutional capacity to reduce poverty effectively without external assistance. The list of countries with which we have a mainly aid-based relationship includes Afghanistan, Burundi, Mali, the Palestinian Territories, Rwanda, South Sudan and Yemen. In these countries, we link action to reduce poverty to activities in the field of security and diplomacy. Since problems relating to issues such as security and the environment are not confined to single countries, we are increasingly adopting a regional approach, in the African Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa for instance. Each of the countries targeted by the Central America Programme (MAP) – Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador – has the status of low-to-middle income country. The relationship with this region is increasingly moving towards trade and investment. Aid to this region will therefore be phased out in the years to come.
2. Transitional relationships In this category are countries with which our relationship is based on both aid and trade, i.e. Bangladesh, Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Mozambique and Uganda. The need for direct intervention to reduce poverty will decline as we build or extend our trade and investment relations. The pace at which this will occur will differ from country to country. In low-income countries like Mozambique and Ethiopia our work will mainly centre directly on poverty reduction in the next few years, while in countries like Ghana and Indonesia the aid relationship can be phased out.
We will enter into a multi-year bilateral aid relationship with a larger development budget (delegated funds) with the 15 countries with which we have chosen to maintain an aid or transitional relationship. This does not mean to say that Dutch development funds will no Changing relationships
longer be invested in any other countries. The EU, multilateral institutions and civil society organisations are active in many low- and middle-income countries. The private sector programmes, the Stability Fund and the scholarship programmes are open to a greater number of countries. In implementing these programmes, we will focus ODA funds on low- and low-to-middle income countries. A special transition facility is available for countries where the aid relationship is moving towards a trade relationship. The ties we have forged with these countries through our aid relationship can be used to strengthen our trade and investment relationship.
3. Trade relationships Relationships with countries in this category are primarily based on trade and investment. We will focus our efforts on our relationship with Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, France, Germany, the Gulf States, India, Iraq, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the UK, Ukraine, the US and Vietnam. Activities will aim to facilitate the success of Dutch companies abroad. For example, we are working hard on an offensive to internationalise our leading sectors. There is enormous potential for the Netherlands in sectors such as energy, agrifood and water, where our companies and research institutions are international leaders. We will also mainly focus on countries undergoing rapid | 28 | development, where it is important for the Netherlands to win a share of the market, especially in view of disappointing growth in Europe.
International public goods
1. Aid relationship 2. Transitional 3. Trade relationship relationship
Aid recipients Trading partners A World to Gain
The relationship between the Netherlands and other countries may change in the wake of economic and political developments. If low-income countries develop quickly, the need for aid will decline and reciprocal trade-related interests will increase. We will move from an aid to a trade relationship with these countries. That does not mean that aid will become unnecessary. Economic growth does not automatically lead to better opportunities and more quality of life for everyone. We will therefore continue to be committed to inclusive growth – a more equitable distribution of income and equal opportunities. In addition, we may also trade with and invest in countries with which our relationship is primarily based on aid. In other words, there are no watertight divisions between the three elements of policy. If development proceeds as desired, the number of countries in the right-hand circle in the figure above will increase, and the number in the left-hand circle will decrease. The four priorities – water, food security, security and the rule of law, and women’s rights and SRHR – are still current, and will be given more attention. Many activities under these priorities are now beginning to bear fruit and it would be inefficient to nip positive developments in the bud. But of greater importance is the fact that these priorities are relevant to poverty reduction and to the Netherlands’ economic and other interests. In working on the four priorities we will make as much use as possible of the technological and other knowledge of the leading Dutch sectors. The added value brought by the Netherlands to the themes identified as priorities is internationally recognised, thanks partly to the knowledge possessed by our private sector, civil society organisations and | 29 | research institutions. The Netherlands has many years’ experience of water management, which we can use to help other countries solve their water problems. We have an outstanding agricultural sector and food processing industry. We have much experience of agricultural and other logistics, enabling us to contribute to global food security. The Netherlands’ 3D (Defence, Diplomacy and Development) approach to the theme of security and the rule of law has received international acclaim, and The Hague is the legal capital of the world. Lastly, the Netherlands has long had robust civil society organisations working to promote women’s rights and SRHR.
3.2 Global issues: international public goods (IPGs)
This new agenda will be rolled out within an international context in which transnational problems are looming ever larger. Every country stands to benefit from safeguarding international public goods (IPGs) such as food security, climate and security. Our new Trading partners agenda cannot be implemented without reliable agreements between countries on these goods. Pursuing and enforcing sensible management of IPGs is a collective interest and is thus in the Netherlands’ own interests.
We are therefore working at various levels – multilateral, regional and bilateral – and with various partners – international institutions, countries, civil society organisations and companies – to conclude international agreements. We are committed not only to protecting our own interests, but also to ensuring that low- and middle-income countries have a greater say in international negotiations. The EU will be the primary conduit by which we will seek to further our aims. We will focus mainly on achieving results in relation Changing relationships
to trade, security and the rule of law, food security, water, climate and migration. The Netherlands can make a difference in these areas, given that companies and research institutions in the leading Dutch sectors can make a very valuable contribution. Reasonably well-developed international forums in which most countries are represented already exist in the field of trade (WTO) and security (United Nations and NATO). However, global governance of the other IPGs often falls short. A recurring problem is that low- and middle-income countries have too little voice in the international forums in which decisions are taken on IPGs. These countries are often ill-prepared to use the methods and procedures needed to exert influence effectively. That is an unfortunate state of affairs: international organisations can only function properly if they are sufficiently representative.
The report to be issued by the Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) later this year on global challenges in the field of food, energy, water and climate, will help us shape policy on these IPGs. We will inform parliament of our further plans in relation to these themes after the report has been issued.
Our agenda
3.2.1 Trade | 30 | The WTO negotiations on a comprehensive agreement on liberalising world trade have reached deadlock. A major theme of these negotiations, based since 2001 on the Doha Development Agenda, is that low- and middle-income countries should benefit from the growth in world trade. During this government’s term in office, we will attempt to achieve a breakthrough on some themes and conclude partial agreements. The Netherlands is, for example, committed to concluding a partial agreement on trade facilitation. According to studies conducted by the World Bank, the actual introduction of better rules on trade facilitation could lead in both developed and developing countries to improvements in welfare amounting to tens of billions of euros. Trade procedures – for example customs procedures – need to be harmonised and simplified in order to reduce the costs of trade. African countries, and countries like China, India and Brazil, say that trade facilitation calls for expenditure – investment in ICT, for example – which developing countries cannot afford. The Netherlands, the EU and other donors, will meet the need for technical assistance and capacity building. Low- and middle-income countries may also implement agreements at their own pace, and do not need to implement them in their entirety from the outset. The extent to which low- and middle-income countries may take a flexible approach to implementing the agreements is one of the hot issues in the negotiations. Here, emerging markets, led by India, are at odds with donor countries. Moreover, countries like India and Brazil want to link trade facilitation to discussions on agriculture. The aim is to conclude an agreement on trade facilitation at the Ministerial Conference in December 2013.
The members of the WTO have equal voting rights. But having equal voting rights does not by definition mean exerting equal influence. That calls for knowledge, of both the trading system and its requisite procedures and the problems local companies encounter in selling their products in international markets. The Netherlands supports low- and middle-income countries in acquiring the necessary knowledge. We were, for example, among the A World to Gain
countries supporting the launch of the Advisory Centre on WTO Law which helps in the settlement of disputes. We will continue to support this initiative. We also wish to enable talks on trade liberalisation, based, of course, on a reliable analysis of the wishes of the private sector in low- and middle-income countries.
3.2.2 Climate Climate change and the exhaustion of natural resources (environment, soil and biodiversity) impose limits on the social and economic development of both poor and rich countries. Climate change is a major cause of natural disasters, such as floods. Drought pushes up the price of food and environmental degradation leads to destruction of our natural production base and loss of ecosystems. The very poorest people, women in particular, are hit first and hardest. For this reason, too, it is important for the Netherlands to focus its efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change on low- and low-to-middle income countries, wherever possible. The Netherlands will also work for an ambitious climate policy in which international agreements are reached on the reduction of CO2 emissions and for policy to prevent the exhaustion of natural resources. We are now working to achieve these aims in close cooperation with the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.
In international negotiations, the Netherlands has pledged to contribute to the extra costs of mitigation and adaptation to climate change in developing countries. Depending in part on | 31 | the progress of the international climate talks, the Dutch contribution may rise from €200 million in 2013 to €1.2 billion in 2020, and comprise both public and private funds. Climate is a perfect example of an area where closer cooperation with the private sector can be sought, ultimately leading to a stronger Dutch commitment. Given the considerable knowledge and expertise the private sector possesses in these fields, it can play a highly significant role. Ultimately, this contribution should go hand in hand with the seizing of opportunities in the sectors relevant to climate and the environment, such as the agriculture and water sectors. Given the relationship between climate change and natural disasters, the Netherlands will make a stronger commitment to disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience.
Climate change has repercussions for many other themes: drought puts food security under pressure, floods increase the importance of water management, the degradation of soil and forests hits women first, and the exhaustion of natural resources can lead to conflicts. Ecological degradation is also strongly related to inequality between the richer and poorer parts of the world. Frontrunners in the private sector are aware of these threats, and are already taking measures. It is therefore becoming increasingly necessary to mainstream climate within the policy priorities, for example within sustainable water management and food security programmes.
3.2.3 Food security Food security is developing into a global issue. Climate change and wildly fluctuating prices on the commodity market are major factors threatening food security. Poor countries that import food are particularly vulnerable, since they are most severely hit by the fluctuating food prices. Though the Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people in the world suffering from hunger by 2015 is within reach, one person in every eight is still Changing relationships
chronically hungry/undernourished. In Africa that figure is one person in every four. Achieving food security calls for the commitment of the entire agricultural production and trade chain. We must not only increase food production, but also improve the quality (nutritional value) and distribution of food without harming our living environment and the climate. The agriculture sector is not only affected by climate change, but is itself responsible for emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation will work closely with the Minister for Agriculture in the search for solutions, on the basis of their respective responsibilities for the different facets of food security. Dutch companies and research institutions in our leading sectors (e.g. agrifood, horticulture and propagation materials, logistics and water) possess exceptional knowledge and technology that could be used to bring global food security within reach. We are sharing our knowledge within international knowledge networks such as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Dutch companies and research institutions are also involved in public-private partnerships, for example to improve food security in Ethiopia (see section 3.4). We will devote particular attention to strengthening the role of women in agriculture. Studies show that if women had the same access as men to sources of production, hunger in the world would decrease by between 12% and 17%. | 32 | The distribution of food also needs to be improved. Through inefficiency in the production and trade chain, 30% of the food produced never reaches the consumer. The cause is not only poor harvesting and production methods, but also badly organised trading systems. That is why we are also focusing on issues such as promoting trade facilitation and encouraging regional trade, in Africa for example. The Netherlands is promoting these issues in international organisations such as the FAO, WFP, IFAD and the World Bank. The Netherlands is also involved in G20 and G8 food security initiatives.
Climate-smart agriculture Climate change is severely affecting the development of smallholder agriculture in vulnerable areas. More robust forms of land and water use are urgently needed to cope with drought, heavy rainfall, shifting seasons and other increasingly frequent occurrences. With its Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) is improving smallhol- ders’ resilience to climate change. ASAP integrates resilience to climate change within every agriculture programme run by IFAD with government authorities, local organisations and the local private sector in developing countries. This programme is enabling vulnerable smallholder agriculture to adapt to climate change, while supporting sustainable agricultural development in the future, and thus local food security. The Netherlands is also a driving force behind climate-smart agriculture, i.e. highly productive agriculture which is resilient to climate change and emits less CO2. To put this subject on the international map, the Netherlands organised two international conferences, the second in and with Vietnam in September 2012. The Netherlands will press ahead with its efforts in pursuit of this aim. A World to Gain
3.2.4 Water In its Global Risks 2013 report, the World Economic Forum cites water security as one of the greatest social, political and economic challenges of our time. This encompasses water scarcity, flooding and pollution. By 2030 global demand for water will outstrip supply by 40%. In North Africa and the Middle East, groundwater levels are sinking so rapidly as to threaten regional stability and security. Where water governance fails and water problems are tackled inadequately, major ecosystems, crucial services and economic interests come under pressure – urban drinking water supplies, energy supplies, agriculture and industry. Water can then become a major cause of regional conflict.
We will therefore contribute to transboundary water management in seven international river basins in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Working with international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the Netherlands plans to promote cooperation between upstream and downstream riparian states.
3.2.5 Security and the rule of law Problems such as radicalisation, terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal trade and imports of raw materials pose an increasing threat to stability in fragile states, and also to the Netherlands and Europe. Pirates off the coast of Somalia are a threat to commercial shipping, while instability in West Africa presents opportunities for illegal trafficking in | 33 | drugs, weapons and raw materials.
We will therefore work towards a better global approach to peace and security. We will do so at international level by making tangible agreements on international security, and supporting their implementation. In the UN and NATO, the Netherlands will champion causes such as the protection of civilian populations, the inclusion of peace and security in the post-2015 development goals, and UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. The Netherlands will call for implementation of this resolution in EU and NATO missions and support women’s active participation in peace and reconstruction processes in six conflict-affected and post-conflict countries. Within the EU, we will call for more cohesion between the activities of EU institutions in crisis areas.
This government is also committed to promoting the international legal order. A strong international legal order is essential to ensure justice, peace and prosperity in the world. The Netherlands’ commitment to promoting the international legal order is enshrined in its Constitution (article 90). It is in our interests for other countries to respect the core values of the rule of law. This government’s policy therefore aims to embed countries wherever possible in the multilateral system, and to support countries in developing the rule of law.
We will give specific support to the capacity of leading organisations in the field of peace and security, including the UN, the World Bank, NATO and regional organisations. Examples include UNDPA’s programme for mediating in conflicts and UNDP’s Global Programme for Rule of Law, Justice and Security, which supports 25 countries in developing the rule of law and transitional justice processes. The African Union will receive support in setting up and Changing relationships
operating its own regional security organisation. Working with NGOs and research institutions, the Netherlands will contribute to the collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.
3.2.6 Migration More than 214 million people are international migrants. People migrate for economic reasons, to flee war or to avoid persecution. The Netherlands first seeks to protect and shelter refugees in their regions of origin. That is why we support UNHCR.
Migration calls for transnational cooperation between the governments of countries of origin, transit and destination. We will take account of the rights of migrants and of the interests of the various countries concerned. Migrants admitted to the Netherlands will be expected to seize the opportunity to integrate into Dutch society. The Netherlands will seek at both bilateral and EU level to ensure that migration has a greater impact on development. The government will therefore fund projects that help countries of origin build their migration management capacity and projects that enhance the contribution of migrant communities to development in their countries of origin.
Migrants residing illegally in the Netherlands, including failed asylum seekers, will return to | 34 | their country of origin. The Netherlands will pursue an active policy on returning migrants not entitled to stay here. We will put pressure on countries to readmit nationals who have been refused admittance to the Netherlands and will employ the option of conditionality in our trade and development relationships with countries to help achieve the return of their nationals.
3.3 Aid relationships
Fighting poverty in low-income countries, fragile states and conflict-affected and post- conflict countries is one of the main elements of our policy. The Netherlands will focus in particular on Afghanistan, Burundi, Mali, the Palestinian Territories, Rwanda, South Sudan and Yemen. These countries are not in a position to deal with poverty themselves because they are either embroiled in – or emerging from – conflict.
We will support these countries by investing in basic services relating to our priorities of water, food security, women’s rights and sexual and reproductive rights, and security and the rule of law. We will also be making a contribution to the international debate on a new post-2015 poverty reduction agenda to follow up the Millennium Development Goals. We will provide humanitarian assistance to countries in emergency situations.
Focusing on individual countries is not always enough. Problems in one country may have a huge impact on the development of another. The refugee problem and water-related issues in Africa are a case in point. Where relevant, and where the Netherlands brings added value, we will adopt a regional approach, as we are doing in the African Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa. A World to Gain
Our agenda
3.3.1 Investing in a global development agenda The Millennium Development Goals are tangible, measurable aims for poverty reduction. A new international poverty reduction agenda to replace the MDGs after 2015 is of great importance in setting further concrete goals for efforts to fight poverty and inequality in the future. The UN High-Level Panel, which is currently working on a framework, plans to present a proposal in May 2013. The consultation process, in which the views of many experts and interested parties are being heard, is in full swing. The Netherlands is contributing by consulting the private sector and members of the public, by facilitating an international conference on water in the Netherlands, and through the EU and other international forums.
Though the post-2015 agenda will probably focus less sharply on the social sectors than the current framework, poverty reduction will continue to be the main theme. The main aim put forward in the letter to the House of Representatives setting out policy on the post-2015 development agenda was the eradication of poverty within a single generation – ‘getting to zero’. Improving people’s income position is therefore important, but other aspects of poverty should not be ignored. Everyone should be able to rely on a certain basic level of social protection – a social protection floor. This includes protection against the | 35 | consequences of illness, and the right to decent work and a properly functioning labour market. We will look at how the experience acquired by the Netherlands in the field of social protection can contribute. Apart from the social dimension of poverty, other subjects should be included in the new framework, for example the priorities of water, food security, women’s rights and SRHR, and security and the rule of law, as well as sustainable growth, human rights and access to financial services. We will give you further information on the Dutch position once the High-Level Panel has published its report.
Of exceptional importance to the post-2014 agenda are the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 2012 Rio+20 conference on sustainable development agreed that these new goals, which mainly relate to the environment and sustainable development, should be worked out in more detail. The Netherlands is a member of the working group tasked with developing these SDGs. We believe that it is important for the SDGs to be included in the global development agenda. In the years after 2015 we would then be able to work with a single set of goals comprising both the updated development agenda and the SDGs.
3.3.2 Investing in basic services
Investing in water Water is inextricably linked to the availability and production of food and energy. An integrated, sustainable approach is therefore needed to secure future supplies of water, food and energy. Water security is vital to poverty reduction and economic growth. Without it, poverty will be perpetuated. Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is a condition for escaping poverty. The same applies to protection from flooding and pollution. Poor people are exposed to the greatest water risks: slums are often the first areas to be affected Changing relationships
by flooding, and contaminated waste water threatens the health of large numbers of people. Population groups that depend on good water management, such as fishermen and small-scale livestock farmers are often among the poorest. Their water security is often the first to be threatened. With better water management, the interests of these groups would be taken on board in decision-making on water distribution.
In the water programmes that the Netherlands supports, we are pursuing three specific goals: (i) 25% higher water productivity in agriculture; (ii) better river basin management and safe deltas; and (iii) better access to safe drinking water and sanitation for 25 million people. We are contributing with this third goal to achieving a human right: the right to safe drinking water and sanitation.
Between 2000 and 2010, Dutch investments in drinking water supplies and sanitation gave 20 million people access to a safe source of drinking water, and more than 35 million people access to adequate sanitation. We want to provide safe drinking water for another 25 million people, and sanitation for the same number in the 2010 to 2015 period. To achieve these aims, we will be stepping up the water programmes in the countries where we are active, and supporting a number of multilateral programmes. In Bangladesh, for example, we are supporting the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), a large NGO which, with | 36 | the help of Dutch funding and Dutch experts, focuses on people living in remote areas. In late 2012, the Netherlands entered into a programme with UNICEF that aims to provide drinking water and sanitation to five million people in nine countries – mainly fragile states – in West and Central Africa.
Investing in food security To ensure everyone has sufficient food with sufficient nutritional value we need to take account of population growth, climate change, changing patterns of consumption, urbanisation, price speculation and demand for biofuels. The role of local producers, especially women, is important. They must be able to provide sufficient food not only for themselves but also for the growing urban population. This is a precondition for further economic diversification and growth. Agricultural logistics and the food processing industry will therefore become important elements of policy. In the relatively poor, mainly agrarian economies in sub-Saharan Africa, we will work on developing agriculture sustainably and increasing access to nutrition.
A good example is Dutch participation in the global Scaling Up Nutrition Alliance. Thanks to campaigns led by this alliance in the past few years, malnutrition is now high on the international agenda. Everyone agrees that interventions should focus on the first 1,000 days of a child’s life, because it is here that the greatest gains can be made. Together with UNICEF, the Netherlands has drawn up a plan to improve the nutritional status of nine million children in Burundi, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Rwanda.
Investing in equal rights for women and sexual and reproductive health and rights Women’s rights are still being violated on far too great a scale. The Millennium Development Goals on reducing infant, child and maternal mortality have still not been A World to Gain
achieved. What is more, the international consensus on equal rights for men and women and on sexual health and rights is under severe pressure. That is why the Netherlands will invest in alliances with other progressive countries. Themes such as equal rights for men and women and sexual rights should be included in the new post-2015 poverty reduction agenda which will replace the Millennium Development Goals. Equal rights for women and sexual and reproductive health and rights will also be identified as priorities in the letter setting out human rights policy, which the Minister of Foreign Affairs will send to the House of Representatives this spring.
The Netherlands wants to make a difference in the lives of women. The eradication of violence against women is a priority of both the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and is a condition for women everywhere in the world to be active in political, economic and social life. By contributing to funds such as FLOW (Funding Leadership and Opportunities for Women), NAP 1325 (the National Action Plan on Resolution 1325) and Women in the Frontline, and working with UN Women, the Netherlands hopes to achieve better legislation, more effective prevention mechanisms and better access for women to legal aid.
The Netherlands is committed to preventing both forced marriage (child brides) and sexual violence, which is why – for example – it is participating in the international campaign | 37 | ‘Girls not Brides’. Child marriage cannot be condoned, even for reasons of culture, tradition or religion. Forced marriages are a violation of the right to self-determination. Sexual violence against women is still frequently used in conflict situations as a means of disrupting communities. This practice is unacceptable. That is why we will work with partners such as the UK and the US to implement existing resolutions which are still very much paper tigers (e.g. UN Security Council Resolution 1325). With its National Action Plan on Resolution 1325 (NAP1325), the Netherlands wishes to help national governments, civil society organisations and local communities fight impunity, bring culprits to justice and strengthen legal systems.
In the transition countries in the Arab region, the rights of women are at risk of being severely curtailed. In our relations with other countries, in international organisations, and with the new Women in the Frontline fund, we will push for greater political participation for women. Our aim is to increase the capacity of women and their organisations, enabling their involvement in drafting new legislation based on international agreements. We are investing in sexual health and rights (including HIV/AIDS prevention) because these are fundamental rights. The spread of HIV/AIDS can be brought to a halt only if everyone – including young people, gays, prostitutes and drug users – has access to health care. The number of teenage pregnancies will decrease only if young people receive good sex education. The abortion rate will drop only if the 220 million women who want to use contraceptives have access to them. And pregnancy will no longer be a potential death sentence only if women receive adequate obstetric care. In all of these cases, an accessible, effective healthcare system is a prerequisite. The Netherlands is working to achieve this in partnership with the Global Fund, WHO, UNAIDS and UNFPA, and with NGOs and the private sector. Changing relationships
Telemedicine Application of new technologies can lead to better, cheaper health care in low- and middle-income countries. One of the organisations active in the field of telemedi- cine or ‘e-health’ is the Connect4Change consortium. With financial support from the Netherlands, the consortium provides information using mobile telephony. Mothers in Malawi, for example, are sent text messages with information on preventing and treating childhood illnesses. In Uganda, texting is used to inform pregnant women of opportunities to give birth in a clinic. People with HIV and TBC are sent reminders to take their medicine. In East Africa, where there is little specialist health care, PharmAccess, the Medical Credit Fund and the Health Insurance Fund, working with Dutch support and in collaboration with local compa- nies, use modern technology to address the shortage of doctors. Using a video link, for example, doctors and nurses can give diagnoses and advise on treatment.
Investing in security and the rule of law in fragile states Of necessity, the development agenda for fragile states and conflict-affected and post-conflict countries is different than for other countries. This was reaffirmed during the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, held in Busan in 2011, where a coalition of conflict-affected | 38 | countries, donors and international organisations agreed the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, an agenda comprising activities in the field of defence, diplomacy and development. Flexibility, risk awareness and long-term commitment are decisive for this integrated 3D approach.
We are investing in political reform, restoration of the rule of law, and establishment of a police force and army, proceeding on the basis of local circumstances and capacity. Dutch advisors are, for example, working closely with the authorities in Burundi to reform the security apparatus. The primary aims are to ensure that the police – and not the army – are responsible for public safety; that soldiers and police officers are trained in ethical issues and women’s rights; and that the general population and civil society organisations have a clearer idea of the structure and activities of the police force and the army.
This policy will be fleshed out in the next few years. It constitutes a joint agenda of the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, working in close cooperation with the Ministers of Defence and of Security & Justice to support crisis management operations, security sector reform, and police and justice programmes. Wherever possible and necessary Dutch military intervention in fragile states will be harmonised with Dutch programmes specifically geared to development of the rule of law, legitimate governance and reconstruction. The international security budget will help to strengthen cohesion between the various elements of 3D policy (see box). Special attention will also be given to conflict prevention. The challenge is to translate information on smouldering and escalating conflict into immediate action. In the coming years we will also devote extra attention to strengthening the rule of law in fragile states. We will be investing in transitional justice, preventing violence against women in conflict-affected countries, and protecting land rights. We will devote specific attention to the positive role women can play in conflict situations, for example in settling disputes, and in reconstruction and peacekeeping. A World to Gain
International security budget As announced in the Coalition Agreement, a new permanent budget of €250 million will be established for international security from 2014. The Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation will decide how it is spent, in close coopera- tion with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence. We will look at political and military factors, adhering to the principle that activities must be relevant to development and contribute to solving the problems faced by the country or region in question. This means that Dutch interventions must contribute to protecting the civilian population, preventing or managing humanitarian crises, and promoting lasting security and stability. Where possible, activities will be embedded in long-term strategies and will focus on the relevant factors of conflict, security and instability in the country or region in question, partly from the viewpoint of human security. We will build on the experience and lessons learned in Afghanistan, South Sudan and Burundi, guided by the principles underpinning the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States. The Netherlands need not be involved directly in every part of the integrated approach. It may also contribute indirectly, through the UN or the EU, for example. The international security budget complements the resources earmarked for security and the rule of law. This priority focuses on the underlying causes of | 39 | conflict, instability and exclusion, as well as on prevention and on support for the positive forces in society. There are five goals, namely security for citizens, a functioning legal order, inclusive political processes, legitimate and capable government and the peace dividend/employment opportunities. The ministries involved will send a separate letter with further details of the international security budget.
3.3.3 Attention for emergency aid and resilience Natural disasters have risen in number in the past decades to an average of almost 400 a year. As a result of urbanisation, climate change, exhaustion of natural resources and increasingly complex conflicts, the impact of disasters has also become more severe. People in poor countries in particular are bearing the brunt.
The Netherlands is one of the world’s biggest humanitarian aid donors, and it therefore has an important voice in international discussions on emergency aid. In international organisations, we push for humanitarian aid to be organised as effectively as possible. Coordination, particularly at EU and UN level, is important. And expenditure must be accounted for, to both donors and recipients.
It is crucial for humanitarian aid workers to have free access to the areas affected. In complex conflict situations, this is becoming an increasing challenge, with the warring factions using aid provided by other countries for their own political and military ends. In providing emergency aid, the humanitarian principles of independence, neutrality and Changing relationships
impartiality are paramount. We believe that aid workers should operate with due regard for the local situation, to ensure that aid goes to those most in need.
We are attempting to prevent disasters, wherever possible, by investing in self-reliance and resilience. The Netherlands Senior Expert Programme (PUM), for example, gives low- and middle-income countries access to the knowledge of senior experts. However, we are planning to launch new initiatives in this field. We will use the specific knowledge of the Dutch water sector to help prevent water-related disasters and to help countries reconstruct. The UN and the EU, the coordinators of aid to countries in need, can make good use of Dutch water management expertise, for example in the field of delta technology. In addition, we are going to improve disaster risk identification in countries where the Netherlands also provides aid. We can spend our money more effectively if risks are taken into account in planning other aid activities.
3.4 Transitional relationships
We are going to build a trade relationship with Bangladesh, Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Mozambique and Uganda, and gradually phase out aid. The pace at which | 40 | this will occur will differ from country to country. In Mozambique and Ethiopia, for example, we will most certainly continue to focus on poverty reduction in the coming years. And because trade and investment do not automatically lead to sustainable, inclusive growth, we will promote equal opportunities and sustainability. It is our aim to encourage investment and trade activities that are good for both people and planet, create employment opportunities, and, preferably, are accompanied by the transfer of knowledge and skills. We will also support NGOs and trade unions in these countries in their efforts to promote human rights and good working conditions.
Building a trade relationship starts with opening up markets and promoting private sector development. Entrepreneurs in low- and middle-income countries will then be able to sell their products on European and Dutch markets, while, in the long term, Dutch entrepreneurs will gain access to their markets. For trade to be possible, the conditions enabling investment and enterprise need to be in place. For this reason, we will contribute to a good investment and business climate in low- and middle-income countries.
Our mission is to combine aid and trade activities to our mutual benefit. We can use the expertise of Dutch companies to develop ports and construct roads. In return, the Dutch private sector will gain a toehold in growth markets. Private sector development will increasingly be achieved through knowledge transfer and the efforts of the private sector itself. But support will be needed if technological knowledge and cutting-edge business solutions are to be used to solve problems in poor countries. The government must facilitate, and companies must comply with the guidelines for sustainable and socially responsible business. A World to Gain
Our agenda
3.4.1 Improving access to international and regional markets Access to each other’s markets is essential for a fully-fledged trade relationship. This can be achieved through the WTO (see section 3.2) and by concluding interregional trade agreements like the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). However, help for entrepreneurs in low- and middle-income countries wanting to export their products is possibly even more important. The Centre for the Promotion of Imports from Developing Countries (CBI) helps them in marketing their products for Western Europe. Various organisations and companies work together in the CBI. Trade Mark East Africa (TMEA), an initiative launched by the Netherlands and other donors such as the UK, works with local authorities to streamline customs procedures, reform tax administrations and create one-stop border posts. Trade costs are extremely high in East Africa, so that trade between the countries in the region is developing only very slowly. Opportunities to develop through regional trade and economic integration are thus being lost.
Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) In the past, EU countries’ former colonies had preferential access to the European market. At the same time, they were allowed to protect their markets from European products. This kind of positive discrimination contravened WTO law: every country with the same | 41 | development status must have the same market access. At the request of and in consultation with 78 countries from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific Group of States (the ACP countries), the EU is therefore working on new economic partnership agreements, or EPAs. The EPAs provide far-reaching access to European markets, and require the ACP countries to open up their markets gradually. We regard the further integration of these countries into the production and trade chain as a major advantage of these agreements. EPAs are geared to the development of countries and therefore include agreements on cooperation. Countries also receive technical assistance. Certain products can be exempted from liberalisation, for example to ensure food security. The intention was to have concluded an EPA with each ACP region by 1 January 2008. To date, however, the EU has only concluded an agreement with the Caribbean region.
Negotiations on the EPAs are proving to be slow and difficult. This has to do with the diverse nature of the regional partnerships with which we are negotiating. They include middle- income countries and LDCs (Least Developed Countries). These LDCs already enjoy tariff-free and quota-free access to the EU markets, and feel they have little to gain from an EPA. At the same time, many countries are concerned about the consequences of the EPAs – whether their private sector can compete with companies from the EU. The European Commission therefore commissioned an Impact Assessment of the EPAs. The analysis showed that there is enough scope to exempt vulnerable sectors from liberalisation. However, this has not allayed concerns. To meet the wishes of the low- and middle-income countries, a provision may be included in the EPAs giving them a maximum of 25 years to liberalise their markets. Where products are exempted from liberalisation, the EU assesses whether they are essential for the development of the country in question. Changing relationships
The EPA with the Caribbean region is a good example of how agreement can be reached. The EU has opened its market to all products from Suriname, Jamaica and 13 other Caribbean states. The only exception is sugar, the market for which will open in due course. The Caribbean states will in turn open their markets to 87% of EU products within the next 25 years.
The Netherlands believes that it is important to break the deadlock with the other regions. In our role as honest broker, we want to bring the EU and the ACP countries closer together. For this reason we will enter into dialogue with the ACP countries, and identify the main problems. We will also explore the extent to which WTO rules provide room for manoeuvre, enabling us to allay the concerns of the ACP countries, without needlessly putting other countries at a disadvantage. A separate letter on trade policy with further information on this subject will be sent to the House of Representatives before the summer.
3.4.2 Supporting entrepreneurs and government authorities We support countries in developing their private sector. The missions will play an important role in implementing the programmes that focus on this aim. It is important to remove obstacles in the production and trade chain, with due regard for people and planet (see section 3.5.2). The more obstacles that are tackled at once, the higher the effectiveness of | 42 | our activities. We can help farmers by providing improved seed that is more resistant to disease, but the yield will be limited if crops cannot be harvested in time or transported to markets because of lengthy customs procedures.
Together with companies, research institutions and civil society organisations we will help governments achieve the conditions needed to enable enterprise. They include the effective rule of law, transparent legislation, an adequate infrastructure and access to finance. To make our efforts more effective, we will dovetail with international initiatives wherever possible. For example, we are working with the logistics sector – one of the leading Dutch sectors – and the World Bank to set up infrastructure projects and our ORIO programme (Infrastructure Development Facility) supports Dutch companies in building bridges and developing ports. The Netherlands is playing a pioneering role in improving the financial infrastructure for poor people. For example, we are involved with the Entrepreneurial Development Bank (FMO) in Equity for Africa, a programme which enables small-scale entrepreneurs to apply for loans in kind for machinery and tools. Dutch companies and research institutions in the leading sectors of water, agrifood, horticulture and propagation materials, and logistics possess the knowledge with which farmers in developing countries can sustainably raise their production, improve the quality of their produce and guarantee its safety. Dutch research institutions and companies are closely involved in raising food security in Ethiopia (see box). A World to Gain
Food security in Ethiopia Dutch research institutions and companies are closely involved in improving food security in Ethiopia. Knowledge acquired by Wageningen University and Research Centre is being used to enable farmers in Ethiopia to raise their productivity. Our private sector is a major investor in agriculture, often in the first place with support from the government through the Private Sector Investment Programme. In the past few years, however, companies have increasingly been entering into public- private partnerships. Within these partnerships, they are providing products, services and practical solutions to remove obstacles in the Ethiopian supply chain. Examples include import of seed, poultry, dairy products and oil seed. The private sector is also helping Ethiopia organise the export of agricultural produce The support of our embassy in Ethiopia is complementary to the financial program- mes available to the private sector. It is important to have reliable contacts, both in bidding for tenders and to draw attention to problems caused by legislation. Dutch companies are bringing innovation to Ethiopia, and access to international markets. The latter is crucial for a country like Ethiopia with its many poor people and large trade deficit. Dutch companies are chiefly active in the Ethiopian horticulture, services and food production and processing sectors.
| 43 | A more accessible private sector instrument Various instruments are available to Dutch entrepreneurs for international and development-relevant activities. These private sector instruments provide information and advice, and also funding for activities. A number of changes are planned to improve services for entrepreneurs. The House of Representatives will be informed of these changes in a separate letter to be sent before the summer.
The government has various instruments to support both Dutch entrepreneurs wishing to engage in international trade and investment and entrepreneurs in low- and middle- income countries. Dutch research institutions, too, can use certain instruments such as the Sustainable Business and Food Security Facility (FDOV) and the Sustainable Water Fund (FDW) if they are part of a consortium in which the private sector and/or civil society organisations are also represented. These instruments all have different help desks/portals and this is an obstacle to adequate service provision for entrepreneurs. As a result, the scope they provide for companies to internationalise is not being used. The same applies to opportunities to support entrepreneurs in low- and middle-income countries, and to improve the business climate there. For this reason, the private sector instruments will be made more accessible, and services will be more widely publicised. They will be more demand-driven, with customised solutions and a focus on the entrepreneurs themselves. Entrepreneurs will identify the countries and sectors they want to trade or invest in, and possible risks – financial risks, but also risks relating to the environment, working conditions and human rights – will be discussed with them. We will then be able to give them information or advice specifically tailored to their situation, or provide a loan if there are problems finding finance for activities. We will also look at ways in which entrepreneurs can contribute to improving the local business climate, or whether they can support local Changing relationships
counterparts. Groups of companies and research institutions looking to set up joint trade and/or development activities could also be given guidance.
To make services more transparent, the private sector instruments will be grouped into three modules. The first module will include information provision and advice for SMEs wanting to operate at international level. Services will include a market scan, advice on taking the first steps towards export, and information on potential partners in the export market. They will be provided in part by NL Agency. The second module will contain financial instruments for entrepreneurs seeking funding for export and foreign investments. Their number will be considerably reduced. Existing programmes such as Finance for International Business (FIB), the Emerging Markets Fund (FOM), FOM/OS, MASSIF, the Private Sector Investment Programme (PSI) and the Infrastructure Development Facility (ORIO) will be incorporated into the new Dutch Good Growth Fund (see below) as far as possible. ORIO will also be modernised. Resources from these existing programmes can be added to the fund with a view, for example, to making concessional loans or implementing supporting measures. As a result of these changes, some instruments may cease to exist as independent schemes. The list of eligible countries will tie in as far as possible with the list of countries to which the private sector instruments apply. In consultation with the State Secretary for Finance, an assessment will be made to see | 44 | whether more can be done concerning the funding of export transactions, for example by creating a level playing field with other countries. The findings of the high-level working group on export financing will be taken on board.
The third module will comprise assistance and support to groups of companies and research institutions. Together with embassies, business support offices and implementing organisations, these groups will draft a plan of approach to achieve their aims in, for example, setting up development-relevant activities. They will receive further support from, for example, an economic mission, the embassy and government-to-government cooperation to help remove any obstacles they encounter.
The Dutch Good Growth Fund The new cohesive approach to trade and development cooperation calls for a new form of funding. The Dutch Good Growth Fund is therefore being developed in consultation with the Ministries of Economic Affairs and Finance, the private sector and civil society organisations.
It is difficult for entrepreneurs to obtain funding for activities in emerging markets and developing countries, because of the relatively high risks they entail. Financiers want security, and this cannot always be given. This amounts to a market failure. The fund will fill the gap.
Activities financed from the Fund must be socially responsible and sustainable. They must meet a single set of criteria for International Corporate Social Responsibility, based on the OECD guidelines and, depending on the size of the company and risk of non-compliance with CPR standards, the IFC performance standards. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational A World to Gain
Enterprises incorporate the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Professor Ruggie’s ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework) and the ILO Core Labour Standards. Companies that do not meet all these criteria when funding is provided will be given the opportunity to introduce the necessary changes step by step, on the basis of a pre-agreed plan.
The Dutch Good Growth Fund will provide customised forms of funding for entrepreneurs with good investment plans. It will focus on funding for direct, innovative investments involving a substantial element of risk in low- and middle-income countries, Dutch companies wishing to engage in activities with their counterparts in low and middle- income countries and Dutch entrepreneurs wanting to export to developing countries and emerging markets. The split of funds among these three target groups will not be determined in advance.
This is a revolving fund, which means that resources will largely be repaid, and can be used again. To raise the fund’s financial and social returns, it will be accompanied by supporting measures in the form of technical assistance, help drafting a good business plan, or market scans. Supporting measures will not be financed from the fund. The fund is also designed to leverage private investment. The countries on which activities must focus to be eligible for funding will be specified in a flexible list, which will tie in as far as possible with the list of | 45 | countries to which the private sector instruments (e.g. the Private Sector Investment Programme (PSI)) apply. See the full list of countries in the annexe to this document. Consultations are currently taking place with various parties including the State Advocate concerning the management and implementation of the Fund. Responsibility for these tasks will not in any event fall within the remit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3.4.3 Promoting equal opportunities From both a social and economic viewpoint, an equitable distribution of income is important for the development of countries. Economies benefit if everyone participates to the full in the labour market, without being hindered by tradition, social taboos or legislation. That is why we encourage Dutch companies doing business with local partners to ensure equal rights and opportunities for women. We also support the International Land Coalition (ILC) which is working to improve access to land rights for the poorest people, and to strengthen the position of women in farmers’ cooperatives. With the further implementation of the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda, we will work to achieve a living wage for everyone who works, social security systems with a social protection floor for the 80% of the world population without any social safety net, and safe, decent working conditions, with space for trade unions and worker participation. Combating child labour will continue to be a priority. Children who do not work but attend school are a social investment in the future of developing countries.
3.4.4 Encouraging International Corporate Social Responsibility International Corporate Social Responsibility is a prerequisite for sustainable, inclusive growth. The onus is on companies to take responsibility for their actions in this area, and we hold them to account. We expect them to comply with the OECD guidelines and the UN’s Changing relationships
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights proposed by its Special Representative Professor John Ruggie and to act in accordance with the due diligence principle by taking measures to prevent abuses in their supply chains in relation to working conditions, child labour, the environment, corruption and human rights. Companies that practise corporate social responsibility can also set an example to governments in low- and middle-income countries, encouraging them to take their responsibility. The Dutch private sector has a good international reputation for CSR. But we want to take further steps. This spring, therefore, the government will be presenting its Ruggie Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. And we are going to work with the private sector, civil society organisations, the Social and Economic Council’s International Corporate Responsibility Committee and ministries including the Ministry of Economic Affairs to identify risks in the supply chain and decide where action is needed. We will then conclude voluntary agreements with the sectors concerned. The Business, Economy and Ecology Platform set up by the Ministry of Economic Affairs under the Green Deals initiative can make a major contribution to protecting biodiversity. We have also given MVO Nederland (CSR Netherlands) a grant for an ambitious project to support Dutch SMEs in making their business operations in developing countries sustainable. Before the summer of 2013, the House of Representatives will receive a letter from the Minister of Economic Affairs and myself with information on the new CSR policy. In his letter on human rights policy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will discuss | 46 | human rights and the private sector. The Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH) will also play an important role in ensuring sustainability in production and trade chains. As its partner and co-financer, we will support IDH in attracting more donors, improving measurement of impact on development and strengthening certification programmes.
Colombia: sustainable banana production In Colombia, we are working on a successful combination of sustainable enterprise and links with the Dutch market. Together with the Colombian private sector, the Netherlands supported efforts to ensure sustainable banana production, with local authorities investing in infrastructure. This public-private partnership, in which Augura – the Colombian Banana Growers’ Association – played an important role, was awarded the Colombian peace prize for enterprise in 2009. The initiative also won the National Export Prize in 2010 for the most successful inclusive business model. The bananas have been on sale in Plus supermarkets since 2010. This was the first supermarket chain to change over completely to fair trade bananas from Colombia. Spar and Coop supermarkets also sell them. Thanks to companies like Plus and banana exporter Fyffes, Colombian banana growers now have access to the Dutch market and receive a fairer price for their products, while the export of sustainably produced bananas has more than doubled. A World to Gain
3.5 Trade relationships
We want to help Dutch companies be successful abroad. For Dutch companies, trade is the way out of the crisis. Foreign trade creates jobs at home. Our aim is to increase both the number of companies – SMEs in particular – that are internationally active and the level of exports to and investment in emerging economies. Foreign markets also present opportunities for sustainable, socially responsible enterprise, a field in which the Dutch private sector is a frontrunner. There is, for example, considerable market potential for companies that provide sustainable production solutions. Very few Dutch companies operate in the middle-income countries in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa that have huge growth potential. We also want to attract foreign companies and investment to the Netherlands to strengthen our leading sectors. These are the sectors in which the Netherlands excels and in which the government works with the private sector, universities and research centres to promote knowledge and innovation. The sectors are horticulture and propagation materials, agrifood, water, life sciences and health, the chemical industry, high tech, energy, logistics and the creative industry. We want to achieve our aims through free trade agreements, economic diplomacy and better services for SMEs.
The European market is a good first step for SMEs wanting to export their products. This is true not only of our neighbours Germany and Belgium but also of fast-growing markets like | 47 | Poland and Turkey. The barriers to more remote markets in middle-income countries are currently too great for smaller businesses to overcome. It often takes far more time and effort to gain a toehold in Ghana or Vietnam, for example, than in Germany or France. We want to give extra support to ambitious entrepreneurs who wish to move into these new markets.
Economic diplomacy is becoming increasingly important, in both policy on private sector internationalisation and the work of the mission network. A characteristic feature of markets outside Europe is the government’s prominent or increasingly prominent role in the economy. Economic diplomacy can open doors for companies operating in sectors such as energy and water in which the Netherlands is strong and foreign governments are closely involved. Companies wishing to enter markets far from home also face numerous barriers. The mission network can act as troubleshooter, helping solve the many practical problems companies run into. We will strengthen our trade and investment relationship with the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, France, Germany, the Gulf States, India, Iraq, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the UK, Ukraine, the US and Vietnam. The decision to select these countries was informed by their size and the opportunities they present for growth, the aims of the leading sectors, and the degree to which the government can help overcome obstacles to trade. Changing relationships
Our agenda
3.5.1 Concluding free trade agreements We are committed to securing new free trade agreements to increase access to foreign markets. We will work with business and civil society organisations in this endeavour. At European level, preparations have recently begun for negotiations with the US on a free trade agreement. Trade between the EU and the US amounts to €455 billion a year. This will be the biggest trade agreement ever, with a very ambitious deadline: it must be completed before the end of President Obama’s second term in office. The agreement is also ambitious in terms of content. The EU is aiming for convergence and/or mutual recognition of standards. This will cut through a great deal of red tape. Through the EU, we will also be starting negotiations on a free trade agreement with Japan, the third biggest economy in the world, and the second biggest non-EU investor in the Dutch economy in terms of job creation.
In the near future, we will also be working on agreements with emerging economies. Talks with Thailand are about to begin. We want to move forward with the negotiations with the Gulf States, India, Malaysia and Vietnam, and we are exploring the opportunities for agreement with Brazil. The Netherlands is involved, through the EU, in talks with Mercosur, | 48 | an economic partnership of several Latin American countries. However, these talks have reached deadlock. We would like to explore the desirability of and scope for continuing talks with Brazil bilaterally via the EU.
Services are accounting for an increasing share of Dutch exports. We are therefore working on a General Agreement on the Trade in Services with a large number of WTO countries. Whether it will prove possible to conclude such an agreement is unclear as yet. The negotiations are still at the exploratory stage.
3.5.2 Promoting internationalisation of the Dutch private sector We are supporting individual companies and groups of companies in internationalising their operations. Economic diplomacy is becoming increasingly important in providing Dutch companies with access to markets – such as water and energy – which are often dominated by governments, and to markets in more remote low- and middle-income countries. Each year we will organise several trade missions to enhance opportunities for the Dutch private sector and research institutions in foreign markets. The economic diplomacy conducted by our embassies is crucial. This will be taken into account when decisions are made on cutbacks to the mission network. Destinations will be chosen in consultation with the leading Dutch sectors and the Dutch Trade Board (DTB). We will report on the economic missions to the House of Representatives and discuss the results twice a year at parliamentary committee meetings. We will also support the leading Dutch sectors at international trade fairs abroad. A World to Gain
Economic diplomacy in Turkey and Brazil The economic mission to Turkey under the leadership of Prime Minister Mark Rutte in November 2012 included a large delegation of eighty small and medium-sized enterprises and twelve CEOs of major companies. During the mission, a Dutch company entered into a joint venture with a Turkish law firm. Royal HaskoningDHV has been given the go-ahead to use its geotechnical know-how in a major infrastructure project, and agreement was reached with the Dutch firm Farm Frites to market French fries in Turkey. In November 2012, the Prince of Orange and Princess Máxima visited Brazil with a delegation of 157 companies, research institutions and representatives of the creative industry. The many meetings with ministers, governors and other authorities and representatives of the private sector focused attention on what the Netherlands has to offer Brazil. The visit produced numerous deliverables and leads. As the Netherlands had long hoped, Agriculture Minister Mendes Ribeiro Filho announced that Brazilian inspectors would be visiting the Netherlands to assess our inspection system for dairy products. Approval of this system will make it much easier to export dairy products (cheese in particular) to Brazil. The Netherlands also signed an agreement with a number of research organisations on the subject of the biobased economy, and the Amsterdam Arena will be involved in building football stadiums for the World Cup | 49 | in 2014.
We will provide support to SMEs wishing to become active in emerging markets in the form of feasibility studies, market research and demonstration projects. We will support companies seriously wanting to invest in emerging markets by participating in small high-risk transactions and providing funding through the Entrepreneurial Development Bank (FMO) in the case of larger investments. The new Dutch Good Growth Fund provides customised funding not only to Dutch companies wanting to operate in developing countries but also to Dutch entrepreneurs wishing to export to developing countries and emerging markets. Money from the fund will only go to development-relevant activities. In consultation with the State Secretary for Finance, an assessment will be made as to whether more can be done to help fund export transactions, in part by creating a level playing field with other countries. We also want to make it easier for entrepreneurs to find the services provided by the government for internationalisation. The House of Representatives will be informed of plans for the further development of private sector instruments before the summer (see section 3.3).
Finally, we will help Dutch companies win contracts with major international institutions. Every year, these institutions spend billions of euros on projects in sectors where Dutch companies are among the international leaders in their field. The Netherlands will seek to simplify and shorten tendering procedures, and adapt the assessment system, which focuses too little on the quality at which the Netherlands excels. NL Agency and embassies will advise companies on ways of enhancing their opportunities to win contracts awarded by major international institutions such as the World Bank. It is to these institutions’ advantage to put Dutch expertise to use at an early stage in developing projects. Changing relationships
3.5.3 Attracting foreign investment In the coming years, we aim to attract many foreign companies and much foreign investment to the Netherlands. In doing so, we will work together with the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency (NFIA). Activities will focus on companies that bring high-grade knowledge and technology, and thus strengthen our leading sectors. They will be implemented by project teams, in which academic and professional knowledge is grouped by sector in order to establish what kind of foreign company could strengthen that sector. Companies meeting this profile will then be sought abroad, again in partnership with research institutions. The Netherlands will then enter into talks with them. Apart from factors such as an attractive business climate, the Netherlands can also offer the strengths of the leading sector in question. A strategic approach to attracting foreign investment has proved successful in leading sectors such as the chemical industry and agrifood. We wish to repeat this success in other sectors, too. This will call for a change to the work of NL Agency. It will need to build up more sectoral expertise to enable it to provide services to the leading sectors.
3.5.4 Protecting Dutch investment abroad The Netherlands is one of the biggest investors in the world, partly because it has concluded nearly a hundred Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). BITs protect investors on both sides | 50 | from, for example, expropriation. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the power to conclude investment treaties has been transferred to the EU. Within the EU, we are lobbying for treaties with the same high level of protection as we are accustomed to. We are also working on new agreements with investment partners such as China. We will take account of the greater role played by emerging economies, and of the increasing need for an integrated approach to our aims in the field of sustainable development. At EU level, we will remain committed to the inclusion of a sustainability clause in investment treaties. A World to Gain
| 51 | 4 Cooperation A World to Gain
In our approach to global problems and in our aid and trade relations, we will work with a variety of strategic partners. We will seek cooperation through our bilateral relations with countries. Civil society organisations and research institutions will remain important partners. Businesses in low- and middle-income countries and in the Netherlands are important partners in supporting countries pursuing sustainable development. We will work to strengthen and modernise multilateral forums. The EU is becoming increasingly important in terms of promoting the Netherlands’ interests, including its aid and trade interests. We will seek a new relationship with all these actors, tailored to today’s needs.
4.1 Bilateral relations with countries and regions
The agenda for aid, trade and investment focuses on three groups of countries. The first consists of countries with which we chiefly have an aid relationship because the basic conditions for development are lacking or because of conflict or instability. The second consists of countries with which we have a transitional relationship. These are countries where we wish to build up or expand our trade relationship and where the need for poverty reduction is declining. The third group consists of countries where our relationship is based chiefly on trade or where there are significant opportunities for Dutch businesses. A limited number of countries have been selected in each of these three groups. The three groups are | 53 | described elsewhere in this document (see section 3.1)
4.2 Civil society organisations
Civil society organisations and popular movements give citizens a voice, locally, nationally and internationally. They strengthen the rule of law and the inclusiveness of social and economic development and combat environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity. The participation of civil society organisations in local, national and international policy processes is essential to ensure that policy is inclusive and effective. By increasing the government’s public accountability and legitimacy, they bring about social cohesion, more open and stronger democracies, a better response to environmental problems and a more favourable business climate. Civil society organisations must also maximise the transparency and accountability of their own operations.
Civil society organisations have grown stronger in low- and middle-income countries in recent years despite the growing political pressure. A reappraisal is therefore needed of the relationship between the Dutch government and Dutch civil society organisations. We must prevent Dutch civil society organisations competing with local organisations. However, Dutch civil society organisations can strengthen their counterparts in low- and middle- income countries. Needless to say, cooperation should be based on added value. Added value for organisations in low- and middle-income countries differs from that for Dutch organisations. The relationship will be founded on the following three pillars: 1. Strengthening civil society organisations in low- and middle-income countries by means of financial and technical support so that they can optimise their functions as watchdogs, Cooperation
service providers or guardians of peace and political stability. The focus will be on the four priorities. We will set up an Accountability Fund to provide funding for local civil society organisations to fulfil their monitoring and watchdog functions.
2. Connecting national and global agendas for direct poverty reduction, economic cooperation and international public goods. Dutch organisations and those in low- and middle-income countries have their own roles to play in providing a counterweight to governments and businesses and in mobilising citizens to connect these agendas.
3. Relieving the political pressure faced by civil society organisations in many low- and middle-income countries. Donors must provide political as well as financial support: without political support, there is little point in financial and technical support.
When MFS II ends, we will support civil society organisations through strategic partnerships in four ways. Firstly, by providing support for the general strengthening of civil society organisations in developing countries through their Dutch counterparts and through embassies. Secondly, by supporting civil society organisations in their roles as watchdogs and implementing organisations in the priority areas of women’s rights and SRHR, water, food security, and security and the rule of law. Thirdly, by helping civil society organisations | 54 | raise global issues, provide a counterweight to governments and businesses, and mobilise citizens. Fourthly, by facilitating the innovative strength of civil society organisations and private initiatives by financing innovative and adventurous proposals.
The civil and non-governmental nature of these organisations must become more pronounced. For this reason and in view of the size of the spending cuts, the overall budget currently available for MFS II will be reduced, although part of the financing will be channelled through the priorities. A key priority in these new partnerships will be a sharp fall in the regulatory burden. I will explain the implementation of these strategic partnerships with civil society organisations and my position on private initiatives in a separate letter in the summer.
4.3 The private sector
The Dutch business community is an important development partner. Through trade and investment, Dutch companies contribute to the development of local economies by creating local jobs and production capacity and by transferring knowledge, establishing partnerships with local entrepreneurs and training and educating people. Dutch businesses also provide solutions to problems in low- and middle-income countries, for example in the fields of clean drinking water, infrastructure and food security. A large number also play a key role in making international trade networks more sustainable. A group of Dutch multinationals known as the Dutch Sustainable Growth Coalition is setting the tone. These companies actually go further than required by the corporate sustainability guidelines. A World to Gain
The Dutch water sector and sustainable development The Netherlands has a good reputation in the field of water and water manage- ment. It has a strong knowledge infrastructure, a water sector enjoying a high international profile and a civil society of acknowledged quality. The Dutch model of water management and control attracts interest throughout the world. The water companies, with their public shareholders and private management, are an example to many low- and middle-income countries. Dutch innovative strength is recognised internationally, for example in the field of water treatment and the processing of satellite data into management information for agriculture and water safety, and its centres of water education are held in high regard. The water sector and the government will introduce low- and middle-income countries to Dutch water technology. Dutch SMEs are international leaders in the development of information services such as remote sensing to map out environ- mental problems. Low- and middle-income countries can make good use of such technology, for example by making more efficient use of water in agriculture and by monitoring the safety of river deltas. Another example is the Young Experts Programme (YEP), which trains local water experts to tackle water-related problems. Dutch know-how and expertise will also be provided to tackle water- related disasters (disaster risk reduction, reconstruction or disaster prevention). | 55 | They will be provided in close cooperation between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and knowledge providers from this leading Dutch sector.
4.4 Research institutions
Our academic and research institutions are very active internationally. The Netherlands ranks fifth among the world’s knowledge-based economies. Together with Dutch research institutions we are conducting research in the fields of aid (through the knowledge platforms), trade and investment (through the Top Consortiums for Knowledge and Innovation (TKIs)). We offer educational programmes to students from low- and middle- income countries and we seek improved access to knowledge and information, for example by financing research from aid funds.
The knowledge platforms and the TKIs are important drivers of transnational research in the field of aid and trade. The knowledge platforms bring together public authorities, businesses, think tanks, universities, international institutions and civil society organisations to collaborate on a common knowledge and research agenda for development. The government will release additional research funds for them. On the basis of the platforms’ research agendas, calls for research proposals will be issued via the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). Research institutions will be able to submit proposals, usually in consortiums with other parties. They may also submit bids in response to calls for proposals under the policy priorities. There are five knowledge Cooperation
platforms: one for each of the priorities and an overarching platform to study how economic growth in Africa can be made more inclusive and sustainable. The knowledge platforms must grow into independent networks in which the Dutch government is just one of the partners. In the TKIs, entrepreneurs and academics work together on the development of innovative products and services. The new agenda for aid and trade will link the knowledge platforms to the TKIs to increase the effectiveness of both initiatives. Dutch research institutions also play a key role in this policy as providers of higher education programmes to students from low- and middle-income countries. They include institutions of higher professional education and universities and the six institutions for international education and research. The programmes address the lack of qualified personnel in low- and middle-income countries. With the aid of scholarship programmes funded by the Dutch government, such as the Netherlands Fellowship Programme and the MENA Scholarship Programme, professionals from a variety of countries are educated in the Netherlands. These international students are the CEOs, ministers and diplomats of the future. Quotas for female participants in scholarship programmes are an important means to increase women’s empowerment in low- and middle-income countries.
Finally, we will improve access to knowledge and information. We will promote free access to information on aid activities and research financed from aid. The Netherlands will apply | 56 | instruments that give low- and middle-income countries better access to knowledge and technology that is protected by intellectual property rights. This will require flexibility in the implementation of international treaties such as TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights) and UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants), an open access policy for academic publications and research data and the use of Humanitarian Use Licences in publicly-funded research.
4.5 The European Union
The EU is the natural multiplier of Dutch ideas and interests. European aid programmes are an important complement to our bilateral policy, particularly now that the Netherlands must cut expenditure on aid and the mission network. The EU is active in many countries in which its member states have strategic interests (owing, for example, to their geographical location) but in which they have few if any bilateral programmes. This is the case, for example, for southern members of the EU in countries in the Middle East and North Africa. The EU is well represented and applies a wide range of instruments in fragile states such as the Central African Republic. Its development programmes, special representatives and civil missions in the fields of security, police and justice are a source of stability in many countries. In most cases where the Netherlands’ programmes in social sectors (such as education and health care) are being phased out, the EU will remain the main donor. The EU is better positioned than others to conduct an integrated external policy. It has great influence on low- and middle-income countries as an economic and trading partner and through political dialogue, security policy and many other policy areas – from trade to agriculture, from the environment and climate to energy and migration. We can exercise more influence as a member of the EU than we can alone. That is why for us the EU is the most relevant framework within which to conduct a coherent policy. A World to Gain
The Netherlands wants the EU to spend its member states’ development budgets carefully, transparently, coherently and efficiently. To this end, the EU must seek to link up more with new partners. A more detailed consideration of our policy on EU development policy is presented in a letter to parliament of 11 December 2012 regarding the government’s position on EU development cooperation policy. The letter considers the steps that have been taken to adapt EU aid policy to the changing international context and to the demands of this new reality. The EU will, for example, focus on fewer themes, seek a greater role for innovative financial instruments and evaluate its policy on budget support.
4.6 International organisations
International organisations are playing a greater part in resolving transnational problems that countries cannot address successfully unless they work together, such as climate change and financial instability. International organisations help set the agenda by means of groundbreaking reports such as the World Development Report (World Bank) the Human Development Report (UNDP) and the World Populations Report (UNFPA). They also contribute to the sustainable economic development of countries by, for example, investing in infrastructure to improve the business climate. International organisations play an important role in direct poverty reduction. They invest in basic services for the very poorest, help defuse conflicts, resolve disputes, coordinate | 57 | peace operations, care for refugees and develop local government.
The Netherlands is a fully committed member of several international organisations and supports their work financially. The Netherlands is standing for the Human Rights Council (2015-2017) and the Security Council (2017-2018), and is a major donor to the UN and an important shareholder of the international financial institutions. In addition to compulsory contributions, the Netherlands supports funds and UN programmes and contributes to the development banks. This support is provided chiefly to organisations that promote women’s rights and SRHR, food security, water, and security and the rule of law. We will concentrate further on these areas in the period ahead, in part on account of budgetary restrictions. The Netherlands wishes to work with international organisations that are active in fields in which Dutch companies, institutions and civil society organisations rank among the best in the world.
An efficient network of international organisations is vital. The network, however, does not always work as well as it might. International organisations must share and coordinate their work effectively. UNDP, UNICEF and the World Bank must play a strong coordinating role. The Netherlands attaches great value to the multilateral system and will work to increase its efficiency and effectiveness. Furthermore, international organisations must generate added value for Dutch policy. Management remuneration is often too high and the public procurement policies of international organisations could be better and more sustainable. Every two years, the effectiveness and efficiency of the various UN organisations, funds and programmes are reviewed by means of scorecards, as is their contribution to the Dutch government’s objectives. A new review will be carried out this spring. The House will be informed by letter before the summer. The letter will also consider the Netherlands’ financial contributions to international organisations. 5 Funding A World to Gain
5.1 Integrated budget for foreign trade and development cooperation The government has opted to strengthen the policy and budgetary coherence of foreign trade and development cooperation. A new budget will be prepared for foreign trade and development cooperation as from 2014 (budget chapter 17); the first will be presented next Budget Day. In the near future the House will receive a proposal from the government regarding the new budget’s organisation into policy articles and subarticles. In anticipation, the 2013 budgets for development cooperation and foreign trade have been combined in a separate statement in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs budget. The trade promotion budget (€89 million in 2013, of which €87 million non-ODA) has been transferred from the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The coalition agreement also provided for the establishment of the Dutch Good Growth Fund. This revolving fund will receive €250 million a year between 2014 and 2016. The structural funding of the international security budget will total €250 million as from 2014.
Trade and development cooperation expenditure in millions of euros 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total gross ODA, Rutte II 4,240 3,816 3,990 3,975 3,846 | 59 | Non-ODA (including trade promotion) 125 113 104 102 96 Dutch Good Growth Fund 250 250 250 Budget for peace and security 250 250 250 250 Total 4,365 4,430 4,594 4,577 4,192
5.2 Cuts in development cooperation expenditure
The coalition agreement includes a substantial cut in the development cooperation budget. Between 2014 and 2016 the ODA budget will be cut by €750 million a year and by €1 billion a year as from 2017. Furthermore, there will be a significant budget reduction – rising to nearly €300 million in 2027 – on account of the disappointing GNP estimates. The table below shows the consequences for the ODA budget and annual net ODA in millions of euros. Funding
ODA budget in millions of euros 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Gross ODA draft budget 2013 4,340 4,701 4,912 4,950 5,142 Rutte II coalition agreement cuts -750 -750 -750 -1,000 GNP adjustment since 2013 draft budget -100 -135 -172 -225 -296 Gross ODA, Rutte II 4,240 3,816 3,990 3,975 3,846 less repayments/receipts -85 -81 -77 -77 -77 Net ODA, Rutte II 4,154 3,735 3,913 3,898 3,769 Net ODA as a percentage of GNP 0.68 0.59 0.60 0.59 0.55 NB Owing to the repayment of development cooperation loans (included in repayments/receipts), net ODA is lower than gross ODA expenditure. Both the new international security budget and the Dutch Good Growth Fund consist of a mix of ODA and non-ODA expenditure. The ODA component in these instruments is not known in advance and has not been included in the table above. The ODA percentages will therefore be higher than shown.
Any decision on the spending cuts must take account of the fact that a large proportion of the ODA budget is fixed. There are fixed allocations for the reception of asylum seekers from DAC countries during their first year, the EU, debt forgiveness (export credit insurance) and overhead costs. Together, these allocations total about €1 billion a year. A significant proportion of the | 60 | budget is also earmarked for commitments that have already been made. The coalition agreement, moreover, states that international climate expenditure will be funded from the ODA budget. This, too, increases the pressure on the remainder of the budget.
Principles The spending cuts will be based on the following principles: • We will concentrate our aid, trade and investment efforts on the priorities of food security, women’s rights and SRHR, water, and security and the rule of law. With the exception of women’s rights and SRHR, the priorities will inevitably be hit by spending cuts.
• Our expenditure on private sector development helps countries gain access to markets and improves the business climate. In comparison with the budgetary framework under the first Rutte government, funding for private sector development and trade promotion will be €105 million lower in 2014; in comparison with 2013, this represents a cut of around €35 million.
• Given the importance of donor reliability, ongoing contracts and commitments will be respected in so far as possible. This means, among other things, that the current contracts with the World Bank and MFS II organisations will not be broken.
• Emergency aid will not be cut. Humanitarian aid is essential for people in emergency situations. A World to Gain
• The budgets for the crosscutting themes good governance, environment and education in low- and middle-income countries will be phased out more quickly. Where relevant, these three themes will be reflected in the implementation of the priorities. The scholarship programme, however, will be spared.
• The Dutch contribution to international climate financing consists of public and private funds. The aim is to finance as much as possible privately.
• Funds will not be allocated to financing channels in advance. Partners will be selected for the effectiveness and efficiency of their operations, not because they belong to a particular channel.
• There will be no successor to MFS II. Civil society organisations can apply to the priority programme budgets for funding. A slimmed down budget will be available after 2015 for activities to strengthen civil society organisations and the watchdog function for global issues.
• The general contributions to multilateral organisations will be cut. Multilateral organisations can also apply to the priority budgets to fund their theme-based activities.
| 61 | Funding
The table below shows where spending cuts will be made in 2014 and 2017 in comparison with the budgetary framework under the first Rutte government (2013 Explanatory Memorandum) in millions of euros.
2014 2017 Food security -60 -40 Women’s rights and SRHR 0 20 women’s rights 0 0 SRHR 0 20 Water, the environment and climate -150 -65 water -50 -25 environment and climate -100 -40 Security, the rule of law and good governance -125 -155 security and rule of law -95 -120 good governance -30 -35 Emergency aid 0 0 Private sector development -105 5 | 62 | Civil society* 0 -230 Multilateral expenditure** -60 -140 Other expenditure -70 -145 education and research -65 -125 culture, public support, etc. -5 -20 Deferral -180 0 Not yet allocated in 2013 Explanatory Memorandum 0 -250 TOTAL -750 -1000 Excluding: Dutch Good Growth Fund*** 250 International security budget 250 250
* new funding system for NGOs from 2016 (after MFS II) ** reduction in general contributions in areas outside the four policy priorities *** €250 million per year from 2014 to 2016 inclusive The table above does not take account of the downward GNP adjustment after adoption of the coalition agreement. This reduction will be recognised in the 2014 draft budget based on GNP estimates at the time. The spending cuts at instrument level, including the consequences for the country budgets, will follow in the 2014 draft budget. A World to Gain
5.3 Towards the 2017 budget
The figure below shows the breakdown of expenditure on foreign trade and development cooperation in the period 2014-2017 after the spending cuts but before GNP adjustments (NB ODA expenditure charged to other budgets is also included). The proportion of expenditure on the four priorities (including the international security budget) and private sector development/trade promotion will increase during this period from 51% to 57%. The proportion of expenditure on civil society in the Netherlands, education in low- and middle-income countries, good governance, culture and public support will fall from 16% to 11%. Annual allocations will amount to some 20% of the budget.
Expenditure on trade and development cooperation, a er spending cuts, 2014-2017 (incl. ODA charged to other budgets
in millions of euros
Food security
Women’s rights and SRHR
Water, environment | 63 | and climate
Security, the rule of law and good governance
Emergency aid
International security budget
Private sector development and trade promotion(excl. Dutch Good Growth Fund)
Civil society*
Multilateral expenditure**
Other expenditure (scholarships, education and research, culture, etc.)
Allocations
* A new funding system will be introduced in 2016 (MFS II will expire at year-end 2015). In addition to the budget indicated, NGOs may also receive funding from the budgets for the priorities from 2016. ** Budget for general contributions, replenishments, debt relief, etc.; multilateral organisations may also receive funding from the budgets for the priorities. Funding
Expenditure
Food security This includes bilateral programmes and contributions via the multilateral channel, public- private partnerships and investments in knowledge and research. After the spending cuts have been accounted for, the budget will increase in 2014-2017.
Women’s rights and SRHR This includes the budget to eradicate HIV/AIDS, the budget for the WHO, UNFPA, GFATM and bilateral programmes to promote SRHR, and the budget to strengthen women’s rights. The government considers gender equality to be a priority in foreign policy.
Water, environment and climate The priority water and expenditure on the environment and climate are combined under this heading. The budget will increase between 2014 and 2017, chiefly on account of higher climate expenditure owing to our international commitments.
Security, the rule of law and good governance This includes the central programmes for reconstruction being carried out in, for example, | 64 | South Sudan and Afghanistan, the delegated budgets for the priority of security in the partner countries and the Central America programme. Between 2014 and 2017, the overall budget for security and the rule of law will remain unchanged.
Private sector development, trade promotion and the Dutch Good Growth Fund This includes budgets to improve the business climate in partner countries, the private sector instruments and infrastructure funds. After the spending cuts, the private sector development budget will increase by €110 million between 2014 and 2017 before accounting for the contribution to the Dutch Good Growth Fund. The budget includes contributions to the Dutch Good Growth Fund only for 2014-2016; no account has been taken of investment reflows and reinvestments.
Civil society This category includes expenditure on MFS II partners and SNV. The contracts with these organisations expire at the end of 2015, after which a new funding system will be introduced and the available budget will be lowered. The organisations concerned can also apply for funding from the priority programme budgets.
Multilateral expenditure other than priorities This includes expenditure for the World Bank, the regional development banks, the European Development Fund (EDF) and the general voluntary contributions to UNDP and UNICEF. This expenditure will be cut by €60 million in total in 2014, rising to €140 million in 2017.
Other themes (scholarships, research and education, culture, etc.) Development-related education and research activities in low- and middle-income countries will be phased out more quickly; by 2017 only the scholarship programme and a small budget A World to Gain
for research and capacity building will remain. The ODA contribution to research institutions on the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science budget will be cut by €5 million a year in the 2014-2016 period, and by €10 million a year from 2017. Agreements will be reached with institutions for international education and research to focus more sharply than at present on the priorities.
| 65 | Annexes A World to Gain
Dutch Good Growth Fund country list
Afghanistan Maldives Albania Malawi Algeria Mali Angola Moldova Armenia Mongolia Bangladesh Morocco Benin Mozambique Bhutan Myanmar Bolivia Nepal Bosnia and Herzegovina Nicaragua Burkina Faso Niger Burundi Nigeria Cambodia Pakistan Cape Verde Palestinian Territories Colombia Peru Djibouti Philippines DRC Rwanda Egypt Sao Tomé | 67 | Eritrea Senegal Ethiopia Sierra Leone Gambia Somalia Georgia South Africa Ghana South Sudan Guatemala Sri Lanka India Suriname Indonesia Tanzania Jordan Thailand Kenya Tunisia Kosovo Uganda Laos Vietnam Libya Yemen Macedonia Zambia Madagascar Zimbabwe Annexes
Abbreviations
3D Defence, Diplomacy, Development ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations BIT Bilateral Investment Treaty GDP Gross Domestic Product Cariforum Caribbean Forum of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States CBI Centre for the Promotion of Imports from Developing Countries CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DTB Dutch Trade Board ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EKI Export credit insurance and investment guarantees EPA Economic Partnership Agreement EU European Union FIB Finance for International Business FMO Entrepreneurial Development Bank FOM/OS Development variant of the Emerging Markets Fund GFATM Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria | 68 | IATI International Aid Transparency Initiative ICSR International Corporate Social Responsibility IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development ILC International Land Coalition ILO International Labour Organization IMF International Monetary Fund IPGs International Public Goods LDC Least Developed Country MDGs Millennium Development Goals Mercosur Common Market of the South MFS Cofinancing system SMEs Small and Medium-sized Enterprises NFIA Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NICHE Netherlands Initiative for Capacity Development in Higher Education ODA Official Development Assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development ORIO Infrastructure Development Facility PPP Public-Private Partnership PSI Private Sector Investment Programme SADC Southern African Development Community SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SRHR Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights TCX Currency Exchange Fund TMEA Trade Mark East Africa TRIPS Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights A World to Gain
UN United Nations UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNDPA United Nations Department of Political Affairs UNFAO United Nations Food & Agriculture Programme UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNWFP United Nations World Food Programme UPOV International Union for the Protection Of New Varieties of Plants WEF World Economic Forum WRR Advisory Council on Government Policy WTO World Trade Organisation YEP Young Experts Programme
| 69 | Annexes
References
• Advisory Council on International Affairs (2012), Unequal Worlds: Poverty, Growth, Inequality and the Role of International Cooperation, advisory report no. 80. • Advisory Council on International Affairs (2013), Interaction Between the Actors in International Cooperation: Towards Flexibility and Trust, advisory report no. 82. • Annen, K., and L. Moers (2012), Donor competition for aid impact, and aid fragmentation. International Monetary Fund, Washington D.C. (WP/12/204). • BCG (2012), NL2030. Contouren van een nieuw Nederlands verdienmodel. • Chronic Poverty Research Centre (2008), Chronic Poverty Report 2008-9. • Donge, J.K. van, D. Henley, and P. Lewis (2012), Tracking development in South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa: The Primacy of Policy. Social Science Research Network. Development Policy Review, Vol. 30, pp. s5-s24, 2012 • FAO (2011), The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-2011. • Kharas, H., W. Jung and M. Makino (eds.) (2011), Catalysing development: A new vision for aid. Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C. • Kharas, H. and A. Rogerson (2012), Horizon 2025: Creative destruction in the aid industry. • Knack, S., and A. Rahman (2007), Donor fragmentation and bureaucratic quality in aid recipients. Journal of Development Economics 83 (1): 176-197. | 70 | • Kodama, Masahiro (2012), Aid unpredictability and economic growth. World Development 40-2: 266-272. • Le Goff, M. en R.J. Singh (2013), Does trade reduce poverty? A view from Africa. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6327. • OECD (2011), Perspectives on Global Development 2012: Social Cohesion in a Shifting World. OECD Publishing. • OECD (2012), Policy priorities for international trade and jobs. D. Lippoldt (ed). OECD, Paris. • OECD (2013), Ensuring Fragile States are not left behind. 2011 Factsheet on resource flows and trends. • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2013), Human Development Report 2013. • World Bank (2010), World Development Report 2011. World Bank, Washington D.C. • World Bank (2011), Women, Business and the Law 2012. • World Bank (2011), World Development Report 2012. • World Bank (2011), Financing for Development: Trends and Opportunities in a Changing Landscape. CFP Working Paper No. 8. • World Bank (2012), Global Monitoring Report. • World Bank. (2012), World Development Report 2013: Jobs. World Bank, Washington D.C. DOI: 10.1596/978-0-8213-9575-2. • World Bank (2012), Migration and development brief. • World Bank (2013), Trade costs and development: A new data set. Economic Premise, January 2013, no. 104. World Bank, Washington D.C. • World Economic Forum (2013), Global Risks Report 2013. • World Economic Forum (2013), Enabling Trade. Valuing Growth Opportunities. • Advisory Council on Government Policy (2010), Less pretension, more ambition. Development aid that makes a difference. WRR/Amsterdam University Press, The Hague/ Amsterdam. A World to Gain
| 71 | | 72 |
Published by:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands P.O. Box 20061 | 2500 eb The Hague www.rijksoverheid.nl
Layout: VijfKeerBlauw | Rijswijk
© Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands | april 2013 A World to Gain A New Agenda for Aid, Trade and Investment 13BUZ617440 | E Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign 20061 | 2500 eb The Hague | The Netherlands Box P.O. www.rijksoverheid.nl Affairs of the Netherlands | april 2013 © Ministry of Foreign Published by: ofiaRomeBrasiliaBrasiliaViennaDohaBeirutTokyoDakarBerlinParamariboDublinSydneyKuwaitBogotaAntwerpPristinaJubaBratislavaIstanbulWellingtonCaracas
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 27.2.2013 COM(2013) 92 final
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
A DECENT LIFE FOR ALL:
Ending poverty and giving the world a sustainable future
EN EN
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
A DECENT LIFE FOR ALL:
Ending poverty and giving the world a sustainable future
1. INTRODUCTION Two of the most pressing challenges facing the world are eradicating poverty and ensuring that prosperity and well-being are sustainable. Around 1.3 billion people still live in extreme income poverty and the human development needs of many more are still not met. Two-thirds of the services provided by nature – including fertile land, clean water and air – are in decline and climate change and biodiversity loss are close to the limits beyond which there are irreversible effects on human society and the natural environment. These challenges are universal and inter-related and need to be addressed together by all countries. It is not sufficient to address the challenges separately – a unified policy framework is needed. Such an overarching policy framework is needed to mark out a path from poverty towards prosperity and well-being, for all people and all countries, with progress remaining within planetary boundaries. It should also be closely related to issues relating to governance, human rights and peace and security issues, which are enabling conditions for progress. It is estimated that 1.5 billion people are living in countries experiencing significant political conflict, armed violence, insecurity or fragility. In autumn 2013, a UN special event will take stock of the efforts made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), discuss ways to accelerate progress until 2015 and start exchanging on what could follow after the MDG target year of 2015. In addition, the commitments made at the Rio+20 Conference in June 2012 need to be implemented, including through actions towards an inclusive green economy. Furthermore, it will be necessary to build further on this progress through the Open Working Group that was established in Rio. All of these inputs will provide input for the development of a post-2015 overarching framework. This Communication proposes a common EU approach to these issues. To do this, it first identifies the main global challenges and opportunities. It then turns to evaluate the success of global poverty eradication agenda and the experience of the MDGs, as well as outlining some of the key steps towards sustainable development as agreed in Rio+20, and outlining key actions. It then describes the challenges and elements for a future framework that can be drawn from the experience of the MDGs and the work stemming from Rio+20, in particular the elaboration of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and indicates how these can be brought together within relevant UN processes. Based on these considerations, it proposes principles for an overarching framework for post- 2015 which would provide a coherent and comprehensive response to the universal challenges of poverty eradication and sustainable development in its three dimensions, thereby ensuring a Decent Life for All by 2030.
EN 2 EN
2. NEW GLOBAL CONTEXT, NEW CHALLENGES, NEW OPPORTUNITIES The world has undergone enormous change over recent years, including major shifts in the global economic and political balance, increased global trade, climate change and depletion of natural resources, technological change, economic and financial crises, increased consumption and price volatility of food and energy consumption, population changes and migration, violence and armed conflict and natural and man-made disasters, and increased inequalities. New actors, including private and other non-governmental players, have arisen in the global arena. While developed and emerging economies account for most of global GDP, the latter have now become the key drivers of global growth and already have a significant impact on the world economy. Trends suggest that the balance is expected to shift further; by 2025, global economic growth should predominantly be generated in emerging economies, with six countries expected to collectively account for more than half of all global growth. Unemployment remains a worldwide challenge. Some 200 million people are out of a job, among them 75 million young people. Rates of female participation in the labour market often remain low, while social services remain limited. Furthermore, some 621 million young people worldwide are not in school or training, not employed and not looking for work, risking a permanent exclusion from the labour market. Undeclared work and the fundamentals for decent work, including rights at work and social dialogue, are problems in many countries. Most poor people in developing countries are engaged in small-scale farming or are self- employed. Many poor people in these countries are working in unsafe conditions and without the protection of their basic rights. Only 20% of the world population has access to adequate social protection. At the same time, inequalities within countries have increased in most parts of the world. The majority of the poor now live in middle income countries, in spite of their fast growth. Achieving poverty eradication in such countries appears to be one of the major challenges. However, longer term projections indicate that by 2050 the locus of poverty might again be concentrated in the poorest and most fragile countries. More than 1.5 billion people live in countries affected by violent conflict. Violence destroys lives and livelihoods and often affects women and people in vulnerable situations, such as children and people with disabilities. The gap between fragile, violence-affected countries and other developing countries is widening. In April 2011, no low-income fragile or conflict- affected country had achieved a single MDG and few are expected to meet any of the targets by 2015. Poor governance, including a lack of democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights, is currently hampering efforts towards poverty eradication and sustainable development. In addition, there is overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus that the unsustainable use of the natural resources is one of the greatest long term threats to humankind. The effects of environmental degradation and climate change are already being felt and threaten to undo much of the progress already made in eradicating poverty, and so do natural disasters. We are not on track to keep temperature increases within 2°C above the temperature in pre-industrial times, the threshold beyond which there is a much higher risk that catastrophic impacts on natural resources will occur, posing risks to agriculture, food and water supplies and the development gains of recent years. At the global level, the challenge will be to adapt and to mitigate impacts, including through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Already today, climate change, depletion of natural resources and ecosystem degradation are having a significant impact on livelihoods, for example through the increased number and
EN 3 EN
intensity of natural disasters and the depletion of natural capital and infrastructure. Since 1992, natural disasters have caused € 750 billion of damage and killed 1.3 million people. The effects of unsustainable patterns of current economic development are still largely determined by developed countries and increasingly by emerging economies, while poorer countries are disproportionately impacted and have the least resources to cope with negative effects1. These countries are also often particularly dependent on natural resources, in particular for sectors such as agriculture, forestry, energy and tourism, which aggravates their vulnerability to degradation and depletion. Development and growth contribute to human prosperity and well-being, but also to environmental challenges, such as resource depletion and pollution, which are likely to become more acute over time. These negative effects are mostly determined by the 5.7 billion people that do not live in extreme income poverty, which leads to a significant increase in global demand and consumption, putting additional strain on natural resources. Progress towards an inclusive green economy through sustainable consumption and production patterns and resource efficiency, including in particular low emission energy systems, is therefore essential. In order to satisfy increasing demand, it is estimated that global agricultural production in 2050 will have to increase by 60% over 2005 levels, putting increasing pressure on already- scarce natural resources, in particular land, forests, water and oceans. At the same time, there are indications that up to half of global food production is wasted. Given urbanisation and population growth, water use is projected to increase by 50% by2025, by which time roughly 5.5 billion people – two thirds of the projected global population – will live in areas facing moderate to severe water stress. Looking ahead, these challenges must be viewed in the context of demographic trends: it is projected that the world population will reach more than 9 billion by 2050, with the population of sub-Saharan Africa set to more than double. Together, Africa and Asia will represent nearly 80% of the world's population by 2050. The increase in the world's median age is expected to affect developing countries most, with consequences for health services and pensions, as well as tax revenues. It is in this context that the follow up to Rio+20 and the MDG review special event take place. We need to keep in mind that the challenges are interrelated and require a coherent and comprehensive response, supportive also of other international processes, such as climate and biodiversity negotiations.
3. BUILDING ON THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE MDGS AND RIO+20 3.1. Taking stock of MDG achievements The EU remains committed to doing its utmost to help achieve the MDGs by 2015, in line with its policy framework as set out in the Agenda for Change2 and the European Consensus on Development3. The MDGs embody a fundamental global agreement to end poverty and to further human development. They have in the last decade proven to be a valuable tool to raise public
1 Least Developed Countries comprise more than 880 million people (about 12 per cent of world population) but account for less than 2 % of world GDP. 2 COM(2011) 637 final 3 2006/C 46/01
EN 4 EN
awareness, increase political will and mobilise resources to eradicate poverty. Impressive progress has been made:
• According to the World Bank, the share of people living on less than USD 1.25 a day (2005 prices) fell from 43% in 1990 to 22% in 2008. It is likely that the target to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty was reached in 2010. • The target to halve the proportion of the population without access to safe drinking water was achieved globally in 2010 – between 1990 and 2010 over two billion people gained access. • Globally, primary school enrolment has increased to an average of 89%, with girls now almost as likely to be enrolled as boys. • Children are significantly less likely to die of disease or malnutrition. • Global HIV infections continue to decline and access to anti-retroviral drugs has expanded widely. The global partnership for development has complemented national efforts towards the MDGs. Since 2000, annual global Official Development Assistance (ODA) has increased by nearly 70%, to EUR 96 billion, and the share of ODA going to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) has more than doubled. The EU and its Member States collectively are the largest donor, providing an annual EUR 53 billion in ODA (2011), or more than half of global ODA. In parallel, the implementation of the aid and development effectiveness principles and targets has contributed to greater ODA impact. The phenomenal growth in trade has been a major factor in progress: between 2000 and 2009 developing country exports rose by 80%, compared to 40% for the world as a whole The EU is the biggest trading partner for developing countries and has led the way in granting duty-free and quota-free access to all LDC products, under the Everything But Arms initiative. Furthermore, EU-funded research, such as through the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, has also contributed to the achievement of the MDGs. Challenges to the achievement of the MDGs however remain, with sub-Saharan Africa in particular lagging behind. Globally, 1.3 billion people still live in extreme income poverty. More than 850 million people do not have enough to eat. About 61 million children are still out of school. Women continue to be the subject of discrimination and confront severe health risks, in particular to maternal health and their sexual and reproductive health and rights. Violence affects one third of all women in their lifetime and undermines efforts to reach any MDG. An estimated 2.5 billion people are without access to decent sanitation facilities and 780 million people still lack access to clean and safe drinking water. 7 million people living with HIV/AIDS still do not have access to treatment. The world is still far from reaching the target of full and productive employment and decent work for all. Only 20% of the world's population has access to adequate social protection. Unsustainable use and management of the Earth's limited resources puts at risk the lives and well-being of future generations. In addition, success is unevenly distributed not only between countries – in particular with a striking lack of progress towards the MDGs in fragile and conflict affected states – but also within countries - including those that already have the means to provide better lives and futures for their population. Yet the overall picture, especially in view of technological advances and economic progress achieved by many emerging and developing countries since the MDGs were developed, shows that elimination not just reduction of poverty in a single generation is within reach.
EN 5 EN
3.2. Main Rio+20 outcomes and commitments The Rio+20 Conference confirmed a common global vision for an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future for the planet and for present and future generations and underlined that many challenges remain to be addressed. Rio+20 recognised the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication as an important pathway for achieving sustainable development, set in motion a process to develop universal sustainable development goals (SDGs) and agreed to take action towards sustainable development. These actions will also help inform the process of developing SDGs and will, in the longer term, also contribute to their realisation. Rio+20 also agreed to reform the institutional framework for sustainable development, to set in place a structure that can deliver the follow-up to the Conference and to work further on means of implementation. It is important that the EU now implements promptly the commitments taken at Rio, actively engages in these processes and takes the necessary action both within the EU and internationally. 3.3. Implementation: Actions at EU and international level The EU will continue to pursue the sustainable development, including by implementingRio+20 commitments through a range of overarching policies, in particular through its overarching strategy for smart, inclusive and sustainable growth - Europe 2020. This covers, inter alia, resource efficiency, low carbon economy, research and innovation, employment, social inclusion and youth. The implementation and regular review of the Europe 2020 Strategy, which builds on the integrative approach initiated by the EU Strategy for Sustainable Development, should contribute to greater coherence, mainstreaming and integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development in EU policies at large. Sustainable development objectives will be made operational through a range of key policies under preparation, including the reform of the Common Agricultural and the Common Fisheries Policies, the forthcoming 7th Environmental Action Programme, the Innovation Union, Horizon 2020 and the Social Investment Package. The EU has consistently provided development cooperation in order to contribute to the full implementation of the MDGs. Through its external action and notably the implementation of the Agenda for Change, the EU will continue facilitating progress towards the MDGs and sustainable development in developing countries, with a specific focus on the least developed and the ones most in need. At the same time, a number of actions need to be carried out in order to contribute to the implementation of Rio+20 commitments. The main current EU activities to implement Rio+20 are brought together in Annex I. 3.4. Institutional framework for sustainable development and means of implementation Rio+20 started a process to reinforce the institutional framework for sustainable development, including strengthening the role of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and ECOSOC. A major decision was to establish a High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) on sustainable development, which will replace the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. The HLPF will follow up and review progress in the implementation of the outcomes of Rio+20 and is also mandated to strengthen the science-policy interface, which will be crucial for the implementation of SDGs. It should be directly linked to ECOSOC, currently under reform, and work at a higher political level (UNGA) at regular intervals. These linkages provide an opportunity to enhance coherence with the on-going work on the review of the MDGs and discussions on development post-2015.
EN 6 EN
Another important outcome of Rio+20 was the decision to strengthen and upgrade the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and, in particular, the decision on universal membership for its Governing Council. This has now been confirmed by the decision on new institutional arrangements for UNEP at its recent Governing Council. The decision to establish a UN Environment Assembly is an important step forward, consistent with the EU's ambition to transform it in the longer term into a UN agency. The EU will take an active role in implementing this revised institutional framework. Ensuring the appropriate participation of the EU in both the HLPF and the reformed UNEP will be a priority.
Rio+20 also decided to promote clean and environmentally-sound technologies and to establish an intergovernmental expert committee to prepare options for a sustainable development financing strategy. The committee needs to ensure coherence and coordination and avoid duplication of efforts as regards the financing for development process. The EU will participate in this process in line with the overall approach to financing and other means of implementation, as indicated below.
3.5. Public Consultation A number of public consultations and dialogues have been held by the Commission on future perspectives of poverty eradication and sustainable development. These consultations have helped guide a number of aspects of proposals contained in this Communication. An overview of these consultations is outlined in Annex II. The Commission will continue active dialogue on all these issues with all stakeholders and civil society.
4. INTEGRATING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY ERADICATION IN A POST- 2015 OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK At international level and at the UN, much of the work on poverty eradication and sustainable development has been carried out in separate strands within different communities – one stemming from the Millennium Declaration and the other from the series of UN summits on sustainable development. In reality, these two strands have always had common elements; for example, the MDGs address environmental issues through MDG7 and sustainable development has always placed poverty eradication as a priority objective. In order to effectively address the challenges of poverty eradication and sustainable development, as a major and interlinked global challenge, the review of MDGs and the work on elaborating SDGs need to be brought together towards one overarching framework with common priority challenges and objectives, so as to ensure a decent life for all by 2030 and give the world a sustainable future beyond it. In autumn 2013, a UN special event will take stock of the efforts made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), discuss ways to accelerate progress before 2015 and exchange views on what could follow after the MDG target year of 2015. The first session, in September 2013, of the High Level Political Forum established by the Rio+20 Conference will in addition look at the follow-up to the commitments made at Rio+20 in June 2012. It will also be necessary to progress through the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that were established in Rio. All of these inputs will provide the framework for the agreement of a Post-2015 Overarching Framework. In order to further elaborate thinking on goals, the EU will continue its open dialogue with all relevant stakeholders. This will contribute to the EU's active input into the work of the Open Working Group on SDGs, which will make recommendations for action to the UN General Assembly.
EN 7 EN
This section describes the lessons learnt from the MDG review and the work on the elaboration of SDGs and the kinds of priority elements that emerge from both of these. Then it indicates briefly in practical terms how these can be brought together within relevant UN processes. Then, based on this, some of the key principles of an overarching framework are brought together in the final section. 4.1. Priority elements for the overarching framework Drawing on MDG experience and the work stemming from Rio+20 on sustainable development and considering current trends, the EU considers that a number of challenges can be identified for the post-2015 overarching framework. There is a fundamental link between global environmental sustainability and poverty eradication. It will not be possible to eliminate poverty and ensure a decent life for all without, at the same time, addressing global environmental sustainability, and the other way around. Climate change, natural disasters, biodiversity loss and the degradation of oceans, freshwater sources, land and soil have a particularly negative impact on the world’s poorest populations. To be able to act on these issues, the overarching framework needs to act as a catalyst for good governance, transparency, social cohesion and the empowerment of women, in all countries and internationally, all of which are essential for sustainable development and the eradication of poverty. As agreed in the Rio+20 outcome document, goals for sustainable development (SDGs) should be universally applicable to all countries, while taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting national policies and priorities, should incorporate the three dimensions of sustainable development and should be action- oriented, concise and easy to communicate and limited in number. The EU proposals made in the run-up to Rio+20, indicated that they should also focus on resources which represent public goods and basic "pillars of life," such as energy, water, food security, oceans, sustainable consumption and production, as well as social inclusion and decent work. At the same time, goals should also be coherent with existing international agreements, such as goals and targets on climate change and biodiversity, as well as social protection floors. They should address the three overarching objectives of sustainable development: poverty eradication, changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns and protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development. Post-2015 goals would need to span into the future and aim at laying the drivers to achieve a sustainable future: with a shared vision for 2050, goals and targets should aim at the timescale of 2030. Given that the framework should have both poverty eradication and sustainable development as its overall objectives, the priority challenges need to address both perspectives drawing from the above. Based on this reasoning, the framework could be constructed around a number of main elements: ensuring basic living standards; promoting the drivers for inclusive and sustainable growth as well as ensuring sustainable management of natural resources; while promoting equality, equity and justice; and peace and security. In addition, whilst the challenge of addressing planetary environmental boundaries will require an integrated response that will impact on all these elements, and will have to be addressed in some of them, it will also require specific action in its own right. It can therefore also be seen as an additional cross-cutting ingredient of an integrated post-2015 overarching framework. 4.1.1. Basic living standards The MDGs have provided a framework for human development, setting targets such as minimum income, freedom from hunger, full and productive employment and decent work for
EN 8 EN
all, access to primary education, basic health outcomes, access to water and sanitation, all of which form the very basis of a decent life. We need to finish the unfinished business of the current MDGs, filling gaps and learning the lessons. For example, we need to address broader issues of education and health and include social protection. Aggregate averages have hidden national inequalities caused by extreme poverty, geographic location or marginalisation. We must move from purely quantitative goals to address quality, for example in education and health. There must be a floor under which no man, woman or child should fall by the very latest in 2030: standards by which every citizen should be able to hold her or his government to account. We should aim at empowering people to lift themselves out of poverty. Goals to stimulate action to deliver key standards in education, nutrition, clean water and air will help eradicate hunger and improve food security, health and well-being. Goals should also stimulate action to deliver productive employment and decent work for all, including youth, women and people with disabilities, depending on countries' levels of development. Unlike the existing MDGs, they should apply to every country and not only be a global target without individual country responsibilities. Each country has the responsibility to ensure progress towards internationally agreed goals. 4.1.2. Drivers for inclusive and sustainable growth The Commission's public consultation, as well as experience by countries that have succeeded in pulling themselves out of poverty, demonstrate the vital role played by key drivers for inclusive and sustainable growth, in particular in providing essential human development services and creating growth and decent jobs. Structural transformation should be sought by all countries in all stages of development, to allow for market-friendly, open economies that promote inclusive and sustainable growth, improve productive capacities, promote private sector development, investment and wealth creation, promote the transition towards the inclusive green economy and ensure that the benefits are widely shared. Goals would help stimulate opportunities for more inclusive and sustainable growth, supported by indicators looking beyond GDP. Many countries would be able to use these to focus on social cohesion as well as more sustainable agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture, to deliver better nutrition, overcoming water scarcity and avoiding food waste. Others would deliver more resource efficient production, economising on water and reducing and recycling waste. A goal of moving towards sustainable, resilient cities would deliver improvements in air quality, water, energy, accessible infrastructure, housing and transport, leading to solutions that link with employment, health, economic development and also address climate change adaptation and disaster prevention and preparedness. Other important drivers include sustainable energy, science and technology, telecommunications services, financial services and infrastructure, for example facilitating access to markets, as well as migration and mobility. All these aspects require an enabling and stable environment for business, entrepreneurship, innovation and productive employment to thrive. While economic transformation is necessary, it is also a huge challenge: billions in new investment will be needed4. However, experience in countries that have made huge strides in providing these services to their citizens and recent global initiatives – such as Sustainable Energy for All and Scaling Up Nutrition – have demonstrated that such an approach can provide promising results, catalysing rapid growth and investment.
4 For example, the International Energy Agency estimates that to provide sustainable energy services to all by 2030, approximately an additional EUR 30 billion per year will need to be invested above the business-as-usual scenario. The FAO estimates that more than USD 50 billion per year of additional public expenditure on agriculture and safety nets would be needed to reach a world free of hunger in 2025.
EN 9 EN
4.1.3. Sustainable management of natural resources Sustainable management and use of natural resources is essential to support economic growth and employment, in particular in primary production sectors like agriculture, fisheries and forestry or services sectors such as tourism. 70% of the world's poor live in rural areas and depend directly on biodiversity and eco-system services for their survival and well-being, making them more vulnerable to scarcity and climate risks. Good stewardship of natural resources, based on transparency, accountability and good governance, is essential for poverty eradication and developing sustainably towards an inclusive green economy. Action is needed to promote corporate sustainability reporting, which will encourage a broad range of businesses to engage in responsible practices. Goals to move towards a land degradation- neutral world would contribute to economic growth, biodiversity protection, sustainable forest management, climate change mitigation and adaptation and food security, while improving soil quality, reducing erosion, building resilience to natural hazards and halting land take. Given the global importance of oceans, protecting and restoring the health of oceans and marine ecosystems for sustainable livelihoods goals should apply universally, helping deliver sustainable fish stocks also with a view to food security, as well as reducing significant hazards such as marine litter. To address these challenges, each country should steer a path to the sustainable management of their natural resources and establish open and transparent governance structures, to ensure that resources are used in a manner that benefits their citizens in an equitable and sustainable way. This requires each country to ensure that resources are used in an environmentally responsible manner and, with respect to resources such as land, forests, rivers and oceans, so that they will also benefit future generations. Equally, exploitation of finite resources, such as minerals and groundwater, must be done in an inclusive and responsible manner that guarantees maximum societal benefit, in terms of the way that they are commercialised, the rate of their depletion and the use of the income generated. Phasing out subsidies for use of finite resources, such as fossil fuels, is a cost-efficient key contribution, promoting resource efficiency. States should also enhance their cooperation to manage shared resources, such as fish stocks and marine biodiversity, in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It will also be necessary to adopt an integrated perspective, in order to ensure that solutions to resource constraints in one area do not place additional constraints on another. The future agenda should commit all countries to manage and use their natural resources sustainably over the coming decades, including such issues as transparency, maximisation of income, 5 protection of tenure, resilience , including to natural disasters, and environmental protection. The global community needs to stand together in these efforts. In particular, private and public companies must be accountable and adhere to high standards of transparency and good governance. A low carbon and resource efficient economy will also require actions and training for the specific skill sets that will be needed. 4.1.4. Equality, equity and justice The objectives of human well-being and dignity for all are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Millennium Declaration, which also explicitly recognise the links between human rights, good governance and sustainable development. This, as well as the commitment to common fundamental values, was reaffirmed at the MDG Summit of 2010 and the Rio+20 Conference in 2012.
5 COM(2012)586: The EU Approach to Resilience: Learning from Food Security Crises
EN 10 EN
The importance of justice and equity, human rights, democracy and other aspects of good governance goes far beyond their impact on progress towards development targets on income, education, health and other basic needs. They are also important in their own right, in all countries. The recent movements in North Africa and the Middle East showed the importance of inclusive political systems, justice and jobs, particularly for young people, and highlighted that progress on the MDGs is essential but not sufficient. Governance will remain a global challenge for the years ahead. It is important that the new post-2015 overarching framework captures these issues. The role of women is particularly important in unlocking the drive for sustainable development and all forms of barriers to equal participation need to be removed. The framework should put particular emphasis on moving towards a rights-based approach to development, on reducing inequalities, as well as on the promotion and protection of women's and girls' rights and gender equality, transparency and the fight against corruption. It should also capture the fundamental issues related to equity. To meet this challenge, goals and targets should stimulate action needed to ensure increasing coverage by a basic set of social guarantees and improve their implementation. 4.1.5. Peace and security Where there is physical insecurity, high levels of inequality, governance challenges and little or no institutional capacity, it is extremely difficult to make sustainable progress on the key MDG benchmarks such as poverty, health, education or sanitation. It is therefore essential to address the root causes of such conditions and take action to prevent them from arising. This agenda goes beyond fragile states, however, since many other countries also struggle with issues relating to insecurity and violence. Trafficking, transnational terrorism, criminal networks and gang violence are undermining the security of citizens and reducing the prospects for a decent life, with women and children particularly affected. Addressing peace and security issues in the context of the post-2015 overarching framework should use as a starting point the work already done between some fragile states and the OECD countries, the EU, the UN and Development Banks at Busan in November 2011. This should build on the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States that laid out an agreed set of Peace-building and State building Goals (PSG).
5. TOWARDS A POST-2015 OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK 5.1. Bringing the strands together to respond to future challenges Poverty eradication and ensuring that prosperity and well-being are sustainable remain the most pressing challenges for the future. To be tackled successfully, they must be tackled together, within a new overarching framework that is universal and directly relevant to all countries, while recognising that different countries are affected to varying degrees and that their responses and contribution to global goals will vary. Even though many will continue to rise above the level of extreme poverty, a strong poverty focus is needed to make this irreversible. Unsustainable patterns of current economic development, impacting the environment and the natural resource base, are still determined to a large extent by developed countries, and increasingly by emerging economies, while least developed countries also feel the impacts. Social exclusion and inequality, unemployment, precarious employment and lack of social protection also have a direct bearing on poverty and sustainable development. The Millennium Declaration, which remains relevant, should guide work on developing the future framework. Building on the follow up to Rio+20, the MDG review and other relevant international processes, the future overarching framework should set out the path for
EN 11 EN
eradicating poverty and towards achieving prosperity and well-being for all, by focusing on the main drivers for inclusive and sustainable growth, within planetary boundaries. This framework should therefore bring together the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social, environmental. It should include responsibilities for all countries.
The underlying objective of this new overarching framework should aspire to provide for every person, by 2030, "A Decent Life for All." This should address simultaneously the need for poverty eradication and the universal vision of sustainable development needed to ensure prosperity for current and future generations. The above sections outlined how the interrelated processes at the UN level should deliver ingredients for a common overarching framework that are needed if the objective of a Decent Life for All is to be met. The final outcome should be based on the results of constructive interactions with all stakeholders and among international partners. However, the EU believes there are a number of already- identifiable general principles that should be commonly acceptable. 5.2. Principles for a post-2015 overarching framework The Commission proposes that the EU pursues the following principles in its discussions on the post-2015 framework: 5.2.1. Scope The framework should be universal in aspiration and coverage, with goals for all countries, applying to all of humanity, focused on the eradication of poverty in all its dimensions, wherever it is found, and promoting prosperity and well-being for all people, within planetary boundaries. • The framework should integrate the three dimensions of sustainable development - economic, social, environmental - taking into account the lessons learnt from the review of MDGs and building on the work for elaborating the SDGs, aiming at poverty eradication and sustainable development. Goals should constitute a floor to living standards under which no person should fall, by 2030 at the very latest, and guide progress towards prosperity and well-being, within planetary boundaries. • It should recognise that poverty, prosperity and well-being cannot just be seen from a financial perspective, but are multidimensional and reflect the ability of people to grow and develop. • The framework should cover, in an integrated fashion: • basic human development (based on updated existing MDGs and also reflecting issues such as social protection), • drivers for sustainable and inclusive growth and development that are necessary for structural transformation of the economy, needed to ensure the creation of productive capacities and employment and the transition to an inclusive green economy capable of addressing climate challenges, and • the sustainable management of natural resources . • The framework should also address justice, equality and equity, capturing issues relating to human rights, democracy and the rule of law, as well as the empowerment of women and gender equality, which are vital for inclusive and sustainable development, as well as important values in their own right. It should also address peace and security, building on the existing work on Peace Building and State Building Goals.
EN 12 EN
5.2.2. Nature and number of goals • Goals should be limited in number and apply universally to all countries, but should have targets respecting different contexts. In order to ensure ownership and relevance, the goals should be tailored and made operational at the national level. Special consideration should be given to the needs of fragile states. • Goals should be elaborated in a way that takes into account the scientific and research evidence base and related targets and indicators should be measurable. 5.2.3. Transparency, implementation and accountability • The responsibility for achieving the desired outcomes is first and foremost national. The mobilisation of all resources is needed, domestic and international, private and public. Financing and other means of implementation should be addressed in a comprehensive and integrated manner, given that the potential sources for implementing various global goals are the same. • The framework should be developed and implemented in close partnership with civil society stakeholders, including the private sector. • A time frame should be set to start acting at all levels in order to achieve the goals. This could have a vision towards 2050 with goals and targets for 2030. • The framework should be based on the individual responsibility of countries to take action, coupled with partnership between all countries and stakeholders. Goals should provide incentives for cooperation and partnerships among governments, civil society, including the private sector, and the global community at large. All countries should contribute their fair share towards reaching the goals. Goals should also induce stronger accountability. • The development of the framework should be accompanied by efforts to enhance coherence at the institutional level. • To allow good monitoring of progress, the statistical base should be strengthened. 5.2.4. Coherence • The framework should be coherent with existing internationally-agreed goals and targets, such as on climate change, biodiversity, disaster risk reduction, and social protection floors. 5.3. Implementing the framework: country ownership and accountability The responsibility for implementing the future framework lies within each country itself, involving all relevant stakeholders, including social partners. The main drivers for development are first and foremost domestic, notably including democratic governance, the rule of law, stable political institutions, sound policies, transparency of public finances and the fight against fraud and corruption. Domestic resource mobilisation, legal and fiscal regulations and institutions supporting the development of the private sector, investment, decent job creation and export competitiveness are essential to make the ambition achievable for all countries. In this context, domestic reforms are crucial to make economic growth sustainable and make it work effectively for poverty eradication, decreased inequalities and improved well-being for all. This is true for all countries, at all levels of development. Nevertheless, the EU recognises that some countries will continue to need support, including development assistance. In this context, more efficient and effective methods of investing development aid are emerging, ensuring that aid acts as a catalyst for development, leveraging investment, including through innovative financial sources, instruments and mechanisms, such as blending. This updated approach was adopted in the EU's "Agenda for Change."
EN 13 EN
South-South cooperation can make substantial contributions to shaping global development outcomes. The principles of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, agreed at the Busan High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in 2011, should be applied universally. Beyond aid, Policy Coherence for Development plays a major role in eliminating poverty and achieving sustainable development. Strong consideration of the role of these policies should therefore be given due place in the future framework. For example, in many developing countries, the income available from trade has greatly increased and can be used to fight poverty. This trend is set to continue in many developing countries and is especially important in sub-Saharan Africa. To be achievable, the overarching framework should be accompanied by an effort to ensure that all resources are mobilised and harnessed effectively, alongside a commitment by all countries to pursue a comprehensive approach to these resources and coherent and appropriate policies. Goals and targets will contribute to stimulating private sector investment. All countries should report on progress towards achieving future goals in an open and transparent manner. The EU should promote a comprehensive and integrated approach to the means of implementation including financing issues at the global level. At present, financing discussions related to climate, biodiversity, development and sustainable development are taking place in different fora, even though the potential financing sources are the same. There is a strong need to ensure coherence and coordination and avoid a duplication of efforts with regard to the financing for development process. In mid-2013, the Commission plans to present a Communication proposing an integrated EU approach to financing and other means of implementation related to the various global processes.
6. NEXT STEPS The EU needs to engage fully in the forthcoming international processes with coherent and coordinated inputs at the UN and in other relevant fora. In this respect, the adoption of this Communication should be followed by a debate with Council and Parliament during the spring of 2013 for the development of a common EU approach for the next stages of the ongoing processes, which should: • ensure a comprehensive follow up to Rio+20 and guide the EU position at the UN Open Working Group (OWG) on SDGs, which will report regularly to the UNGA; and • contribute to the preparation of the UN General Assembly Special Event on the MDGs in autumn 2013, including the report of the Secretary-General and the UN High Level Panel on post-2015, as well as the first meeting of the HLPF. The EU should support moving towards a post-2015 overarching framework. Discussion on the basis of the orientations set out above should make it possible for the EU to come to a common position on how the SDGs and the MDG review processes should best be converged and integrated into a single process to better deliver such a comprehensive framework. In this respect, the EU should also actively seek a constructive dialogue with all partners and stakeholders, in order to build common ground, including through political dialogues with third countries.
EN 14 EN
ANNEX I Main current and forthcoming actions in the EU and internationally that contribute to the implementation of Rio+20
Area EU International
Water and sanitation Improve water efficiency and quality In line with the Agenda for Change and through EU Water Blueprint international commitments, promote improved access to drinking water and sanitation facilities, improved water quality and reduced pollution; as well as facilitation of political dialogue for shared water resources and implementation of water activities for economic and sustainable growth
Energy, climate Improve efficiency and share of Promote international climate action renewables and reduce greenhouse through the Durban Platform and
gases through: UNFCCC - climate and energy package and low International Partnership on Mitigation, carbon roadmap for 2050 and the International Cooperative Initiatives (ICIs) - 2030 climate and energy policy IRENA: global deployment of - energy efficiency directive renewable energy - ongoing legislative proposals on GEEREF: Global Energy Efficiency emissions from cars and vans, as well and Renewable Energy Fund as fluorinated GHG reduction Global climate change alliance
(GCCA) Sustainable Energy for All Initiative (SE4ALL) ACP-EU Energy Facility and the Africa-EU Renewable Energy Cooperation Programme (RECP)
Biodiversity, forests, EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, CBD Strategic Plan and the 20 Aichi land work on biodiversity valuation and Targets ecosystem services Support the Economics of Ecosystems Forest Action Plan; review of Forestry and Biodiversity (TEEB) and Wealth
Strategy Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) Preparation Land as Resource Communication Implement the Environment and Natural Resources Thematic Digital Observatory for Protected Programme (ENRTP) Areas as a component of the Global Earth Observation System of System of Expand and implement Forest Law Systems (GEOSS) Enforcement, Governance and Trade initiative (FLEGT) and contribution to
UN-REDD+
Possibility of protocol under UNCCD, declaring the EU as an Affected Party Global Soil Partnership (with FAO) Compilation of a New World Atlas of Desertification with UNEP
EN 15 EN
Oceans Marine Strategy Framework; Integrated Regional sea conventions Maritime Policy, Marine Litter and UNCLOS Implementing agreement for Plastic Waste the conservation and sustainable use of Common Fisheries Policy: maximum marine biodiversity in areas beyond sustainable yield, science based national jurisdiction management plans, discards. Illegal, unreported and unregulated Observation and modelling of marine fishing and coastal ecosystems Follow up to Honolulu commitment on marine litter
Waste, chemicals Resource Efficiency roadmap and EU Diffusion of international waste waste legislation, REACH policies (WEEE, RoHs)
implementation Implement Basel, Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions, and SAICM (Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management)
Food, nutrition, Preparation of Communication on Contribution to the Agricultural Market agriculture Sustainable Food Information System (AMIS) Implement Markets in Financial Implementation of the Monitoring Instruments (MIFID) and Market Agricultural Resources (MARS) and Abuse Directive (MAD) GEO-GLAM (Earth Observation) Proposals on the reform of the Implementation of Voluntary Common Agriculture Policy, including Guidelines on the Responsible promoting sustainable agricultural Governance of Land, Fisheries and production, addressing production Forests capacity and climate change. EU Food Security Thematic The European Innovation Partnership Programme Instrument (FSTP); "Agricultural Productivity and Implement forthcoming EU Sustainability" Implementation plan Boosting food Organic food labelling and nutrition security through EU action: implementing our commitments Preparation of Communication on Nutrition Preparation of Action Plan on Resilience Scaling-up Nutrition (SUN) Movement; New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition Implementation of the Food Assistance Convention
Taxes, subsidies Implement relevant actions from Follow up on subsidy reform through Resource Efficiency Roadmap G20
Clean industry and life Implement EU 2020 Industrial policy: International Life-Cycle Data (ILCD) cycle accounting clean technology, bio economy Network Preparation of Communication on Single Market for Green Products European Life Cycle Database
EN 16 EN
Contribution to UNEP Sustainable Sustainable Revised Procurement Directive, Public Procurement Initiative consumption and including GPP
production and Green Adopt the European Accessibility Act Contribution to the implementation of public procurement the 10 Year Framework Programme on Sustainable Consumption and Production
Implement the Communication the EU Resilience approach to resilience: Learning from Food Crises on Resilience, and forthcoming Action Plan. Implement the SHARE and AGIR initiatives. Promotion of resilience in international fora and as theme in partnerships with organisations such as FAO, IFAD and WFP, UNISDR, the World Bank, and civil society organisations
Disaster risk Implement EU disaster prevention Implementation of the Hyogo management framework Framework for Action and elaboration of a follow-up framework for disaster Integration of disaster risk management risk reduction after 2015 (prevention preparedness, response)
and disaster risk assessment in EU and Focus on main priorities outlined in the MS planning EUs disaster risk reduction implementation plan European Flood Awareness System, European Drought Observatory Support international initiatives such as the World Bank-managed global
facility for disaster risk reduction Promote disaster proofing in EU (GFDRR) funding instruments
Promote sustainable, resilient and Cities, tourism, Enhance sustainability of EU cities as accessible cities transport part of the 7th EAP Implement actions to promote sustainable and accessible tourism EU Road Safety, Clean Fuels Directive, promotion of affordable, sustainable transport Europe 2020: Employment Guidelines, Full and productive Promote international labour standards, Joint Employment Reports, National employment and decent through international organisations (in Reform Programmes, Youth work particular the ILO) in the EU's bilateral Employment package, Employment relations, as well as through and Social Developments in Europe development and trade policies Review
Follow-up to the 2012 International Labour Conference Resolution and G20 youth employment strategy Implementation of the thematic programme Investing in People Synergies with relevant EU thematic programmes, such as Non State Actors
EN 17 EN
in Development, Migration and Asylum and Democratisation and Human Rights Promote the reduction of poverty, Social protection, social Promote social protection including social exclusion and more effective inclusion and Social Protection Floors (SPFs) and social policies through Europe 2020 eradicating poverty implement recommendations adopted by the ILO in line with the plans and
Assist Member States in structural policies of partner countries; reforms through the Social Investment Package Continue to support social protection, including SPFs where relevant in The European Platform against Poverty bilateral relations with partner and Social Exclusion: A European countries, at international fora (ILO, framework for social and territorial OECD, G20 and ASEM) and in cohesion development cooperation. Implement actions of the Communication on Social Protection in The European Disability Strategy European Union Development 2010-2020 Cooperation Mainstreaming of the rights of the child and indigenous peoples’ rights, social inclusion and the rights of persons with disabilities in EU development policies Implement the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Implement Actions on Corporate Corporate Social Contribute to international CSR Social Responsibility Responsibility guidance documents for business and SMEs (incl. ILO, OECD) and to UN
guidelines
Health EU Health Strategy Implement Communication on the EU Role in Global Health European Health Indicators Strengthening of health systems, Communication on Combating improved health security and policy HIV/AIDS in the European Union and coherence through geographic neighbouring countries instruments and thematic programmes for better health outcomes and reduced health inequalities. Support to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the GAVI Alliance and the Global Programme to Enhance Reproductive Health Commodity Security European Observatory on Health Systems Develop wellbeing indicators as part of the Health2020 strategy
Education Strategic framework for European Promote quality education for all cooperation in education and training through the Commission's geographic
and thematic programmes Education and training in the implementation of the Europe 2020 Implementation of the Commission's strategy. international co-operation programmes
EN 18 EN
European cooperation on schools for in higher education and training the 21st century Support global initiatives, such as Global Partnership for Education and policy dialogues such as Association for the Development of Education in Africa
Gender equality and Mainstreaming of gender equality and Mainstream gender equality and the women’s empowerment women’s rights through the EU Gender empowerment of women in EU Action Plan 2010-2015 development policies; implement the
2010-2015 EU Gender Action Plan in Follow up to Beijing Platform for development cooperation; contribution Action to the UN programme increasing accountability on financing for gender equality Implement actions for women’s economic empowerment through the Investment in People programme Implement Actions in the Communication Social Protection in European Union Development Cooperation
Justice, Human Rights, EU Charter on Fundamental Rights Implement actions set out in the fundamental freedoms, Communications on: EU Support for Implement the Aarhus Convention democracy, good Sustainable Change in Transition governance and the rule Societies; Increase the impact of EU of law Development Policy and the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan
on Human Rights and Democracy Implement the EU DCI programme Non-state Actors and Local Authorities in Development Promote application of Aarhus in financial institutions, development cooperation, trade agreements Enhance EU international cooperation Science, technology, Implementation of Horizon 2020 in research and innovation. research and providing research support in areas
innovation such as water, energy, agriculture, Contribute to the Global Earth transport, environment, social sciences. Observation System of System of Sustainable development will be an Systems (GEOSS)
overarching objective of Horizon Research under the Food Security 2020 with at least 60% of total Thematic Programme (2011-2013) and budget relating to this theme. the Africa-EU Partnership Implement EU 2020 Innovation Union and Eco-innovation Action Plan
Statistics Further development of indicators on Cooperate with international GDP and beyond, advice on statistics organisations and third countries, under
for overarching framework. the lead of the UNSC, to improve measurement of progress and ensure comparability
EN 19 EN
Trade Negotiate and implement provisions on trade and sustainable development in
trade agreements; promote elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers on environmental goods and services at all levels Continue to support “Everything But Arms” initiative Provide continued support to Aid for Trade
EN 20 EN
ANNEX II Public Consultation The Commission held a public consultation6 in the summer of 2012. Around 120 organisations and individuals from public authorities and civil society, including the private sector and academia, contributed. The consultation revealed a consensus that the MDGs have rallied many and different actors behind the same development objectives and that the MDGs have been valuable in raising public awareness, increasing political will and mobilising resources to eradicate poverty, as well as being powerful monitoring tools. Looking forward, some common views on future priorities emerged: • Focus on poverty within a wider and more comprehensive and sustainable vision of development; • Integrate the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental); • Ensure that the process of developing the post-2015 framework is inclusive, with strong involvement from poor countries and civil society; • Design a universal framework, relevant for all countries and with responsibilities for all; • Foster the drivers for economic growth and job creation including by engaging with the private sector; • Improve development financing and policy coherence for development. Furthermore, the Commission launched a public consultation7 in October 2012 on Rio+20 follow up. The EESC supported feedback through a series of structured dialogues. Over 125 responses to the public consultation were received from individuals, public authorities, businesses and business associations, NGOs, trade unions and consumer protection groups. Based on this, a number of suggestions have been taken into account. A large number of replies highlighted issues related to the inclusive green economy, in particular pointing to the need for indicators beyond GDP, while others pointed out the need for a favourable trade environment, eliminating environmentally harmful subsidies and environmental taxes. The areas for possible SDGs mentioned by respondents included resource and energy efficiency, waste and chemicals, biodiversity, sustainable consumption and production, water and sanitation, protection of oceans and fisheries, sustainable transport, sustainable agriculture, gender equality, poverty eradication, climate change and adaptation, health and food security. Respondents also underlined the importance of clear and long-term targets on making use of exiting targets and agreements. On the relationship between SDGs and MDGs, there was consensus that one post-2015 development framework should be created that would cover both. An outreach exercise was also carried out through EU Delegations in third countries. More than 50 responses were received from countries. Most countries indicated the need for a coherent and coordinated way of bringing together the MDGs and SDGs. Related consultations include those which took place on the Resource Efficiency roadmap and the consultation on the 7th Environmental Action Programme. The Commission has widely engaged with civil society, including by undertaking a public consultation prior to Rio+20, and civil society also made important inputs during the conference itself.
6 http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/public-consultations/towards_post-2015-development- framework_en.htm 7 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/rio20_en.htm
EN 21 EN Aan de Voorzitter van de Directie Multilaterale Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal Instellingen en Binnenhof 4 Mensenrechten Bezuidenhoutseweg 67 Den Haag 2594 AC Den Haag Postbus 20061 Nederland www.rijksoverheid.nl
Contactpersoon Anne Poorta
T +31-70-3485428 F +31-70-3486167 [email protected]
Datum 22 januari 2013 Onze Referentie Betreft De Nederlandse inzet in de post-2015 ontwikkelingsagenda DMM/SE-003/2013
Geachte Voorzitter,
Hierbij stuur ik u de Nederlandse visie op de ontwikkelingsagenda na de Millennium Ontwikkelingsdoelen (MDGs) die in 2015 aflopen. In de Kabinetsreactie van 1 november 2011 op het AIV-advies ‘Ontwikkelingsagenda na 2015’ werd een dergelijke visie toegezegd. Op 28 september 2012 ontving u de Nederlandse bijdrage aan de publieke consultaties van de Europese Commissie over dit onderwerp. Hieronder volgt de stand van zaken m.b.t. de Millenniumdoelen en de internationale discussie over de post-2015 ontwikkelingsagenda, evenals de Nederlandse inzet op hoofdlijnen. Zoals toegezegd tijdens het Wetgevingsoverleg op 17 december jl. ontvangt u in maart de beleidsnota Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking. Op basis hiervan volgt in de loop van het jaar een uitgewerkte Nederlandse visie op de post-2015 ontwikkelingsagenda, na nadere consultatie van onder andere het Nederlandse maatschappelijk middenveld. De regering zal uw Kamer daarnaast op de hoogte houden van relevante ontwikkelingen in deze.
1. Het succes van de Millenniumdoelen In 2015 lopen de Millenniumdoelen (MDGs) ten einde. Deze doelen werden geformuleerd op basis van de Millennium Verklaring van de Verenigde Naties (2000). De MDGs bleken een succes. Ze vestigden de aandacht op bestrijding van moedersterfte, kindersterfte, HIV-AIDS en verbetering van onderwijs en gezondheidszorg. Zoals voormalig Secretaris-Generaal van de Verenigde Naties Kofi Annan recent schreef: “de MDGs plaatsten mensen onherroepelijk in het middelpunt van ontwikkeling”. De MDGs stelden zowel overheden als bedrijven, maatschappelijk middenveld en burgers in staat concreet bij te dragen aan ontwikkelingsinspanningen. Er werd dan ook veel vooruitgang geboekt: Vier belangrijke subdoelstellingen – halvering van inkomensarmoede, gelijke aantallen jongens en meisjes op de basisschool, verbetering van toegang tot water en verbeterde leefomstandigheden in sloppenwijken –, zijn op mondiaal niveau drie jaar voor het einddoel al gehaald. Het percentage mensen dat leeft van minder dan $1,25 per dag daalde wereldwijd van 47 procent in 1990 tot 24 procent in 2008 en zal naar verwachting nog verder dalen in de komende drie jaar.1
1 Verenigde Naties, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012
Pagina 1 van 5 Het aantal nieuwe HIV infecties daalde sterk in Afrika en het aantal Directie Multilaterale malariagevallen is met de helft teruggebracht in landen waar de ziekte Instellingen en veel voorkwam, zoals Rwanda en Zambia. Mensenrechten Doelen op het terrein van halvering van ondervoeding, universeel basisonderwijs en verminderen van kindersterfte zijn met extra Onze Referentie inspanningen haalbaar in 2015. DMM/SE-003/2013
Wereldwijd hebben de Millenniumdoelen de levens van miljoenen mensen verbeterd. Toch zijn in 2015 waarschijnlijk niet alle doelen gerealiseerd, bijvoorbeeld op het terrein van moedersterfte en toegang van vrouwen en meisjes tot reproductieve gezondheidsvoorzieningen. Er zijn grote verschillen in de geboekte voortgang tussen en binnen landen. Vooral landen in conflict blijven achter.
2. Hoe verder na 2015 Na de MDGs blijft een aanzienlijke uitdaging over op cruciale thema's als armoede, duurzaamheid, veiligheid, gender en rechten. Daarbij is sprake van veranderende verhoudingen: in de groep van arme landen is sprake van grote vooruitgang in sommige landen, maar landen in conflict blijven achter. Nieuwe partnerschappen tussen overheden, internationale organisaties, maatschappelijk middenveld en bedrijfsleven zijn noodzakelijk geworden. Met andere woorden: zowel de internationale agenda als de uitvoering zijn toe aan verandering.
De Secretaris-Generaal van de Verenigde Naties (SGVN) is tijdens de Millenniumdoelentop in 2010 gevraagd met aanbevelingen te komen voor de mondiale ontwikkelingsagenda na 2015. In juli jl. benoemde hij het High-Level Panel on the Post 2015 Development Agenda, dat in mei 2013 een advies zal uitbrengen. De covoorzitters van het panel van 27 leden zijn de Presidenten van Indonesië en Liberia en de Minister-President van het Verenigd Koninkrijk. De regering is verheugd over de benoeming van de Nederlander Paul Polman, Chief Executive Officer van Unilever, als één van de twee vertegenwoordigers van het bedrijfsleven in het Panel.
Het High-Level Panel is internationaal tot medio 2013 het belangrijkste forum voor discussies rond de post-2015 ontwikkelingsagenda. De regering merkt op dat het Panel pas onlangs met zijn werkzaamheden is begonnen en dat veel ideeën nog in ontwikkeling zijn. Na publicatie van het adviesrapport van het High-Level Panel volgt tijdens de 68e Algemene Vergadering van de Verenigde Naties in september 2013 een top, waarop de voortgang van de Millenniumdoelen en het nieuwe raamwerk worden besproken. Naar verwachting wordt op deze top besloten hoe de internationale onderhandelingen over het nieuwe raamwerk na 2015 gaan verlopen.
Parallel aan de panelbijeenkomsten coördineert de VN elf thematische consultaties en een reeks van nationale en regionale consultaties om verschillende stakeholders te betrekken bij het proces, input te krijgen en draagvlak te creëren.
Bij de Rio+20 duurzame ontwikkelingsconferentie in juni jl. werd een intergouvernementele werkgroep opgericht, die tijdens de 68e Algemene Vergadering van de VN met een voorstel voor duurzame ontwikkelingsdoelen (SDGs) zal komen. De werkgroep gaat begin 2013 van start. Het Rio+20 slotdocument stelt dat de duurzame ontwikkelingsdoelen coherent met en geïntegreerd in de post-2015 ontwikkelingsagenda moeten worden. Het
Pagina 2 van 5 slotdocument stelt ook dat deze doelen universeel toepasbaar moeten zijn op alle Directie Multilaterale landen. Nederland steunt het samenbrengen van de twee agenda’s sterk, maar dit Instellingen en Mensenrechten is inhoudelijk en procesmatig een uitdaging.
Onze Referentie 3. De Nederlandse inzet DMM/SE-003/2013 Nederland doet actief mee in internationale discussies over een post-2015 raamwerk voor ontwikkeling. Tijdens de intergouvernementele onderhandelingen over de nieuwe ontwikkelingsagenda wil Nederland zo veel mogelijk samen met de EU-lidstaten opereren. Op dit moment bereidt de Europese Commissie een eerste positiedocument voor, waarbij de Europese inzet op terrein van de post- 2015 ontwikkelingsagenda en de duurzame ontwikkelingsdoelen gecombineerd worden. Dit document zal als basis dienen voor discussie tijdens de informele Raad Buitenlandse Zaken / Ontwikkelingssamenwerking van 12 februari 2013. De Europese Commissie zal vervolgens in de eerste helft van 2013 met een mededeling komen over de post-2015 ontwikkelingsagenda.
Nederland zal ook deelnemen aan de intergouvernementele VN-werkgroep over duurzame ontwikkelingsdoelen (SDGs). Ook geeft Nederland financiële steun aan het secretariaat van het High-Level Panel en financiert en faciliteert het thematische VN-consultaties op het gebied van water.
Inhoudelijk wordt de Nederlandse inzet bepaald door het algemene Kabinetsbeleid op het terrein van ontwikkelingssamenwerking, met bijzondere aandacht voor de prioriteiten (watermanagement, voedselzekerheid, veiligheid en rechtsorde, seksuele en reproductieve gezondheid en rechten) en doorsnijdende thema’s (gender, duurzaamheid en goed bestuur). De Nederlandse inzet wordt mede gebaseerd op nieuw beleid op het gebied van internationale samenwerking op de middellange termijn, dat ik voornemens ben dit jaar verder te ontwikkelen. Uw Kamer zal hierover nog nader worden geïnformeerd. Het betreft vier sporen: (1) Verdieping door de directe armoedebestrijding, (2) Verbreding door grotere inzet op mondiale publieke goederen, (3) Versterking van de economische samenwerking met ontwikkelingslanden, en (4) Bevordering van buitenlandse handel.
Binnen deze kaders wordt ten aanzien van het post-2015 raamwerk vooral ingezet op de volgende aspecten: a. Armoedebestrijding: Nederland wil dat een hoofddoel van het nieuwe raamwerk het uitbannen van extreme armoede en honger binnen één generatie wordt (getting to zero). Een bestaansminimum waaronder geen mens zou moeten vallen (social protection floor), biedt een geschikt kader voor het uitbannen van extreme armoede. Dit kader wordt uitgewerkt in een multidimensionaal armoedeconcept dat niet alleen naar inkomensarmoede kijkt, maar ook naar toegang tot sociale diensten, gelijkheid en gelijke verdeling. De Millenniumdoelen zijn bijzonder effectief gebleken als communicatiemiddel in het mobiliseren van politiek draagvlak en middelen. Een nieuw raamwerk moet hier wat Nederland betreft op voortbouwen en de eenvoud en helderheid van de Millenniumdoelen bewaren. b. Duurzaamheid en bescherming van mondiale publieke goederen: Deze zijn integraal onderdeel van armoedebestrijding. Er moet één enkel raamwerk na 2015 komen, dat zowel de vernieuwde ontwikkelingsagenda als de in Rio aangekondigde duurzame ontwikkelingsdoelen (SDGs) omvat. Het raamwerk dient
Pagina 3 van 5 een balans te vinden tussen de drie dimensies van duurzame ontwikkeling Directie Multilaterale (sociaal, economisch, milieu). Het nieuwe raamwerk moet alle landen er toe Instellingen en Mensenrechten aanzetten een nationale duurzaamheidsstrategie uit te werken, met aandacht voor duurzame productie- en consumptiepatronen en internationale publieke goederen. Onze Referentie Sociaaleconomische ontwikkeling is immers begrensd door de beschikbaarheid van DMM/SE-003/2013 natuurlijke hulpbronnen op onze planeet (planetary boundaries). c. Vrede en veiligheid: Ook dit thema moet een plaats een plaats krijgen binnen het nieuwe raamwerk. In fragiele staten en landen in conflict werd tot nu toe geen (enkel) Millenniumdoel behaald. “Vrede en veiligheid” is een belangrijke aanvulling op de MDGs en de drie dimensies van duurzame ontwikkeling. Hierbij wil Nederland aansluiten bij eerdere voortgang op dit terrein voortkomend uit het Busan-proces, waar onder co-voorzitterschap van Nederland de ‘New Deal’ voor fragiele staten werd afgesproken met de nadruk op veiligheid, gerechtigheid en het scheppen van werkgelegenheid. d. Gender, seksuele en reproductieve rechten en gezondheid: Deze tot nog toe onderbelichte thema’s moeten een prominente plek in het raamwerk krijgen. Terwijl steeds duidelijker wordt dat deze thema's cruciaal zijn voor mensenrechten en ontwikkeling, is op deze gebieden sprake van schrijnende achterstand. Internationaal liggen deze thema’s vaak gevoelig en daarom bestaat het risico dat ze onderbelicht blijven. e. Internationale samenwerking, vernieuwing ODA: Vanuit de gedachte van gelijkwaardig partnerschap en gedeelde verantwoordelijkheid, moeten landen zich verplichten om specifieke ontwikkelingsinspanningen te vergezellen met coherent beleid op andere terreinen zoals handel, landbouw, (arbeids-)migratie, milieu en financiële regulering. Daarbij is het uitgangspunt dat beleid op andere terreinen tenminste ontwikkelingsinspanningen niet mag schaden. Hier ligt een rol voor het Ontwikkelingscomité van de OESO (DAC) om meetbare indicatoren te ontwikkelen. Ook moet er op een bredere, modernere wijze gekeken worden naar de financiering van ontwikkeling. Daarbij staan de rol en definitie van Official Development Assistance (ODA) ter discussie. De toekomstige ODA-definitie dient innovatieve financieringsvormen te omarmen. ODA kan immers als hefboom dienen voor andere geldstromen. Een positieve stap is dat de High-Level vergadering van de OESO/DAC in Londen op 5 december jl. heeft besloten om in de aanloop naar 2015 de ODA-definitie tegen het licht te houden. f. Proces: Nederland is voorstander van een inclusief en breed gedragen proces voor de totstandkoming van het nieuwe raamwerk na 2015. Dat de MDGs destijds zonder brede inspraak zijn opgesteld, was immers één van de kritiekpunten. Ontwikkelingslanden en opkomende economieën moeten het voortouw nemen in de agendering van hun prioriteiten. Er moet wereldwijd gelegenheid zijn voor inspraak door individuen, het maatschappelijk middenveld, experts, academici en de private sector. Deze kunnen een belangrijke rol spelen, zowel inhoudelijk als bij het mobiliseren van draagvlak en bij de uitvoering van een nieuw raamwerk.
De Minister voor Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking,
Lilianne Ploumen
Pagina 4 van 5 Directie Multilaterale Instellingen en Mensenrechten
Onze Referentie DMM/SE-003/2013
Pagina 5 van 5 European View DOI 10.1007/s12290-012-0229-z
ARTICLE
The EU in 2030: a long-term view of Europe in a changing world: keeping the values, changing the attitudes
Margaritis Schinas
Centre for European Studies 2012
Abstract Predicting future scenarios in EU politics is an important exercise that allows policymakers to plan for future generations and scarce resources. The EU has commenced this work through the ESPAS report Global Trends 2030—Citi- zens in an Interconnected and Polycentric World. This article surveys the chal- lenges and opportunities identified in the report: the rise of a global middle class, the emergence of a multipolar world, the diffusion of power from the nation state to non-state actors, the paradoxical ‘less poverty but more new poor’ and growing pressure for as well as growing resistance to global gover- nance. Europe’s future success will depend on its ability to address the chal- lenges of prosperity, democracy, demography, fairness and security in the next 20 years. Europe must ‘keep the values, but change the attitude’, while re- evaluating the role of the state to create a more democratic EU that can act as a broker between world powers.
Keywords Future scenarios Á Big picture Á ESPAS Report ‘Global Trends 2030’ Á Global middle class Á The next 20 years Á ‘Keep the values, but change the attitude’
Introduction
How will the world look in 20 years? What will Europe’s place be in a world shaped by unprecedented change?
M. Schinas (&) Bureau of European Policy Advisors, Rue de la Loi 200, 1040 Brussels, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] 123 The nineteenth-century Danish physicist Niels Bohr, Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein and Bernard Shaw all claim rights to the now-famous maxim ‘It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.’ If this assumption was valid back in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it is more so in our age, which is characterised by uncertainty, seemingly endless crises, technological change and the globalisation of economic and media markets. A business analyst was quoted recently in the social media as saying, ‘Nowadays, you can predict the future in three steps. First: know the facts; second: understand your space; and third: cross your fingers, because steps one and two don’t work!’ In fact, looking for reliable future scenarios in times of uncertainty and crisis is a complex—yet not futile—exercise. It helps policymakers consider the big picture, and it broadens the policy landscape to care for new generations, to plan for scarce resources and ultimately to resist the temptation of considering day-to-day problems as the safest tool for policy planning. When it comes to forward-looking studies in modern European politics, doomsayers still dominate the debate, as the intellectual appeal of pessimism often seems more attractive and devoid of facts; the (few) sober analysts, opting for a more rational (and often optimistic) view of things to come, find themselves under tremendous scrutiny to prove their case. Somehow, for someone to say, ‘Europe is declining, its economy will not recover and Europeans will become irrelevant’ sounds more convincing than to claim that ‘Europe will rise again and come out stronger from the crisis.’ The former assumption is accepted as a fact, while the latter needs to be proved and documented. This article, attempting to scan the world and the European horizon 20 years from now, is therefore a delicate intellectual endeavour, one that will require both a base of evidence and sufficient analytical tools. Emerging trends, already visible around us, will also be a necessary—but certainly not sufficient—means to look deep into the crystal ball. Rather than accurately predicting Europe’s outlook by 2030, the aim of this article is to indicate the key determinants for its future success or failure.
Establishing a methodology
Where to start? First, by identifying the major global trends likely to shape our world in the next 20 years. Many states1 and individual researchers, think tanks and research institutes2 have successfully launched such a process and are already harvesting the first results. Since 2010, the EU has engaged in a similar project (the European Strategy and Policy System, or ESPAS), bringing together all institutions in its first serious attempt to implement a comprehensive foresight activity. The first report has
1 Notably the US, Russia, Singapore, the UK and France. 2 For example, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, Centre for Security Strategy, Institute for Security Studies and Centre d’E´tudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales. European View already been published (ESPAS 2012), shedding light on the basic components of a future interconnected and polycentric world (see also the next section of this article). Work is still ongoing, with a view to putting in place a permanent inter-institutional system at EU level for forward-looking studies and policy planning by 2014. Second, once future trends are identified and properly analysed, a convincing methodology should be tailored to promote understanding of emerging challenges. For example, what will it mean, in practice, for Europe and the world to have a globally emerging middle class? Will this trend bring more or less friction and conflict? The next logical, third step of the proposed methodology will be crucial to allow for educated guesses and informed conclusions: it will consist of raising the right questions about the best way to seize future opportunities and minimise emerging risks. To sum up, the methodology will be grounded in the logical sequence of trends—challenges—opportunities/risks. After all, since the time of antiquity, even the Priestess of the Oracle of Delphi herself could not foretell the future without some help; in her case, it was the steamy spring water and the hallucinatory herbs around the temple of Apollo that provided the methodol- ogy. Nowadays, even doomsayers will concede that a robust methodology is a sine qua non condition for attempting any rational prediction.
Global trends 2030: towards an interconnected and polycentric world
All major forward-looking studies have found converging evidence on the global trends likely to shape the world by 2030. Mapping out these strong currents of influence leads to a surprisingly clear common denominator: a multipolar, interconnected world with many more middle powers and empowered citizens competing for influence and scarce resources. The emerging global trends leading to such an outcome can be identified individually as follows: • The rise of a global middle class.3 Though the change may be geographically uneven, the rise of the middle class will most likely lead to a sense of global citizenship. Obviously, the biggest share of the rising global middle class will be in India and China, thus contributing to more harmonised consumption patterns and interdependence of cultural values. • The emergence of a multipolar world with fewer hegemonic powers or superstates and many more middle powers claiming their share of influence in global affairs. It is more likely that there will be an evolution from today’s G7/ G20 to tomorrow’s G50 framework rather than a consolidation towards a G2 arrangement. Countries like South Korea, Turkey, Mexico, Nigeria, Egypt and (why not?) Iraq will enhance the spectrum of emerging actors currently occupied by the BRIC countries.
3 For a definition of ‘middle class’, see ESPAS (2012, 28 n. 2). 123 • The steady diffusion of power from the nation state to a polycentric web of hubs of influence such as regions, megacities, networks of like-minded citizens and civil society. The Tea Party and the Indignados movements are early signs of this trend, which would entail dangers of fragmentation but at the same time could also fertilise policymaking with novel ideas. • The somewhat paradoxical future tendency of ‘less poverty but more new poor’. The decrease of abject poverty in Africa, Asia and Latin America will not necessarily diminish the number of ‘new poor’ resulting from economic policies, weak and unequal education systems and the migration of cheap labour towards or around megacities. The increasing scarcity of resources (unless redressed by spectacular technological change and sustainable global policies) will contribute further to social inequality and to a growing gap between the haves and the have-nots. • Finally, available studies point to a trend implying more pressure for global governance but also more resistance to it. The empowerment of the citizen— greatly facilitated by information technology and global media—will continue to reinforce the autonomy of individuals and will create the need for more democracy and better governance standards. Regrettably (and paradoxically), such convergence of the world’s citizenry will at the same time risk activating reactionary forces, namely extremist identity politics, xenophobia and populism. This will be a new world that will involve a higher degree of uncertainty, but also interesting transitions fuelled by new drivers of change in the economy, in governance, demography, management of resources, technological change and democracy. It will be a world of transformation and paradox, which will inevitably raise fundamental questions for Europe to answer. Potential responses may carry great uncertainty for now, but the quest to explore Europe’s strengths and weaknesses will remain a pressing necessity for policymakers in Brussels and in the national capitals.
Europe 2030: the challenges
Today, the EU represents only 7 % of the world’s population but produces about 22 % of the world’s economic output. However, the enduring effects of the ongoing financial crisis, Europe’s declining demography and the rise of the global middle class of empowered citizens worldwide will logically—some time in the 2020s—shift the centre of gravity in economic and human development from the Atlantic to the Pacific. History is accelerating: it took 155 years for Britain to double its GDP per capita, 50 years for the US and just 15 years for China. The study of global trends, as seen in the previous section, clearly points to such an outcome, but it should be stressed that Europe’s decline resulting from such a shift is not a foregone conclusion. Europe’s place in the world by 2030 will European View largely depend upon its ability to address effectively the following challenges, which are already darkening its horizon.
The challenge of prosperity
Since the late 1950s, European integration has enabled the spectacular improvement of living standards in all participating Member States. The ongoing financial crisis highlighted the need for both deep reforms and quick fixes to fill in the gaps of an asymmetric monetary union that still lacks a meaningful economic policy component. For Europe to regain its economic strength and international competitiveness, the battle is on: correcting excessive sovereign debt, reigniting growth through structural reform, targeting invest- ment towards innovation and pooling sovereignty to correct asymmetries can still contribute to Europe’s economic revival. Delivery on all these priorities should continue despite the considerable amount of pain inherent in any adjustment process. There are two specific advantages that play in Europe’s favour: first, we now know what went wrong; and second, Europeans will not opt for decline if they see that there is a clear road from reform to growth and jobs.
The challenge of democracy
Europe will not remain immune from the ever-increasing global demand of empowered citizens to shape major decisions and to control central power and government. If this trend is already obvious in countries having suffered from dynastic and authoritarian politics, the advanced European democracies will not escape such pressures either; in their case, the quest for more democracy, participation and control will especially be felt in relation to the broadening and deepening of EU competence, namely in areas like economic and fiscal policy. It will no longer be reasonable to assume that Member States will continue pooling sovereignty in jointly determining national budgets, controlling their execution, subjecting themselves to multilateral surveillance (including sanc- tions) and conferring quasi-federal authority to supranational institutions like the European Commission and the European Central Bank without greater direct involvement by people in making decisions and enhancing democratic legitimacy. Failure to establish the right regulatory and institutional channels for broadening democracy in Europe will simply fuel even further the populist and extremist phenomena present today across the EU.
The challenge of demography
The ageing of European societies will place great burdens on today’s young people, with the combined demands of an active working life and increased duty of care for the elderly. Active ageing will remain at the top of the political agenda, but the lack of young mobile European professionals will become an issue. In this context, migration is closely linked to demographics and may prove 123 Europe’s safety valve in rebalancing labour markets. On the one hand, economic volatility may reduce in the short term migration flows to Europe; on the other hand, the continent will again become attractive as a host once economic growth returns and the need for young workers surfaces. The globalisation of migration will continue to expand, and Europe should plan for policies that will allow for a legal and orderly process of migration to compensate for the important imbalances ahead.
The challenge of fairness
Despite the decrease of absolute poverty in Europe and throughout the world, existing gaps between rich and poor will persist, and new categories of new poor are likely to emerge. Europe will fail the globalisation adjustment test unless it manages to reconcile its drive for competitiveness with its traditions of fairness, income distribution and values of social economy. The challenge of fairness should not only cover the most vulnerable groups in society (those on low incomes or without jobs, people living in remote areas, immigrants, children and women); it should also strive to address future issues of scarcity of resources such as water, energy, commodities and raw materials, and related challenges of climate change and biodiversity. Of course, fairness will not be achieved in a vacuum; it will require substantial investment by EU institutions and Member States’ capital in growth-enhancing policies, along with adequate regulatory breakthroughs in governance and legitimacy.
The challenge of security
Internal and external security will remain key issues for Europeans in the period leading up to 2030. Within Europe’s frontiers, armed violence (including organised crime and terrorism), transnational criminality and a growing proportion of crime linked to citizens feeling cut off from education and labour opportunities will continue to test governments’ ability to deliver security for their societies. Tackling such problems will require closer and deeper coordi- nation between the EU Member States in Justice and Home Affairs policies, as well as overcoming the traditional reluctance of certain governments to share with others the tools and instruments at the heart of national sovereignty. Beyond the EU’s external borders, state fragility and armed conflict in Europe’s neighbourhood will constantly remind Europeans of their duty to secure international peace and security. The Southern Mediterranean and Caucasus may witness further instability and conflict. The EU should not undermine its defence cooperation potential (‘pooling and sharing’), especially at times of serious cuts in national defence budgets. The Libya experience last year offered an illustrative example of the dangers of fragmentation and the benefits of defence cooperation. European View
Europe 2030: risks and opportunities
Over the past five decades, European integration proved the most suitable model for rebuilding a war-torn continent through shared prosperity and transnational cooperation. This pattern of development will have to adjust at the dawn of a new era: an emerging reality of power shifts, fragmentation and new drivers of influence, power and wealth. Many of the certainties of post–Second World War society, centred on a relatively stable monetary order and a well- established system of international relations, power politics and trade will no longer be in place to provide a comfort zone for Europe. During the next 20 years the EU will have new opportunities, but will also face important risks in this ‘thicker’ and far more complex global scene. Many uncertainties will have to be dealt with and overcome, while ‘blue sky’ horizons will be in short supply. Any attempt to scan the future standing of Europe in 2030 would not be complete without a closer look at risks and opportunities ahead. Among the opportunities to seize, Europe’s reputation as the world epicentre of soft power is probably its best asset for exercising influence in the future. Soft power is about appeal, attraction and persuasion. It stands for inclusiveness and tolerance, for the protection of minorities and the full integration of women in society and the workplace; for the constitutional protection of human rights, universal access to health and social security and care for the elderly; for mobility and fair access to education; for alleviating poverty in developing countries and redressing global social and economic imbalances. The EU can market this ‘value of values’ erga omnes in a more convincing way, as the US will continue to prioritise hard power and the middle powers will be busy building up their economic strength. The rise of citizens’ empowerment and the universal spread of values such as democracy, participation, human rights, the advancement of network societies and universal concerns for the environment, climate and resource scarcity will create more opportunities for Europe. The gradual emergence of an interna- tional public opinion will present the EU with many more possibilities to influence world affairs, as it has excelled in defending precisely these same values. Finally, the radical rethink of European economic governance architecture will offer better prospects for economic revival, as long-overdue reforms are in the works and laxity in controlling sovereign debt and deficits are now in the process of being corrected. Europe’s economic recovery may, after all, come as a result of the fact that the crisis acted as a catalyst for change, growth and reform. However, there will be significant risks, too. If the trend towards sound economic recovery fails to consolidate, poverty will grow, the decline of Europe’s middle class will accelerate, European firms will vote with their feet and invest elsewhere and the feeling of discontent will rise. Populists and extremists will tap into this potential clientele of disillusioned Europeans. Should these risks materialise, not only will the perception of the EU as a problem-solving actor be
123 tarnished, but its soft power capacity to inspire and motivate citizens worldwide will be hampered. Last but not least, if this gloomy scenario materialises, some Member States may feel tempted to re-nationalise key policies and prefer to engage as autonomous players in the new international game of middle powers. For the EU, this will indeed be the biggest risk of all.
Europe 2030: what works? Keep the values, change the attitudes
It is hardly surprising that an analysis of trends, challenges, risks and opportunities fails to provide an accurate prediction of Europe’s place in the world 20 years from now. Nevertheless, this sober prospect of what the future may hold for Europeans does allow for the definition of a (probably the) key determinant of Europe’s future success. What will work, then? How can present and future policymakers in Brussels and the national capitals proceed to bring about a stronger, more assertive Europe with global reach instead of fatally waiting for the decline, stagnation and paralysis scenarios to come true? Keeping the values but changing the attitudes seems the most obvious answer. Maintaining the values behind Europe’s undisputed success during the last 50 years is more relevant than ever before: reforming and uniting to keep the economy prosperous, maintaining fairness to and solidarity with the more vulnerable, speaking out for democracy and human rights, continuing to project soft power worldwide and contributing to world peace and security. However, preserving Europe’s values will require a fundamental change of attitudes to deal with the profound transition from old to new: revisiting the role and structure of the state to optimise public services, adjusting regulation from times of abundance to times of scarcity, redesigning a deeper, more democratic EU and acting as an honest broker with the US, Russia, China and the middle powers, beyond the confines of post–Second World War realities. Returning to the Oracle of Delphi analogy, the Priestess of the Temple of Apollo used to formulate her predictions as a way to influence the course of future events, not to encourage enquiring dignitaries to simply wait for them to happen. The jury is still out on the final verdict for 2030, but the outlook of a continent struggling to adjust is rather clear. Preserving Europe’s values by changing its attitudes emerges as the most practical advice a modern Oracle of Delphi would have to offer to Europeans. It might well work this time, too.
References
ESPAS (European Strategy and Policy Analysis System). (2012). In A´ . de Vasconcelos (Ed.), Global trends 2030: Citizens in an interconnected and polycentric world. Paris: European Union Institute for European View
Security Studies. http://www.espas.europa.eu/fileadmin/euiss/documents/ESPAS_Docs/ESPAS_ report_II_01.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2012.
Margaritis Schinas is Director and Deputy Head of the Bureau of European Policy Advisers at the European Commission.
123 THE POST- 2 0 1 5 D E V E L O P M E N T AG E N D A THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT G O A L S IN PERSPECTIVE No. 74, April 2011
A D V I S O R Y COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL AFFA I R S ADVIESRAAD INTERNATIONALE VRAAGSTUKKEN A I V Members of the Advisory Council on International Affairs
Chair F. Korthals Altes
Vice-chair Professor W.J.M. van Genugten
Members Ms S. Borren MA Ms L.Y. Gonçalves-Ho Kang You Dr P.C. Plooij-van Gorsel Professor A. de Ruijter Ms M. Sie Dhian Ho Professor A. van Staden Lt. Gen. M.L.M. Urlings (retd.) Ms H.M. Verrijn Stuart Professor J.J.C. Voorhoeve
Executive Secretary T.D.J. Oostenbrink
P.O. Box 20061 2500 EB The Hague The Netherlands
Telephone + 31 70 348 5108/6060 Fax + 31 70 348 6256 E-mail [email protected] Internet www.aiv-advice.nl Members of the Joint Post-2015 Development Agenda Committee
Chair Professor R. van der Hoeven
Members Professor K.C.J.M. Arts Dr B.S.M. Berendsen Ms. S. Borren MA Dr N. Tellegen A. van der Velden
External Expert F.A.J. Baneke
Executive Secretary Ms. D.E. van Norren Contents
Foreword
Summary and main recommendations 8
A Lessons learned 13
A.I The Millennium Declaration and the MDGs 13 A.I.1 Declarations in the run-up to the MDGs 13 A.I.2 From Declaration to Goals 14 A.I.3 MDG summits in 2005 and 2010 16 A.I.4 To what extent have the MDGs been achieved? 17
A.II Have the MDGs proved to be a workable concept? 20 A.II.1 General criticism 21 A.II.2 Measuring poverty 24 A.II.3 Indicators and other pitfalls of results-based management 25
A.III What the MDGs fail to address 26 A.III.1 Themes that are not addressed 27 A.III.2 Themes that should have been or should be addressed in greater detail 29 A.III.3 Missing target groups 31 A.III.4 The UN’s response to criticism of the eight goals 33
A.IV What have the MDGs meant for policy in developing and donor countries? 34 A.IV.1 How have the MDGs been used in developing countries? 34 A.IV.2 Have the MDGs had an impact on donor policies? 36
A.V The MDGs after 2015? 38 A.V.1 Conclusions and lessons learned 38 A.V.2 MDGs in perspective: should they be abolished? 40 A.V.3 Should we continue with the current MDG system? 41 A.V.4 A post-2015 system for international cooperation 42
B Towards a different approach: a global development agenda 45
Introduction 45
B.I Current developments 45 B.I.1 Globalisation at a crossroads 45 B.I.2 Trade and financial systems 46 B.I.3 New technology 47 B.I.4 Demographic developments 48 B.I.5 Conclusions 49 B.II Themes and challenges for development 51 B.II.1 Capabilities approach 51 B.II.2 Sustainability and climate 52 B.II.3 Measuring wellbeing 54 B.II.4 Growth and inequality 55 B.II.5 Conclusions 56
B.III Underexposed themes: What (other) priorities? 57 B.III.1 Gender 57 B.III.2 Security and development: a coherent approach 60 B.III.3 Food security 61 B.III.4 Infrastructure 62 B.III.5 Conclusions 63
B.IV Conceptual basis for global cooperation 63 B.IV.1 Human rights approach 64 B.IV.2 Global public goods 67 B.IV.3 Global commons 70 B.IV.4 Conclusions 72
B.V Towards renewed global governance 73 B.V.1 Global governance and the network society 73 B.V.2 Global financing 75 B.V.3 Conclusions 77
Annexe I Request for advice Annexe II List of frequently used abbreviations Annexe III Official list of MDGs Annexe IV G20 Seoul Development Consensus for Shared Growth Foreword
In New York in 2000 the Millennium Declaration was unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. On the basis of the Declaration, a series of measurable Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were agreed, to be achieved by 2015.
On 18 November 2010, the government requested the AIV to draw up an advisory report to enable it to determine its position in the debate on the post-2015 development agenda (the request can be found in annexe I). In its request, the government explicitly specifies that the report should not go into the Netherlands’ policy on the MDGs in the 2011 to 2015 period. Instead, the AIV was asked to explore the current approach, thus providing the government with an insight into its strengths and weaknesses, and to trace the outlines of a possible new approach, in so far as one is emerging from national and international discussions and publications, from the perspective of both developing countries and donors. The government may decide, after this exploratory study, to request a more detailed follow-up report. During the process of drawing up the current report, however, the AIV concluded that it needed to take a few initial steps towards elaborating a proposed new approach for the period after 2015.
The government’s core question is: What has been the value for development of the Millennium Declaration and the concept of the MDGs? It divides this up into the following subsidiary questions:
A1. Has the Millennium Declaration proved sufficiently successful in addressing the problems that hinder or block development?
A2. Has the Millennium Declaration contributed to the focus on poverty?
A3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the way in which the targets have been formulated? With respect to the disadvantages, is it possible to examine issues that may have been neglected in the past ten years?
A4. To what extent has the concept of the MDGs influenced donor policy in terms of decisions on the allocation of resources and choices of themes and sectors? To what extent have developing countries been able to influence decision-making by donors? To what extent have the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs been a common enterprise of the states that signed the Declaration?
A5. The goals are formulated in general terms. Has that been an obstacle to country- specific action? Has it affected developing countries’ ownership of their own development?
A6. Has the concept of the Millennium Development Goals contributed to greater policy coherence for development and coordination of aid? If so, how significant was the contribution?
A7. How did the concept of the Millennium Development Goals influence the evolution and implementation of the development agenda in donor and partner countries? A8. To what extent has the Millennium Declaration proved to be a catalyst in increasing donor countries’ financial commitment (towards the 0.7% norm)?
The government notes that the international balance of forces has changed considerably in the past ten years and various interconnected crises have occurred. It asks whether developing countries each carry enough weight at international level to pursue their own policies in a time of cross-border crises. Some countries’ policy space seems to be shrinking rather than increasing. The government questions why the development goals are not seen more often in relation to global challenges such as security, the international legal order, health, environment, water and climate, trade and knowledge development. With this in mind, it asked the AIV to carry out an objective study of emerging themes in international thinking about development, in order to give the government a better understanding of the possible contours of a new international development agenda: one that inspires, mobilises and is based on consensus between North and South.
To this end the government posed the following subsidiary questions:
B1. What ideas are currently shaping international thought about development and development processes? Does the AIV believe that they could serve as a starting point for a new global development agenda? (If so, why; if not, why not?) Or does the AIV believe that the current approach (possibly with some adjustments) should be continued?
B2. Could issues that are linked to interdependence, such as the distribution of and access to global public goods, form the basis for development goals after 2015? If so, what role will development cooperation play?
This report was prepared by a joint committee consisting of Professor R. van der Hoeven (COS, chair), Professor K.C.J.M. Arts (CMR), F.A.J. Baneke (external expert), S. Borren (AIV/COS), Dr B.S.M. Berendsen (COS), Dr N. Tellegen (COS) and A. van der Velden (COS). The secretariat comprised Ms D.E. van Norren (secretary) and T.D.J. Oostenbrink (in the final phase) supported by Ms S.R. Airoldi, Ms J. McCall, Ms L.M. van Paaschen and Ms D. Zevulun (trainees). Professor W.J.M. van Genugten (AIV/ CMR), Professor N.J. Schrijver (CMR) and various members of the COS provided useful advice at various stages. The Committee also spoke to a number of external experts, including Professor B. de Gaaij Fortman, Professor I. Kaul, K. Van Kesteren, L. van Troost, Dr J. Vandemoortele, Professor M. Sent, C. Rhebergen, R. Swinkels and H. van der Vegt.
In light of the questions posed by the government, this report takes a slightly different form than that of other AIV advisory reports. Besides this foreword, it consists of a summary offering a brief indication of how the government’s questions were answered, and two substantive sections: A and B.
Part A addresses the government’s question about lessons learned. The first chapter looks at the background to the MDGs and how they came about, and what they have achieved. The second chapter, in response to a number of the government’s questions, examines whether the MDGs have proven to be a workable concept. Chapter III discusses a large number of themes which many people consider to have been neglected or underexposed in the MDGs. Chapter IV looks at what the MDGs have meant for policy in developing countries and donor countries, while chapter V explores the options for after 2015, when the current MDG period expires.
Part B examines the government’s question about a new approach to development. In chapter I, the AIV provides an outline of recent global developments that are relevant to development policy and the positioning of development goals after 2015. In chapter II, the AIV looks at themes and challenges for development. Chapter III focuses on a number of neglected themes, while chapter IV outlines a conceptual basis for global development. Lastly, chapter V explores new forms of global governance and the discussion on global public goods. Summary and main recommendations
In this report the Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) answers the questions posed by the Dutch government and formulates the core of the analysis of the strategic value of the 2000 Millennium Declaration and the advantages and disadvantages of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).1 Part A addresses the lessons learned and what these should mean for a post-2015 system. Part B explores a new approach to development. The AIV advises the government to strive for a renewed international consensus on the strategy for development and development cooperation for the period after 2015, provisionally the final year of the MDGs.
The AIV believes that the Millennium Declaration is still relevant and specifies a number of important conditions for achieving development. The reviews of 2005 and 2010 added a number of significant issues in areas like gender and social security (question A1).
The Millennium Declaration was operationalised in the form of a number of quantitative goals (MDGs) to be achieved by 2015. These goals are subdivided into targets with measurable indicators. The agreed goals refer to income (MDG1), universal participation in primary education (MDG2), equal participation for girls and boys (MDG3, later expanded to embrace gender equality), child mortality (MDG4), maternal mortality (MDG5), infectious diseases (MDG6) and a sustainable environment (MDG7). Lastly, under pressure from developing countries, a final goal was added: a global partnership (MDG8) on Official Development Assistance (ODA), debt relief, a fair trade and financial system, extra attention for vulnerable countries, and access to medicines and new technologies. A number of themes were not expressed in terms of quantitative goals, including peace and security, human rights and good governance, the special position of Africa and global governance (questions A1 and A3).
The MDG system has been successful in communicating a complex development problem to a wider public, but has in many cases not led to achievement of the goals themselves. This is partly because of the limited operationalisation of the goals for developed countries (MDG8) and a failure to comply with international pledges, in relation to ODA and reform of the trade and financial system, for instance.
One of the MDGs’ strong points is that they can give rise to a substantial discussion on why certain goals have been achieved and others not, and who can be held responsible for that. The AIV attaches great importance to the Millennium Declaration and, with others, concludes that the process in which the declaration was translated into concrete goals failed to operationalise a number of important themes, either because there was no international consensus or because it was difficult to express the problems in question in these terms.
Besides not including a number of important themes, the MDG system is often criticised for not being based on an underlying economic theory of development processes and structural change, and that the choices made therefore have no theoretical basis. In addition, the goals were not formulated or interpreted correctly for deprived parts of the world that need to do more to achieve them without extra financial resources. Criticism is also levelled at the lack of any reference to the role that achieving human rights plays
1 See annexe II for a list of abbreviations.
8 in efforts to fulfil the MDGs. Both civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights (education, work and gender equality) are important in achieving the MDGs. The goals do no justice to a holistic view of sustainability. The indicators attached to the goals and targets are also subject to criticism, because they measure only quantity and not quality. Nor do the indicators take account of inequality (particularly income inequality) within and between countries (question A3).
The progress reports on the MDGs offer mixed accounts of the progress made. On one goal (access to safe drinking water) there has been more progress than planned; poverty has also declined since 2000, but the number of people suffering from hunger has increased to a billion. The question whether all progress since 2000 can be attributed to the MDG strategy cannot be proven scientifically. It can be concluded that, in the majority of countries, only 20% of the trends aimed at achieving the goals have speeded up since the introduction of the MDGs in 2000. The other 80% have remained constant or have even slowed down (question A1).
The extent to which the MDGs have contributed to a reduction in poverty is unclear. Studies show that achievement of the MDG target to halve poverty can largely be attributed to the reduction of poverty in China and to a lesser extent in India, trends that had started before the MDGs were formulated. The MDGs have certainly contributed to greater attention for the various dimensions of poverty, but have also eroded the concept of poverty by compartmentalising policy and ignoring the structural changes and social processes required to escape poverty (question A2).
The impact of the MDGs on actual donor policy also presents a varied picture. Donors list the MDGs alongside their own priorities instead of adopting them as guiding principles, aid has not increased significantly and donor coordination does not operate along the lines of the MDG system. The link is seldom made between the resources required for development and the MDGs. The MDGs are seen more or less in isolation from the 0.7% norm, despite it being explicitly mentioned in MDG8 (question A4).
It is difficult to determine what the MDGs have meant for policy development in developing countries. Donor-dependent countries tend to say what their donors wish to hear. Some developing countries have adapted the MDGs by, for example, adding targets for human rights or extra relevant indicators such as diseases that occur in their part of the world. The Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSPs) that still dominate policy in poor countries generally refer selectively to the MDGs but, despite reforms, they are still considered by many to be donor-driven (questions A5 and A7).
Changes in global governance, such as a greater role for the G20, are the result of the financial crisis, rather than being initiated by the MDGs.Negotiations on a non- discriminatory trade system have also been at stalemate since the world summit in Doha. Some progress has been made in mitigating the debt burden of some countries. The climate problem demands much closer cooperation than has currently been agreed in the post-Kyoto regime. All in all the desired global partnership is still a long way off (questions A6 and A7).
One goal that has certainly not been achieved is the agreed increase in development aid. Although aid increased as a percentage of GNP until 2005, it has fallen again since then, and is now lower than in 1990 and far from the international target of 0.7% of GNP (question A8).
9 Since 2000 there have also been great changes in the form of economic, financial and food crises, which have shaken the international order to its foundations. In addition international power relations are shifting and we are seeing the emergence of economies that are manifesting themselves as donors, while a large part of their own populations still live in poverty. A significant percentage of the ‘poor’ live in middle-income countries and not in ‘poor’ countries. The AIV considers it important to consider more recent insights on development in order to examine the completeness and contemporary relevance of the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs (question B1).
After studying the advantages and shortcomings of the current MDGs on the basis of important developments in society since 2000 and of newer insights into development thinking, the AIV concludes that the MDG system needs to be redesigned. At the same time, the Council believes that it would be irresponsible to make a radical break with the current system, which was based on a major international consensus on a development agenda.
In this report the AIV therefore makes suggestions for a post-2015 system for international cooperation (referred to below as the ‘post-2015 system’) that tries as far as possible to preserve the positive aspects of the MDGs. However, the Council would like to note directly that one of the main shortcomings of the current MDG system is that it has been primarily a donor-driven process. Obligations for the developed countries, as in MDG8, were only added at a later stage, but without the clear indicators that typified the other goals.
Perhaps the most significant recommendation in this report is therefore, in the run-up to a post-2015 system, to promote a consultative process with countries in different stages of development, and with civil society and the private sector. In such a process the roles and responsibilities of all those involved must be made clear and they must be held accountable for fulfilling them. For this reason the AIV is reluctant to propose an all- embracing blueprint for a post-2015 system and believes that the Millennium Declaration should be preserved as the basis of a future strategy. It should, however, incorporate the new elements of the reviews of 2005 and 2010.
A consultative process on the post-2015 system should preferably be led by a prominent individual from an emerging country. This is of great importance for the global acceptance and success of the follow-up to the MDGs in an improved system. The Netherlands can play an active role in this.
Taking this into account the AIV summarises below the main themes and identified shortcomings of the current Millennium Declaration and MDG system, together with the outlines of a possible post-2015 system.
The AIV observes a somewhat ambivalent attitude towards the MDGs. Because no dominant theoretical basis underpins the MDGs, they were never intended as a ‘one size fits all’ policy. Nevertheless, for many people, the MDGs have become a mantra for an all-encompassing development ideology. They have become absolute targets backed up with the reasoning that whatever is not in the MDGs is no longer important. As a consequence, every self-respecting group has tried to get its area of activity included within the MDGs. This fixation with bringing everything under the umbrella of the MDGs has resulted in too much attention to detail, sometimes at the expense of the realisation that sustainable and participatory economic growth with a conscious policy of structural change and redistribution can just as easily contribute to social progress as direct attention to the social sector.
10 To achieve a better post-2015 system the AIV considers it important take the criticisms of the current MDGs and recent global developments into account, and to consider the extent to which a number of newer themes that have until now received insufficient attention in development thinking make changes necessary (question B1). Ongoing globalisation, recent global developments and, especially, the financial and economic crisis of 2008-2009 call for improvements to the international trade and financial system after 2015.
In the context of new forms of development thinking, the AIV would first of all like to note that a post-2015 system would have to be based more firmly on the capabilities approach of Nobel Prizewinner Amartya Sen, which also underpinned the Millennium Declaration. Sen’s theory equates development with more freedom. Sen identifies five essential freedoms: (1) political and civil freedoms, (2) social and (3) economic opportunities, (4) transparency in governance and economic life, and (5) protective freedoms (social security and the rule of law).
The AIV endorses Sen’s approach, especially as subjective welfare theory shows that, when asked, people specify these freedoms as crucial to their happiness. A post-2015 system can contribute to this, by improving ways of measuring prosperity, striving to reduce inequality within countries and giving more attention to human rights principles, peace and security, and effective state institutions – elements that are lacking in the current MDGs.
In a post-2015 system a basic level of security will have to be included as a condition for development. Security sector development or reform (SSR) is essential in strengthening security levels, and should therefore constitute an inseparable element of a post-2015 system for fragile states. A peace and security goal cluster could also contain indicators for early warning of conflicts.
The discussions on sustainability must lead to a post-2015 system that contains long- term targets for a sustainable model with a rolling agenda that measures progress every five or ten years and uses these measurements to make regular modifications to the strategy. In this way, the post-2015 system will be a ‘dashboard’ with indicators for sustainability, for this generation and the next.
Three principles from the human rights approach are especially relevant and should be incorporated in a post-2015 system: non-discrimination, participation and accountability. It is also important to refer to general human rights conventions to ensure compliance with other relevant human rights obligations. Although, in an ideal world, an explicit and globally endorsed human rights approach should be in force, the AIV sees this, as yet, as politically unfeasible in a post-2015 MDG system. Yet there are opportunities to do some justice to the rights-based approach. The AIV therefore proposes that: 1) the run-up to a post-2015 strategy should be as participatory as possible, including a role for marginalised groups with the greatest stake in the system; 2) the above-mentioned three principles be incorporated in the methodology for pursuing each component of the post-2015 strategy, and: 3) globally endorsed human rights remain firmly embedded in the strategy through explicit reference to agreements made at global summits and in UN human rights conventions, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
11 The gender approach, according to which equality between men and women is indispensable to balanced development, requires indicators for all goals as well as a separate heading for gender. We also consider it necessary to specify gender-specific dimensions in new goal clusters for, for example, peace and security (violence against women) and effective governance (participation of women in running society).
One of the tasks of global governance lies in the area of global public goods: goods that are relevant to everyone and from which no one can or may be excluded (question B2). However, the concept of global public goods touches on matters of responsible sovereignty. Emerging and developing countries are concerned about erosion of their national sovereignty, while developed countries are afraid that they will have to finance many of the global public goods. The AIV believes that, although the debate on global public goods should be conducted with the utmost care, it is important to establish a clear link between the MDGs and global public goods, because no one can or may be excluded from either. In this way, the MDGs can also contribute to the creation of a ‘global social floor’ – in other words, a minimum level of existence that is worth pursuing and on which there is a global consensus. The need for such a minimum was once again demonstrated during the recent global crisis, as was recognised at the MDG summit in 2010.
In funding global public goods, a distinction should be made between socially oriented global public goods (with the 0.7% ODA norm as guiding principle) and other public goods, for which national resources other than ODA and innovative international funding methods will have to be mobilised.
Recent theories – such as Nobel Prizewinner Elinor Ostrom’s analysis of commons, which identifies seven principles for effective local governance (‘common resource pools’) – can play a role in the management of global public goods and, if these ideas are extended to apply to global governance, offer a good guideline for a post-2015 system.
The (renewed) debates on global governance offer a good guideline for the post-2015 system. The AIV considers it important that preparations for the post-2015 period link up with the development agenda proposed by the G20, as expressed in the 2010 Seoul Declaration. It is also essential to take account of the new, rapidly growing network society, which operates horizontally and does not allow itself to be controlled vertically (‘top down’). International cooperation has become a multi-actor affair and multilateral institutions could perhaps play a more prominent role in focusing and coordinating it.
More detailed recommendations for a post-2015 system can be found in chapter A.V and specifically in section A.V.4.
12 A Lessons learned
Chapter A.I describes the background to the Millennium Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the current situation. A.II examines whether the MDGs have proved to be a workable concept and chapter A.III focuses on a number of omissions. In chapter A.IV, the AIV looks at what the MDGs have meant for policy in developing and donor countries, and in chapter A.V. the Council draws a number of conclusions from the lessons learned.
A.I The Millennium Declaration and the MDGs
A.I.1 Declarations in the run-up to the MDGs In 2000, the international community, united in the UN, adopted the Millennium Declaration to address the problem of global poverty. A year later this led to the formulation of eight Millennium Development Goals.
The MDGs represent the crystallisation of goals agreed earlier at international conferences in the 1990s, most of which were not achieved.2 These conferences include the World Conference on Education for All (Jomtien, 1990), the World Summit for Children (New York, 1990, based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child), the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), the World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, 1993), the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 1994), the World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen, 1995), the World Conference on Women (Beijing,1995), the UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II)(Istanbul, 1996) and the World Food Summit (Rome, 1996).3 In its 1996 publication ‘Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Cooperation’, the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) made an initial attempt to formulate development goals by synthesising the goals agreed at the various world summits. Established by the rich countries meeting in the OECD/DAC (unlike the world summits, which were more global in nature), these goals focused mainly on measurable criteria for poverty (less than a dollar a day), social development and a sustainable environment, and distanced themselves from the rights-based approach and emancipatory development.4 The list is less comprehensive than the later MDGs. Gender was omitted, on Japan’s insistence, and changed to equal education for all. The United Kingdom in particular, with the support of Sweden, Norway, Germany and the Netherlands (the ‘Utstein’ group of female development ministers), ensured that development goals for gender remained on the global agenda. However, they initially provoked little response
2 For a full overview, see M. Loewe, ‘The Millennium Development Goals: Chances and Risks’, German Development Institute, discussion paper 6/2008, Bonn 2008, p. 3.
3 The goals also refer back to earlier international human rights conventions, like the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), the OECD target of 0.7% GNP for development cooperation (1970), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1981), and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
4 A. Saith, ‘From Universal Values to Millennium Development Goals: Lost in Translation’, Development and Change 37 (6), Institute of Social Studies, 2006, pp. 1169-1170.
13 from developing countries, the World Bank or the IMF.5
The UN secretariat, seeing the initiative as an attempt by the rich countries to control the UN agenda, devised its own list. As the new Millennium approached, many civil-society networks (like the women’s and peace movements, the churches and Jubilee 2000) called on world leaders at the 2000 Millennium Summit to develop a global development vision. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s draft version again omitted gender equality, this time due to an ‘unholy alliance’ between the Vatican and conservative Islamic countries, including Sudan, Iran and Libya. Other themes that were ignored were reproductive health and maternal mortality. Health goals were included only summarily, because of the political struggle surrounding reproductive health rights – an issue to which the UNDP had in fact devoted considerable attention in a 1997 report. The focus came to lie primarily on HIV/AIDS. Economic growth – though not an explicit theme in the declarations issued at the world summits – received considerable attention, as did technological development. Pressure from developing countries and civil society led to goals for the rich countries relating to trade access, debt relief and ODA, and to an appeal to the pharmaceutical industry to make AIDS medicines cheaper. A separate section devoted attention to Africa and the development of agricultural productivity.6
In 2000, in an unprecedented display of unity, the leaders of the IMF, OECD, UN and World Bank published the document ‘A Better World for All: Progress towards the International Development Goals’, based on the OECD development goals mentioned above. This document was largely in line with Kofi Annan’s draft declaration, with the addition of infant and maternal mortality. Fearing that health budgets might otherwise become unbalanced, the passage on combating HIV/AIDS was expanded to include other diseases. A section was added on the special needs of small island states and landlocked developing countries, after earlier conferences on these issues.7
On 8 September 2000, the Millennium Declaration was adopted. The Declaration is based on six fundamental values – freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature and shared responsibility8 – and is clearly divided into eight chapters: 1) Values and principles, 2) Peace, security and disarmament, 3) Development and poverty eradication, 4) Protecting our common environment, 5) Human rights, democracy and good governance, 6) Protecting the vulnerable, 7) Meeting the special needs of Africa, 8) Strengthening the United Nations.
A.I.2 From Declaration to Goals In September 2001, the UN Secretary-General’s report ‘Roadmap Towards the Implementation of the Millennium Declaration’, which contained eight MDGs, was approved by the UN General Assembly. The new American president George Bush was sceptical about the initiative, but 9/11, the need for ‘soft power’, and his relationship
5 D. Hulme, ‘The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): A short history of the world’s biggest promise’, BWPI Working Paper 100, September 2009, pp. 15-25.
6 Idem, pp. 25-31. Reference is made to ‘We the Peoples: The role of the United Nations in the 21st Century’.
7 Idem, pp. 32-36.
8 A. Sumner, M. Tiwari, ‘After 2015: International Development Policy at a Crossroads’, Rethinking International Development series, Palgrave McMillan, 2009, p. 47.
14 with the host of the next summit (the Mexican president), made him change his mind.9 Consequently, the MDGs were not adopted by the US until 2002, at the summit on financing for development in Monterrey, Mexico. This is now known as the Monterrey consensus. In practice, however, the US continued to resist the MDGs until 2005.10 One important outcome of the Millennium Declaration was the adoption of the Paris Declaration on the effectiveness of aid in 2005.
It is important in understanding the process that led to the MDGs to be aware that they are grounded in the Western trend towards results-based management and accountability in development policy, as reflected in the OECD development goals. This was coupled to a more visionary objective of human development, originating in the UNDP corner and laid down in the Millennium Declaration.11
In substantive terms, the UN was faced with the problem of how to reconcile the OECD’s development goals with its own Millennium Declaration. After all, the UN Secretary- General was a signatory to the former, but also had to take all 189 member states into account. At a meeting of donors, developing countries and multilateral institutions in 2001, led by the World Bank, the two sets of goals were integrated. They were elaborated by a joint working group representing the OECD/DAC, World Bank, IMF and UNDP. The goals on climate (MDG7) and the contribution of the rich countries (MDG8: global partnership), which were still the subject of fierce political negotiation, proved especially difficult. The goal on a sustainable environment (MDG7) was extended to include biodiversity and a number of other new indicators.12 MDG8 was eventually finalised with seven targets and 17 indicators, but without a deadline, making it the most comprehensive, yet least specific or measurable goal.
Reproductive health was once again excluded, this time at the instigation of the US President. As a compromise, the contraceptive prevalence rate was included as an indicator under maternal mortality (MDG5). However, pressure from the women’s movement and the broader gender lobby paid off with MDG3 being referred to as gender equality and – although MDG2 continued to call for universal access to primary education – two indicators were added to MDG3 that did not appear in the Declaration: the participation of women in economic life (outside the agricultural sector) and in politics (in terms of seats in parliament). This explains the somewhat illogical structure of MDG3.
For technical reasons, a number of issues were changed from targets to indicators, including safe drinking water (with the addition of sanitation under MDG7) and AIDS orphans (MDG6).13
9 D. Hulme, ‘The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); A short history of the world’s biggest promise’, BWPI Working Paper 100, September 2009, pp. 42-43.
10 Idem, p. 42. The American position was that they were ‘a UN Secretariat product which member states never formally ratified’.
11 D. Hulme, ‘Governing Global Poverty? Global Ambivalence and the Millennium Development Goals’, Brooks World Poverty Institute, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, May 2009.
12 D. Hulme, ‘The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); A short history of the world’s biggest promise’, BWPI Working Paper 100, September 2009, p. 10.
13 Idem, pp. 36-43.
15 The main other difference between the MDGs and the Millennium Declaration lies in the fact that the following themes from the Declaration were not included in the MDGs: peace, security and disarmament; human rights, democracy and good governance; the vulnerable (not explicitly); the special needs of Africa; and reform of the UN (see chapter A.III What the MDGs fail to address).
Ultimately the following main goals were identified: 1. eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; 2. achieve universal primary education; 3. promote gender equality and empower women; 4. reduce child mortality; 5. improve maternal health; 6. combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; 7. ensure environmental sustainability; and 8. develop a global partnership for development.
In addition to these main goals, the MDGs have subsidiary goals (targets) and indicators, the latter being the subject of continual heated debate as statistics – and thereby the feasibility of achieving the goals – can be interpreted differently. The MDG1 targets, for example, have been gradually adjusted, in respect firstly of the Millennium Declaration, secondly of an earlier universal declaration on the reduction of poverty (at the World Food Summit in Rome in 1996), which called for poverty to be halved in absolute terms (by only talking of halving the proportion of poor people in MDG1), and thirdly of the time span (by measuring the results from 1990 instead of 2000). All these changes produce a more positive picture, allowing for example the favourable developments in relation to poverty in China in the 1990s to be included. Furthermore, by taking account of growth in China in 1999, East Asia achieved MDG1 a year before the MDGs were finalised.14 Yale philosopher Thomas Pogge has estimated that, as a result of all of these adjustments, the goal of reducing the number of people living in poverty by 50% in 2015 amounts to an actual reduction of only 19%.
A.I.3 MDG summits in 2005 and 2010 At the world summit in 2005, the governments of both donor and developing countries reiterated the ambition to achieve the MDGs in 2015. They also agreed that, in 2006, all countries would formulate national development strategies for achieving the goals. The following issues were addressed: development, terrorism, peacebuilding and enforcement, the responsibility to protect, human rights, democracy and the rule of law, reform of the UN, environment, international health, humanitarian aid, and updating the UN Charter.15
A number of the MDGs were also expanded, including MDG5 (maternal mortality) to which reproductive health was added (this was a compromise, because of opposition to the inclusion of reproductive rights).16 This meant a victory over the earlier, fierce opposition from the US, thanks to vigorous lobbying that recalled the International Conference on
14 T. Pogge, ‘The First United Nations Development Goal: A cause for celebration’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, vol. 5(3), November 2004, pp. 337-397.
15 UN General Assembly, Resolution 60/1 2005 World Summit Outcome, 24 October 2005.
16 MDG5b reads: ‘Achieve by 2015 universal access to reproductive health’.
16 Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, where 179 countries agreed that universal access to reproductive rights had to be achieved by 2015.17 Other additions included targets for employment and decent work (MDG1), universal access to treatment for HIV/ AIDS (MDG6) and the reduction of biodiversity loss (MDG7) (see table in Annexe III).18
The 2010 Declaration is more of a progress report on the MDGs and is therefore less important in terms of strategy. With its rather uncritical, optimistic introduction, it makes no urgent appeal to achieve better results nor does it address the shortcomings of the developed countries in areas like trade policy, policy coherence and aid pledges (ODA).
This means that the original 2000 Millennium Declaration is still relevant and the cornerstone of policy for the future. However, it could have been translated much more fully in the MDGs; in reality, the MDGs reflect only section 19 of the Declaration. The Declaration itself also neglects a number of important issues, some of which were added in the 2010 version, albeit cursorily. These issues are examined in chapter A.III.
A.I.4 To what extent have the MDGs been achieved? According to the UN,19 important advances have been made in the fight against poverty initiated by the MDGs, as the above score card of the Centre for Global Development (CGD) in Washington shows.20 The results must, however, be put into perspective. The number of people living in extreme poverty fell from 1.8 to 1.4 billion between 1990 and 2005 (MDG1).21 This is, however, mainly due to developments in China.22 A majority of children also now enrol in primary education (MDG2), but not all of them complete it and 72 million children worldwide, especially girls, still do not go to school. Only in 53 countries do as many girls as boys attend primary and secondary school (MDG3).23
Women are disproportionately affected by poverty. The number of women in paid work outside the agrarian sector had risen to approximately 41% of all women worldwide in 2008.24 Yet it remains difficult for women to achieve higher positions. Worldwide only
17 F.G. Abrejo, B.T. Shaikh, S. Saleem, ‘ICPD to MDGs: Missing links and common grounds’, Reproductive Health Journal, vol. 5(4), September 2008, p. 3.
18 Annexe III contains an overview of the MDGs and the indicators used to measure progress (those in italics were added after 2001).
19 UNSG, ‘Keeping the Promise; A forward-looking review to promote an agreed action agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015’, Report by the Secretary-General, UN General Assembly 64th session, February 2010, pp. 4-9.
20 See map of the Centre for global Development, Washington,
21 Extreme poverty is defined as living on less than $1.25 a day.
22 In Africa, the number of people living on a dollar a day rose by 92 million; in West Asia, this was 8 million (1990-2005).
23 Of the 171 countries for which data is available.
24 In North Africa and South and West Asia, the statistics are less positive: only 20% of paid jobs outside agriculture are taken up by women. UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, p. 22.
17 one in four senior officials or managers are women. The number of women in national parliaments rose from 11% in 1995 to 19% in 2010.25
The number of children who die before the age of five has fallen from 12.5 million to 8.8 million per year (MDG4).26 Other sources even suggest a fall to 7.7 million.27
Very little progress has been made with maternal mortality (MDG5). Almost as many women still die during pregnancy and childbirth as 15 years ago.28 There has been some progress in the number of births attended by a professional.
The fight against AIDS has been successful: 200,000 fewer people died of the disease between 2004 and 2008, and 800,000 fewer became infected between 1996 and 2008 (MDG6).29 There are no statistics to show whether this also applies to malaria, which claimed 800,000 lives in 2008.30
Results were slightly better for care of the planet. Deforestation declined, with 3.3 million hectares less forest being felled and 31% of the land still forested (32% in 1990, MDG7). Biodiversity continues to decline, and 17,000 animal and plant species are threatened with extinction.31 Climate change also threatens to exacerbate poverty, through drought, flooding, etc.. Carbon dioxide emissions increased by 35% between 1990 and 2007.32 As far as access to safe drinking water is concerned, the world is ahead of schedule. If current trends continue, around 86% of the population in developing regions will have
25 Idem, pp. 24-25.
26 From 99 to 72 per 1,000 (1990-2008). UN Secretary-General, ‘Keeping the Promise; A forward-looking review to promote an agreed action agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015’, Report by the Secretary-General, UN General Assembly 64th session, February 2010, pp. 4-9.
27 J. Knoll Rajaratnam, J.R. Marcus, A.D. Flaxman, H. Wang, A. Levin-Rector, L. Dwyer, M. Costa, A.D. Lopez, C.J.L. Murray, ‘Neonatal, Postneonatal, Childhood, and Under-5 Mortality for 187 Countries, 1970-2010: A Systematic Analysis of Progress Towards Millennium Development Goal 4’, 375 The Lancet no. 9730, 5 June 2010, pp. 1988-2008.
28 Maternal mortality remains high, at 450 to 100,000 births in 2005. This is almost the same as in 1990, when it stood at 480 to 100,000.
29 Two million people died of AIDS (2008; the peak was in 2004, with 2.2 million); 2.7 million people were infected with HIV in 2008 (compared to 3.5 million in the peak year, 1996). UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, p. 40.
30 ‘Keeping the Promise; A forward-looking review to promote an agreed action agenda to achieve the Millen- nium Development Goals by 2015’, Report by the Secretary-General, UN General Assembly 64th session, February 2010, p. 8.
31 Deforestation is alarmingly high (5.2 million hectares a year in the last ten years, compared to 8.3 million in the previous ten years); UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, pp. 52-57.
32 UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, pp. 52-57.
18 access to improved water sources by 2015.33
By contrast, there has been less progress in providing access to elementary sanitation. 2.7 billion people are expected still to have no access to improved sanitation by 2015 (this was 2.6 billion in 2008).34 In the past ten years, the number of people living in slums in developing countries has fallen from 39% to 33% of the urban population (2010). In addition, 200 million slum-dwellers have acquired access to better housing, water and sanitation. In absolute terms, however, the number of slum-dwellers is rising: the number of urban-dwellers living in slum conditions is estimated at 828 million, compared to 657 million in 1990 and 767 million in 2000.35
These results are also overshadowed by the fact that the number of very poor people suffering from hunger also continues to rise, that CO2 emissions are not falling, and that at least half a million people a year lose their lives through the use of small weapons.36 The majority of donors still fail to reach the agreed 0.7% GNI target for financial aid (MDG8).37 Aid from non-DAC donors and private funds has, however, increased, though estimates vary.38
In the past ten years developing countries have acquired better access to the markets of rich countries. In 2008 almost 80% of imports from least developed countries (LDCs) were tariff-free (compared to 70% in 2000).39 In addition the debt burden of developing countries was relieved through debt control, trade expansion and, in some cases, debt cancellation. The global financial crisis, however, had a negative effect on trade for almost all developing countries. The fall in income increased the external debt burden but it will very probably remain below the historical high point of the year 2000.40
Alongside absolute poverty, relative poverty is also important. There has been a spectacular growth in inequality worldwide: the ratio of average income in the richest countries to that in the poorest rose from 60:1 to 116:1 between 1980 and 2007
33 There is, however, a great disparity between access to safe drinking water in rural and urban areas: eight out of 10 people worldwide without access to water live in the countryside. UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, pp. 58-59.
34 See the Statement on the Right to Sanitation, adopted by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on 19 November 2010 in UN Doc. E/C.12/2010/1.
35 UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, p. 63.
36 J. Voorhoeve, Negen plagen tegelijk , Contact, 2011.
37 The 0.7% GNI target was achieved by only five countries in 2009: Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, p. 67.
38 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2010, Retooling Global Development’, New York, May 2010, pp. 54-55.
39 Excluding oil and weapons. UN, ‘MDG 8 The Global Partnership for Development at a Critical Juncture’, MDG Gap Task Force Report 2010, New York, p. 36.
40 UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, pp. 68-70.
19 ($43,503 versus $ 374 per capita GNI in 2007).41 Progress in this area has been made even more difficult by the financial and economic crises of recent years. The number of people suffering from hunger, for example, has risen to a billion since 2005, its highest level ever, and the number of undernourished people to more than two billion. Since the financial and economic crisis, around 28% of people in paid work earn less than the poverty line level (MDG1).42 One in four children under the age of five in developing countries is underweight; in South Asia this is even higher, at 46% (MDG4).43 The number of young people with no chance of finding work and of people working in precarious conditions has increased since the crisis.44
Can all progress that has been made be attributed to the MDG strategy? The question whether there would have been just as much progress without the MDGs is understandable and legitimate, but cannot, unfortunately, be answered wholly scientifically. In the majority of countries it is only possible to observe an improved trend in 20% of the MDGs compared to the pre-MDG period.45
The MDGs do, however, encourage discussion on why some goals have been achieved and others not, and who can be held responsible for those that have not been achieved. This will be examined in the following chapters.
A.II Have the MDGs proved to be a workable concept?
The Millennium Declaration played a leading role in the development debate. It generated a new consensus between the IMF/World Bank and the UN, and the former incorporated poverty dimensions in their structural adjustment programmes. The emphasis shifted from a one-sided focus on growth to ‘human development’. Development policy became more results-driven with measurable goals. Coherence was placed on the agenda, in terms of better coordination with other donors and their policy areas and prioritising the policies of developing countries. The principle of joint responsibility was accepted, as was the need for a worldwide framework for development (MDG8). The growing importance of civil society was recognised through its participation in international conferences.46
Nonetheless, opinions on the importance of the MDGs vary widely.
41 T. Pogge, ‘Politics as Usual: What lies behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric?’, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010, p. 96.
42 21.2% in 2008 plus an estimated 7% extra in 2009. UN Secretary-General, ‘Keeping the Promise; A forward-looking review to promote an agreed action agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015’, Report by the Secretary-General, UN General Assembly 64th session, February 2010, p. 5.
43 UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, p. 13.
44 ILO, Global Employment Trends 2011, Geneva 2011.
45 S. Fukuda-Parr, J. Greenstein, ‘How should MDG implementation be measured: Faster progress or meeting targets?’, International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth, No 63, May 2010, p. 11.
46 M. Loewe, ‘The Millennium Development Goals: Chances and Risks’, German Development Institute, discussion paper 6/2008, Bonn 2008, pp. 12-13.
20 A.II.1 General criticism There are basically four schools of thought regarding the MDGs: the optimists, who see the goals as a vehicle for transforming the human condition (including Jeffrey Sachs, leader of the Millennium Project, Pronk, Vandemoortele), the strategic realists, who see the MDGs as essential to achieving political commitment (e.g. Fukuda-Parr, Jolly), the sceptics, who find the MDGs well intentioned but badly thought out (such as Clemens, Easterly and the Dutch Advisory Council on Government Policy), and the radical critics, who see the MDGs as a diversionary manoeuvre to draw attention away from the ‘real’ issues of growing global inequality and gender disparity (including Antrobus, Eyden, Saith, Pogge, UNCTAD).47 These four schools are described in brief below.
Optimists Former Dutch development minister Jan Pronk identifies six advantages of the MDGs as the culmination of 40 years of development cooperation.48 According to Pronk, the goals: 1. represent nearly all the relevant dimensions of poverty rather than having a one-sided focus on income poverty; 2. concern the world as a whole, but are specific enough to be implemented at national level; 3. are result-oriented (output rather than the 0.7% input discussion); 4. aim at direct poverty reduction rather than indirect measures like trickle-down from economic growth or safety nets intended to compensate the poor for the negative effects of growth; 5. are precise and quantified rather than making vague promises; and 6. are ambitious: the world has never seen poverty halved in the relatively brief period of 15 years (even though this is not compatible with the right of all to a minimum level of existence).
Another advantage of the MDGs, according to Pronk, is that there is no excuse for not achieving them; goals call for action and accountability.49
Markus Loewe adds that the MDGs have generated more aid in the new millennium.50 This may be because the goals are easy to understand for the public at large, increasing their appreciation for development cooperation. The main argument for pursuing the goals, however, is that all actors agree on a single set of objectives (William Easterly, however, sees this as a fundamental weakness of the MDGs).51
Jan Vandemoortele, UNDP negotiator during the talks on shaping the MDGs, still finds them a good concept that should be maintained after 2015, albeit with a number of changes
47 D. Hulme, ‘The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): A short history of the world’s biggest promise’, BWPI Working Paper 100, September 2009, p. 4.
48 J. Pronk, ‘Collateral damage or calculated default? The Millennium Development Goals and the Politics of Globalisation’, Inaugural address as Professor of the Theory and Practice of International Development at the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, 11 December 2003, pp. 3-4.
49 Idem, pp. 44-45.
50 M. Loewe, ‘The Millennium Development Goals: Chances and Risks’, German Development Institute, discussion paper 6/2008, Bonn 2008.
51 W. Easterly, ‘The Tragedy of the Millennium Development Goals’, Aidwatch, July 2009.
21 in structure and implementation.52 The main change is that monitoring of the MDGs should take account of inequalities within countries (giving greater priority to improving the situation of the worst-off segments of the population). Including the distribution of prosperity within countries is a response to the criticism that national indicators say little about the position of the poorest groups. Others argue that measurement by target group (gender, ethnicity, rural-urban divide, regional variations) should be an added indicator.53 Vandmoortele rejects, however, the more fundamental criticism that the MDGs have no theoretical basis, since in his view that was never the intention.
Strategic realists Sakiko Fukuda-Parr believes that the Millennium Declaration has led to partnerships with civil society and has put the private sector on the development cooperation agenda. She is, however, less enthusiastic about the impact this has had.54 With her colleague Joshua Greenstein, she has also criticised the focus on achievement of the MDGs: given that some countries have a worse starting position than others, 100% achievement of the goals is not as important as the progress each has made since 2000 compared to the period before.55 Based on trends since 1990, Fukuda-Parr and Greenstein conclude that only five of the 24 indicators for which sufficient data was available showed accelerated improvement in over half the countries in question after 2000. In 80% of cases, therefore, the MDGs did not lead to accelerated improvements.56 In other words, in most countries the trends are continuing at the same pace as before 2000, or have even slowed down. Accelerated progress is greater in the least developed countries (on 13 indicators) and in Sub-Saharan Africa (on 16 indicators).
Leo and Barmeier have devised a progress index that gives a realistic picture of the development of the MDGs.57 The index shows that LDCs perform better in terms of progress on selected MDG indicators than middle-income countries. There is also a negligible positive correlation between progress on the MDGs and economic growth (GNP), growth in per capita GNP and per capita aid (ODA). The correlation with countries’ institutional development is also only slightly positive: some countries are making good progress despite having weak institutions; however, every country that performs badly on the MDGs has weak institutions.58
52 J. Vandemoortele, ‘Taking the MDGs Beyond 2015: Hasten Slowly’, DSA/EADI/Action Aid Policy Forum, June 2009.
53 S. Jahan, ‘The Millennium Development Goals Beyond 2015’, New York, April 2009.
54 S. Fukuda-Parr, ‘Are MDGs priority in development strategies and aid programmes? Only a few are!’, International Poverty Centre, Working Paper 48, October 2008, pp. 7 and 12. The Millennium Declaration resolves: ‘To give greater opportunities to the private sector, non-governmental organisations and civil society, in general, to contribute to the realisation of the goals’ (section 30).
55 S. Fukuda-Parr, J. Greenstein, ‘How should MDG implementation be measured: Faster progress or meeting targets?’, International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth, No 63, May 2010.
56 Idem, p. 11.
57 B. Leo, J. Barmeier, ‘Who are the MDG Trailblazers? A new MDG Progress Index’, Center for Global Development, Working Paper 222, Washington, August 2010.
58 Statistics from the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessments (CPIA).
22 Sceptics Although Easterly sees the MDGs as a success in ‘global consciousness raising’, he argues that they have failed in terms of translating that new awareness into achieving the goals. Even before the economic crisis, the trends were negative. In fact, the latest global crisis or recession has exposed a fundamental weakness in the MDGs, i.e. that achieving them depends on global and national growth prospects. The question is how can you hold someone accountable for something over which they have no control, and how can you hold anyone accountable for something for which 189 governments are collectively responsible? Easterly’s position is that an agreement that everyone agrees on has no teeth. Social changes – like universal franchise, the emancipation of minorities and women’s rights – could only come about by identifying who was responsible for the injustice, why the situation was unjust, and what had to be done to rectify it. This analysis is lacking in the MDGs.59 Easterly also considers the goals unfair on many countries in Africa and other low-income countries, because they are primarily formulated in terms of the gap between the current and target situations, instead of the starting position.60
In its report published last year, the Advisory Council on Government Policy (WRR) says the following about the MDGs:61 ‘However, the MDGs are largely static goals which are strongly oriented around alleviating emergencies. They say nothing of the resources, the strategy and underlying mechanisms required to achieve the goals, nor about the capacities of societies to develop, and from a macroeconomic perspective they are rather vacuous. In that sense they are not very development-related. Economic growth is not included as a final or intermediary goal in the MDGs, and important issues like transformation of the productive sectors are not even referred to. Although MDG8 does refer to the need for a fair trade system, this can only make a very limited contribution to the creation of productive national economic sectors. The MDGs are inspiring but also problematic in that they detract attention away from structural changes and the strengthening and transformation of agriculture and other productive sectors. They have other drawbacks as well. The targets are not only arbitrary, they are also global goals which are directly applied to each individual country. […] This problem has everything to do with the fact that donors imposed their mark heavily on how the goals were formulated. As yet, no clear answer has been provided to the question of how that links up with the broad related idea of ‘ownership’ in the field of development.’
Radical critics Perhaps the greatest criticism of the MDGs is that they have no socioeconomic underpinning. Some critics go even further, claiming that the MDGs leave the unbridled market economy intact and simply take palliative measures against a number of undesired side effects, including poverty. They do nothing to address fundamental power relations around the world, or distribution issues, and the voices of the poor and poor countries are hardly heard, if at all. According to these critics, the phenomenon of spectacularly widening income differences between and within countries as a consequence of market liberalisation is completely denied and ignored. In this view, the MDGs lead to distortion and are not as innocent as they appear. After all, who can object
59 W. Easterly, ‘The tragedy of the Millennium Development Goals’, Aidwatch, July 2009.
60 W. Easterly, ‘How the MDGs are Unfair to Africa’, Brookings Global Economy and Development, Working Paper 14, Washington, November 2007.
61 Advisory Council on Government Policy (WRR), ‘Less pretension, more ambition; Development policy in times of globalization’, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2010, p. 122.
23 to less poverty, or reduced infant and maternal mortality? Focusing on these limited goals distracts attention from the more important systemic causes of poverty. The MDG agenda determines what kind of progress is measured in the world and thereby silently changes the course of development thinking and development cooperation. In short: aid + technological means + local good governance = poverty reduction. This equation replaces the transformation of unjust economic structures.62
According to Ashwani Saith, the MDGs have narrowed the definition of poverty to absolute poverty,63 and exchanged the concept of relative poverty, which gained ground in recent decades, for an extremely simplistic interpretation.64 From this perspective, the MDGs reduce the poor to helpless recipients who cannot achieve emancipation by demanding their rights. The MDGs are ‘Minimum Development Goals’, a weak dilution of the many declarations of the 1990s and international achievements of the past 40 years. They actually help maintain structural poverty by supporting the foundations of society, including their dark side. The MDGs imply that underdevelopment is a problem for developing countries that is in no way related to the economic dynamics of developed countries.
This criticism has also been expressed by UNCTAD, which describes the fundamental problem of the MDGs as ‘the lack of a more inclusive strategy of economic development’. UNCTAD calls for national development programmes with economic diversification, employment and technological development and a renewed emphasis on productive investment, taxation, socioeconomic policy and reform of the international governance architecture.65 Many human rights experts also see the omission of human rights as a missed opportunity. A prominent figure among them is Philip Alston, the former UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.66
A.II.2 Measuring poverty The criterion for poverty provokes much discussion and criticism. Thomas Pogge, for example, considers the ‘dollar a day’ norm introduced by the World Bank as insufficient to guarantee a minimum level of existence. This is because the World Bank does not base the norm on nominal exchange rates but on purchasing power parity (PPP) in 2005. Someone in India living on $0.40 a day in 2005 would not be considered poor: in that
62 A. Saith, ‘From Universal Values to Millennium Development Goals: Lost in Translation’, Development and Change 37 (6), Institute of Social Studies, 2006, p. 1189.
63 Idem, p. 1197.
64 Amartya Sen: ‘In a generally opulent country, more income is needed to buy enough commodities to achieve the same social functioning’, in ‘Development as Freedom’, Oxford University Press, 1999.
65 UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ‘Follow-up to the Millennium Summit and preparations for the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly on the Millennium Development Goals: New development paths. Reconnecting the Millennium Development Goals to the Development Agenda: an UNCTAD perspective’, Geneva, June 2010.
66 See for example P. Alston, ‘Ships passing in the night: The current state of the human rights and development debate seen through the lens of the Millennium Development Goals’, Human Rights Quarterly 27(3), August 2005, pp. 755-829.
24 year, PPP was equal to $1.25. According to Pogge, food prices in all poor countries are on average more than 50% higher than the PPP suggests.67 He shows that purchasing power of $1.25 a day is not sufficient to buy the minimum food required, not to mention clothing, shelter, water, etc.
Pogge also objects to the poverty line and the method used by the World Bank to update it. His analysis shows that the poverty criterion has been successively adjusted downwards. The $1 criterion from 1985 was equal to $1.85 in 2005 PPP. This resulted in an ‘absurdly low’ figure that does not cover even a quarter of the food requirement.68 Updating the poverty criterion also has the effect of making the change measured in global poverty appear more positive than it is in reality: the lower the poverty line, the better the result. Pogge shows that, if the poverty line is set at $2.50, there was no improvement at all between 1981 and 2005.69
A.II.3 Indicators and other pitfalls of results-based management Besides these fundamental criticisms of the MDGs a number of general objections can be made to results-based management: goals that focus on quantity do not measure quality and can undermine it (e.g. children might attend school but teaching is below par). At the same time, narrowly defined indicators can, for example, encourage governments to send people to school without making sure there are good teachers or teaching materials, purely to achieve the MDG concerned. This is not the intended outcome of results-based management, but is certainly a possible one, leaving it open to abuse. Nor do the indicators take account of inequality, which is increasing worldwide both within and between countries. It is possible, for example, to achieve MDG1 by ignoring the poorest of the poor and helping people who live just below the poverty line. Or China can achieve MDG1 for the whole of Asia on its own, while other Asian countries still have large numbers of people living in poverty.
What is more, short-term planning to achieve the goals can undermine their sustainability (who will pay for children to attend school after 2015?). Focusing on the goals ignores the extent to which they are interconnected, which was precisely the major achievement of the world summits. In other words: what effect does achieving one goal have on others, or on parameters that have not been formulated as goals? Not achieving the goals can undermine support for development cooperation (whose fault is it?). To put it in another way, were the goals realistic? Countries facing the severest problems may make progress and still not achieve the goals, thus harming their image; the starting situations vary too widely.
Richard Jolly argues that it is better not to look at whether goals have been achieved, but how they have functioned as a catalyst for change and awareness-raising, and why some countries have not achieved them (due to both internal and external factors, e.g. global crises).70
67 T. Pogge, ‘Politics as Usual: What Lies Behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric’, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010, p. 68.
68 Idem, pp. 65-66.
69 Idem, p. 62 and table 3.2.
70 R. Jolly, ‘Global Goals: The UN Experience’, Background Paper, Human Development Report, 2003.
25 In the context of the MDGs, responsibility for achieving results lies with developing countries, while MDG8 does not demand that the rich countries provide any measurable support or ensure fair trade rules.71 In this respect, setting global goals and pursuing them at national level is not effective. Other dangers are planning on the basis of incomplete statistics and irrelevant statistics that do not measure impact (e.g. the proportion of land set aside as nature reserves).72 Measuring progress per country is deceptive in the sense that countries like India with large numbers of people living in poverty count the same as small countries like the Maldives; this means that someone living in India is accorded relatively less weight than an inhabitant of the Maldives; this conflicts with the principle that all people are equal.73
Lastly, it has not been shown conclusively that results-based management provides sufficient incentives for the political establishment of recipient countries to promote development. Research based on a number of Poverty Reduction Strategies identified no significant influence on national objectives; in the case of worldwide goals it is even more difficult to show that they have a positive effect on national politicians.74 A study by the Institute of Development Studies of the impact of transparency and accountability initiatives concludes that greater transparency does not necessarily improve accountability, because the initiatives are very complex and many factors that can determine their success, including power relations, need to be taken into account.75
A.III What the MDGs fail to address
The MDGs are intended as an overarching concept for all dimensions of poverty, a crystallisation or summary of the global problem as a whole. One group of critics has, however, insisted from the start that the MDGs were worded wrongly. Although the goals have since been extended and new ones added at a series of international conferences and meetings, this has not changed. Essential themes like sustainability, growth and employment, inequality, knowledge and technology, demography, peace and security, infrastructure and human rights are not explicitly addressed by the MDGs, while others – including food security, climate, gender and global governance – are not given sufficient attention. Critics believe that these important issues can obstruct achievement of the MDGs. Some segments of the civil society movement have even rejected the MDGs completely, because they feel they ignore gender analysis and the environmental impact
71 UN, ‘MDG 8 The Global Partnership for Development at a Critical Juncture’, MDG Gap Task Force Report 2010, New York.
72 M. Loewe, ‘The Millennium Development Goals: Chances and Risks’, German Development Institute, discussion paper 6/2008, Bonn 2008, pp. 14-18.
73 S. Alkire, M. Santos, ‘Acute Multidimensional Poverty: A new index for developing countries’, OPHI working paper no 38, July 2010, p. 8.
74 David Booth, Director of the Africa Power and Politics Programme (APPP), Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Society for International Development SID lecture, 13 December 2010.
75 Institute of Development Studies (IDS), ‘Review of Impact and Assessment of Transparency and Accountability Studies’, prepared by Gregory Barrett, Richard Calland, Ruth Carlitz, Anuradha Joshi, Rosemary McGee, Andrés Mejía Acosta and the Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), October 2010.
26 of economic growth. They call for an agenda of transformation. The themes that are not addressed in the MDGs and those that critics would like to see given greater attention are considered in brief below.
Part B will examine how the themes that are not addressed or given insufficient attention in the MDGs can play a role in new development thinking, partly in the light of recent ideas on development and global governance.
A.III.1 Themes that are not addressed Sustainability, growth and employment Charles Gore calls for a new development paradigm which has the productivity of the individual and sustainability at its centre.76 He argues that the financial crisis heralds the end of 60 years of development theory and the ‘winter’ of the Kondratieff curve (a period of creative destruction due to deflationary depression). This will be followed by the ‘spring’ of innovative breakthroughs. The crisis must not be seen only as the consequence of flaws in the financial system but also as an expression of systematic unbalanced global growth: increasing inequalities within and between countries,77 a lack of democracy in international relations and ecological limits to growth. The financial bubble has partly been caused by a shortage of aggregated demand; in other words, consumers have too little purchasing power. The solution cannot be found only in terms of poverty reduction through the MDGs, but must be embedded in a worldwide socioeconomic transformation, which places employment and the productivity of the individual at the centre. Energy transition and the struggle to achieve sustainability must also be taken into account, as it looks as though we will soon reach the point of ‘peak-oil’.78
Inequality The MDGs devote no attention to inequalities within countries. However, reducing income inequality and increasing access to essential social services can help speed up achievement of the MDGs.79 UNICEF has shown in a recent study, for example, that focusing on the poorest groups is a cost-efficient way of achieving the goals, contrary to claims that this is more expensive. It has also been calculated that this is a cheaper way to achieve the health goals.80 UNDP has concluded that countries where income inequality has decreased and where strong national growth has occurred in sectors in which the poorest are concentrated, had the greatest success in reducing poverty.81
76 C. Gore, ‘The Global Development Cycle, MDGs and the Future of Poverty Reduction’, 12th EADI General Conference, Geneva, June 2008.
77 Idem, p. 11: 50 million rich people (1% of the population) have the same income as 2.7 billion of the lowest earners (57%). Only 17% of people fall into the middle-income category.
78 Idem, p. 13.
79 J. Vandemoortele, ‘Taking the MDGs Beyond 2015: Hasten Slowly’, DSA/EADI/Action Aid Policy Forum, June 2009.
80 UN Girls’ Education Initiative (UNICEF), ‘Narrowing the Gaps to meet the Goals’, New York, September 2010, p. 7.
81 UN Development Group (UNDG), ‘Beyond the Midpoint, Achieving the Millennium Development Goals’, New York 2010, p. 25 and Annex 2.1.
27 MDG architect Vandemoortele even claims that, as long as growing inequalities within countries are ignored, the MDGs will remain a ‘mission impossible’.82
The question is whether we should be looking at the poorest countries in the world or the position of the poorest groups within those countries and globally. As Andy Sumner and others have pointed out, a new development situation has emerged with large groups of poor people in middle-income countries (960 million people, or 72% of the world’s poor).83
Knowledge and technology Knowledge is a good example of a public good, given that it can be shared by many people at the same time and it is difficult to acquire exclusive rights to it. It is also a global public good, as its distribution does not stop at national borders. Intellectual property and common knowledge, comprising existing and publicly available knowledge, have important cross-border consequences. Knowledge is crucial to acquiring other global public goods (GPGs). It can, for example, help in controlling infectious diseases, managing global commons, creating an open trade system and achieving financial stability.84 However, the knowledge gap between rich and poor countries is widening largely due to the incapacity of the latter to absorb knowledge, and this reduces opportunities to close the development gap. What is more, due to the functioning of the intellectual property rights mechanism some knowledge is unavailable for the development of other GPGs, so that elements of it change from being a public to a private good.85 New information technology offers new opportunities and challenges for knowledge transfer.
Demography Demographic changes become visible in the long term and present a serious challenge to humanity and development in the twenty-first century. An unevenly structured population, caused by falling death rates and high birth rates, can hamper achievement of the MDGs. Rapid changes in the composition of the population, such as the dependency ratio or ageing, can affect economic growth, negatively or positively (the demographic dividend). In addition, demographic trends can affect employment, peace and security, urbanisation, the environment and poverty in a country.86
Peace and security Conflicts and violence are important reasons for failure to achieve the MDGs. No low- income fragile state has yet achieved a single MDG and progress is slow. In countries in conflict more people rea undernourished and fewer attend school, child mortality is higher and there is less clean water, etc. Social tensions and the enormous influx of small weapons are leading to an increase in domestic violence. Effective action in fragile states calls not only for money but also for reliable data on employment, public security
82 J. Vandemoortele, 201i, ‘The MDG Story: Intention Denied’, in Development and Change, Vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 1-21.
83 A. Sumner, ‘The New Bottom Billion’, The Broker, issue 23, December 2010.
84 International Taskforce on Global Public Goods, ‘Meeting Global Challenges: International Cooperation in the National Interest’, Stockholm 2006, p. 65.
85 Idem, pp. 67-68.
86 AIV, ‘Demographic Changes and Development Cooperation’, advisory report no. 66, The Hague, July 2009.
28 and access to the rule of law. Some commentators are therefore calling for indicators for these issues. Others demand indicators for peacebuilding, institution building (including security sector reform) and the prevention of violence.
Infrastructure in Africa For Africa it is crucial to tackle the lack of physical infrastructure (roads, railways, electricity, ports, telephones, internet, etc.). Critics are of the opinion that investment in the social sectors is of little use unless the conditions to allow economic activity are first in place. They claim that the MDGs have diverted attention from crucial infrastructure. Besides water and sanitation, the MDGs only devote attention to information and communication technology (ICT), an area in which progress has been made, thanks to private investment.
Human rights and good governance Human rights and the MDGs should be closely related.87 Chapter five of the Millennium Declaration refers to the importance of human rights, but in the end they were not mentioned at all in the MDGs. As poverty is often the result of discrimination, various critics believe that non-discrimination and the principle of equality should be included in a post-2015 system. In their view this would benefit the most vulnerable and poorest groups.88
Global public goods Although the MDG literature does not refer directly to global public goods, some argue that this would be a better approach than the MDGs. Chapter B.IV.2 will examine this issue in more detail.
A.III.2 Themes that should have been or should be addressed in greater detail Food security One of the targets of MDG1 is to reduce hunger. Food security plays a prominent role in the fight against hunger. According to the FAO, one billion people worldwide are undernourished and two billion lack sufficient essential nutrients.89 The World Bank is concerned about higher food prices, which is pushing more people below the poverty line. Target 1c of the MDGs devotes attention to hunger (underweight children and people who are deprived of nutrients), but this does not suffice since it does not address the causes of these problems. With the growth of world food production, the issue has increasingly become one of distribution and regional food security. The neglect of agriculture in many developing countries has resulted in the supply of food being unable to keep track with the rising demand resulting from population growth and changing consumption patterns. Food insecurity has also increased because more countries have started importing food and because the price of grain and other staple foodstuffs is subject to considerable
87 Nearly all the MDGs have some overlap with internationally recognised human rights. For example, the right to education (art. 25(1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and MDG2. For an overview of this overlap, see UNDP, ‘Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals, Making the Link’, New York 2007, p. 11. See also section B.IV.1.
88 Report of the Seminar on Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals, held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague, 25-26 May 2009, p. 26.
89 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), ‘The State of Food Security in the World: Addressing food insecurity in protracted crises’, Rome, 2010, p. 9.
29 fluctuations. According to some commentators, this price volatility is due not only to drought or flooding, but also to increased speculation on the commodity markets.
Climate Changes to the climate are directly impacting on poverty. If action is not taken to combat or mitigate climate change and its consequences, poverty cannot possibly be eradicated. That is why it is often argued that both problems should be tackled simultaneously.90 Small-scale, labour-intensive activities in the field of water, energy, sustainable agriculture and production can present positive prospects and a win-win situation: people living in poverty are assured a sustainable income and they also promote solutions to these problems. As it brings more extreme drought, floods and storms, climate change is expected to hit developing countries particularly hard, and especially the most vulnerable groups.91
Gender Although MDG3 aims to promote gender equality and empower women, critics emphasise that the goal is incomplete. According to Amnesty International, the MDGs do not currently fulfil all the obligations agreed by states to combat discrimination against women.92 Themes missing from the MDGs are the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, drawn up in 1981 and one of the most important international documents in the fight to stop discrimination against women,93 and the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action, which included twelve points for action, including sexual and reproductive rights and eradicating violence against women.94
The choice of the three indicators to measure the progress of MDG3 (promoting equality between men and women) is fairly random: participation in education, access to paid employment outside the agricultural sector, and the number of parliamentary seats held by women. The quality of education or the extent to which pupils complete it, for example, is not measured. Girls in particular often leave school early.95 The indicator ‘wage employment in the non-agricultural sector’ makes no distinction between the different types of work that women do. What is more, in many developing countries,
90 E. Solheim, ‘Climate, Conflict and Capital’, in: Poverty in Focus; The MDGs and Beyond: Pro-Poor Policy in a Changing World, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, No. 19, January 2010, p. 24.
91 N. Stern, ‘The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review’, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
92 Amnesty International, ‘From Promises to Delivery. Putting Human Rights at the Heart of the Millennium Development Goals’, London, 2010, p. 16.
93 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (1981). Countries that are party to the convention must take active steps to combat discrimination, for example by removing discriminatory legislation and establishing a protective mechanism.
94 See point 3 on access to health care and related services, and point 4 on eradicating violence against women.
95 N. Jones, R. Holmes, J. Espey, ‘Progressing Gender Equality Post-2015: Harnessing the Multiplier Effects of Existing Achievements’, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 41, No. 1, January 2010, p. 115.
30 the non-agricultural sector only accounts for a small percentage of total employment.96 The number of seats in parliament has not always proved effective in initiating women’s empowerment.97
Global governance MDG8 aims ‘to develop a global partnership for development’. This eighth goal was added at a later stage in the process, largely at the insistence of developing countries, which also wanted to see some form of accountability for the donor countries in terms of ODA and trade, finance and debt policy so as to bring a degree of coherence to the international system. MDG8 has never, however, achieved the necessary forms of global governance. It has become a cluster containing a wide variety of goals and targets added at the last minute. Consequently the original objective that some countries, and especially developing countries, had in mind for MDG8 – a goal to enforce coherence in the policies of developed countries and to develop a measurable form of accountability for these countries in achieving the MDGs – has never got off the ground. If there has been any improvement at all in global governance, it is more a response to the financial crisis than the result of any great effort to achieve MDG8.
A.III.3 Missing target groups Generally speaking, with the exception of women, the MDGs are not specifically directed at the most vulnerable groups in society. Yet a number of other groups can be considered vulnerable because they are also often disproportionately affected by poverty.
The World Bank has indicated that people with a functional impairment make up around 10% of the global population and 20% of the world’s poor.98 The second Special Rapporteur on Disability of the Commission for Social Development has noted that poverty and functional impairment often go together.99 This group of people merit extra attention – which is currently minimal – in national and international development agendas on poverty reduction.100 Nor do the MDGs devote specific attention to people with functional impairments, while programmes and policies based on the MDGs often ignore this group completely.101 In recent years, however, the UN – and the Special Rapporteur in particular – has devoted attention to the importance of taking full account of the interests of people
96 UN, Inter-Agency and Expert Group on MDG Indicators, 6th Gender Indicators Sub-group meeting, New York, 2005,
97 R. Johnson, ‘Not a sufficient condition: The limited relevance of the gender MDG to women’s progress’, Gender and Development, Vol. 13 (1) 2005, p. 60.
98 A. Elwan, ‘Poverty and Disability: A Review of the Literature’, Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 9932, 1999, World Bank.
99 Report by the UN Secretary-General, ‘Mainstreaming Disability in the Development Agenda’, ECOSOC, 20 November 2009, UN doc. E/CN.5/2010/6, p. 4.
100 Idem, pp. 17-18.
101 UN General Assembly, report by the Secretary-General, ‘Realizing the MDGs for persons with disabilities through the implementation of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, 27 July 2009, UN doc. A/64/180, p. 3.
31 with a functional impairment within the MDGs.102 The greatest problem facing these people is that they are often the victims of stigma and prejudice.103
The Millennium Declaration calls on states to respect the rights of minorities.104 In reality, however, indigenous people and minorities are invisible within the MDGs, due to a lack of data on their development and situation.105 Desk reviews by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues show that indigenous peoples are included to only a very limited extent in national MDG reports and evaluations.106 The same applies to minorities.107
Indigenous peoples suffer deprivation through loss of land and natural resources by colonisation, multiple discrimination, marginalisation and the incapacity to lead their own lives.108 It is therefore not surprising that they make up 15% of the poorest segment of the world’s population, but only 5% of the global population as a whole.109 Access to adequate care and education is below national averages and these groups are especially vulnerable to the effects of environmental degradation.110 Many of the richest mineral deposits are found on the territories of indigenous peoples, and dispossession of their lands is a serious problem.111 Other minorities based on nationality, religion, language
102 Important resolutions have been adopted on this issue, including ECOSOC Resolution 2008/21.
103 J.E. Groce, J-P. Trani, ‘Millennium Development Goals and People with Disabilities’, The Lancet, Vol. 374, 28 November 2009, p. 1800.
104 Millennium Declaration 2000, Part V: ‘…strengthen the capacity of countries to implement the principles and practices of democracy and respect for human rights, including minority rights’.
105 C. Doyle, ‘Indigenous Peoples and the Millennium Development Goals: “Sacrificial lambs” or equal beneficiaries?’, The International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 13, No. 1, February 2009, p. 44. UN Human Rights Council, Report by the Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Gay MacDougall, 2 February 2007, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/9, p. 17.
106 The desk reviews can be found at:
107 UN Human Rights Council: Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Gay McDougall, 2 February 2007, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/9, p. 7.
108 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples’, UN doc. ST/ESA/328, p. 21.
109 W.J.M. van Genugten, ‘Protection of Indigenous Peoples on the African Continent: Concepts, Position Seeking, and the Interaction of Legal Systems’, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 104, No. 1, 2010, pp. 29-65.
110 UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, ‘Indigenous People and the MDGs: Inclusive and Culturally Sensitive Solutions’, UN Chronicle: Partnership for Development, Vol. XLV, No. 1, 2008.
111 R. L. Barsh, ‘Is the Expropriation of Indigenous People’s Land GATT-able?’, Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, Vol. 10, Issue 1, April 2001, pp. 13–26.
32 and ethnic origin are also disproportionately poorer as a result of discrimination, violence and exclusion.112
The 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognises both individual and collective rights. Guaranteeing the right to self-determination and the subsequent right to full and effective participation in decision-making processes are key elements in achieving sustainable progress for indigenous peoples.113 The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples states that, if the MDGs are to be achieved by 2015, these elements must be supported through a human-rights-based approach to development, centred on universality, equality, participation and accountability.114 Working with indigenous peoples on the MDGs also calls for an approach based on respect for their culture, world view, experiences and viewpoints on development. The Forum therefore proposes allowing indigenous people to participate fully and effectively in designing, implementing and monitoring MDG programmes and projects relating to them.115
A.III.4 The UN’s response to criticism of the eight goals The final report by the UN Secretary-General in 2010 does not address the fundamental criticism of the MDGs. The report states that the goals are achievable and that the shortcomings in progress can be fully explained by a lack of political will, insufficient funds, a lack of focus and sense of responsibility, and insufficient interest in sustainable development.116 The report does, however, discuss themes not specifically mentioned in the MDGs, including violence against women, poverty among indigenous peoples, refugees, inequality, equitable growth, peace and security, agricultural production, good governance and human rights, climate, and the role of civil society organisations and the private sector. It does not question the concept of the MDGs as such (as unrealistic, unfeasible goals with an emphasis on achieving quantitative targets), but the UN does seem to have taken steps in the direction of an MDG-plus agenda by incorporating themes in the report that are not mentioned explicitly in the goals.
112 UN Human Rights Council: Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Gay McDougall, 2 February 2007, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/9, p. 7.
113 UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, ‘Indigenous People and the MDGs: Inclusive and Culturally Sensitive Solutions’, UN Chronicle: Partnership for Development, Vol. XLV, No. 1, 2008.
114 See also chapter B.IV.1, Human rights approach.
115 UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Report of the International Expert Group Meeting on the Millennium Development Goals, Indigenous Participation and Good Governance, fifth session, New York 2006, par. 62.
116 UN Secretary-General, ‘Keeping the Promise; A forward-looking review to promote an agreed action agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015’, Report of the Secretary-General, UN General Assembly 64th session, February 2010, par. 5 and 116.
33 A.IV What have the MDGs meant for policy in developing and donor countries?
A.IV.1 How have the MDGs been used in developing countries? To what extent have the MDGs been embraced by all developing countries that receive aid? Many regional organisations devoted attention to the MDGs, especially in the run-up to the 2010 summit.117
Kersalla Yansane identifies a certain scepticism among African countries, regarding the MDGs.118 For them, the goals are just another donor strategy, the latest in a long series of failed initiatives intended to support development in Africa, including the UN’s System- wide Special Initiative for Africa, dating from 1996, and various pledges made by the UN, G8 and G20 in the past decade. Enthusiasm for the goals in Africa was dampened by the fact that it is impossible to achieve them at the continent’s current rate of economic growth (7% growth is required to reduce poverty by half) and the current level of aid (according to the Commission for Africa and the Millennium Project, aid would have to be doubled between 2005 and 2010 for the goals to be achieved).119
Others claim that the MDGs push national priorities into the background; for example, Rwanda wanted to give priority to secondary and tertiary vocational education, and Tanzania to small-scale irrigation to improve the situation of its farmers. In the latter case, donors insisted on building large-scale dams, as this would have a positive effect on GDP and therefore bring the country closer to achieving MDG1.120
In some cases, developing countries have manipulated the statistics relating to the MDGs or interpreted the goals in their own way. In a number of Latin American countries, for example, deprived indigenous groups were excluded from household surveys and interviews to produce more positive statistics on poverty.121 Several Latin American countries also relate MDG6, combating HIV/AIDS, exclusively to homosexuality, so that women who are the victims of violence and become infected with HIV are not taken into account. Sometimes the MDGs themselves lead to erroneous policy decisions (or justify existing choices): in Honduras, for example, violence against women is the second most common cause of death, but the ministry of health only has a programme for maternal mortality (MDG5).122
117 For an overview of all regions see, for example, the regional reports of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean at:
118 K. Yansane, ‘An African Perspective of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): From scepticism to leadership and hope’, Committee for Development Policy, March 2005.
119 Idem, p. 8.
120 Y. Subasat, ‘After 2015: Promoting Pro-Poor Policy after the MDGs’, EADI Conference, June 2009, p. 3.
121 Idem, p. 3, with reference to S. Damman, ‘Indigenous Vulnerability and the Process Towards the Millennium Development Goals: Will a Human Rights-Based Approach Help?’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, Vol. 14, no. 4 2007, pp. 489-539.
122 Idem, p. 4.
34 Many countries adapt the MDGs to their local circumstances by adding goals, targets or indicators.123 For example, by 2000 Thailand had already achieved the goal of halving the number of people living in poverty compared to the base year of 1990. The government therefore decided to set up an MDG-Plus agenda addressing the main problems affecting the country’s development. This agenda contains more ambitious goals than the international MDGs. The goal to halve poverty, for example, was adjusted: the aim was now to reduce the number of people living in poverty to less than 4% in 2009.124
In practically all countries where the UN has a presence the MDGs are mentioned in planning documents, but it is often unclear how adequately they are implemented. The UN concludes, for example, that in eight out of ten countries the MDGs are mentioned in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, but that many of them – especially the poorest countries – see the PRSPs as a donor-driven process. In around half of low-income countries, more funding has been allocated or pledged to the MDG sectors. Awareness of the MDGs is highest in the least developed countries.125 They receive the most attention in Africa, as witness publications by ministries of finance and debates in parliaments.
A more detailed analysis of the 22 PRSPs in developing countries shows that the MDGs have a strong normative effect.126 This applies, however, to selected targets, with an emphasis on economic growth (‘pro-poor’ in a minority of cases), the social sectors (primary education, health and sanitation) and governance (the rule of law, decentralisation and anti-corruption measures: not included in the MDGs). The MDGs on hunger, gender equality (education, political representation), reproductive rights and decent work receive less attention, while equity (income equality), violence against women, human rights (minorities, migrants), participation, democratic governance and partnerships with civil society organisations and the private sector (none of which are referred to in the MDGs) are ignored completely. Ethical themes, like human dignity and equality, which underpin the Millennium Declaration but are not explicitly mentioned in the MDGs, are not addressed in the PRSPs. This leads Fukuda-Parr to conclude that the PRSPs are primarily based on the thinking of the 1980s, with its focus on income growth and poverty reduction as a secondary goal, and that they ignore modern approaches that focus on multidimensional poverty caused by a lack of both voice and access and vulnerability to external shocks.127 The PRSPs also tend to focus on specific budgets and avoid making total cost estimates, as these needs assessments are controversial.128
123 UN Development Group (UNDG), ‘Beyond the Midpoint: Achieving the Millennium Development Goals’, New York, January 2010, Annex 1.2, p. 135.
124 UN Development Programme (UNDP), Thailand Millennium Development Goals Report 2004, New York, p. 7.
125 UN Development Group (UNDG), ‘Making the MDGs Matter: A Country Perspective’, Report of UNDG Survey, New York, June 2005, pp. 4-5.
126 S. Fukuda-Parr, ‘Are the MDGs priority in development strategies and aid programmes? Only a few are!’, International Poverty Centre, working paper 48, October 2008.
127 Idem, p. 13.
128 Idem, p. 10.
35 A.IV.2 Have the MDGs had an impact on donor policies? To what extent have donors allowed themselves to be led by the MDGs? Multilateral institutions, with UNDP at the forefront but also including the World Bank, UNICEF, WHO, FAO and others, have contributed considerably to the conceptualisation, implementation and monitoring of the MDGs.
However, aid from traditional donors has not increased since the introduction of the MDGs. On the other hand, aid from non-DAC donors and private funds has risen, although estimates of the scale of this increase vary.129 DAC donors fall way short of the 0.7% norm; on average, they gave less than half of this amount (0.31% of GNI). That also includes aid to Afghanistan ($4.8 billion) and Iraq ($9.9 billion), by far the largest recipients. Ethiopia was the third largest recipient ($ 3.3 billion in 2008). Aid to the least developed countries was only 0.09% GNI (2008).130 Nevertheless, it could be said with some caution that the MDG agenda has helped maintain the level of aid, even during times of crisis.
An analysis of 20 policy documents of bilateral aid organisations shows that, to differing degrees, donors have gradually adopted the MDGs.131 Little priority is given to infant and maternal mortality. Employment, hunger, gender and related Millennium themes like social integration and technology are also underrepresented. In contrast to the PRSPs,
129 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2010: Retooling Global Development’, New York, May 2010, pp. 54-55.
130 UN, ‘Millennium Development Goal 8: The Global Partnership for Development at a Critical Juncture’, MDG Gap Task Force Report 2010, New York 2010, p. x.
131 S. Fukuda-Parr, ‘Are the MDGs priority in development strategies and aid programmes? Only a few are!’, International Poverty Centre, working paper 48, October 2008, pp. 11-13.
36 considerable attention is devoted to environmental protection (but not to sanitation), democratic governance and, in more recent donor policy documents, climate change. Peace and security also receives a lot of attention, reflecting the need – at any rate among donor countries – to include this theme from the Millennium Declaration in policy, despite its not being part of the traditional development agenda.
MDG8 goals are primarily mentioned in MDG reports referring to international negotiations like Doha (trade), the Paris Declaration (donor coordination) and the HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) initiative (debt cancellation). The needs assessment for the MDGs – the estimate of available and required resources to achieve the goals – is drawn up per individual country. As part of their development policies, countries themselves calculate their needs and resources, often in consultation with the donor community. Calculating how much it costs at global level to achieve the MDGs is a tough challenge, which can be approached in different ways: by income group, theme or region.132 The UN Millennium Project, for example, has calculated that the estimated MDG funding deficit for all low-income countries was $73 billion in 2006 and $89 billion in 2010, and that it will be $135 billion in 2015.133
The European Union Some people feel that the European Union (EU) should take the lead in formulating a new development paradigm.134 The European Commission has formulated a 12-point action plan to support the MDGs.135 The EU is the largest donor and has committed itself to improving the effectiveness of aid.136 In addition, the Union itself is a model of regional cooperation and support for weaker member states, even though there is often a degree of friction. The MDGs were developed by the UN, primarily UNDP. If the EU were to take it upon itself to formulate a follow-up policy, the AIV considers consultation with its development partners essential, right from the start. Another option is for like-minded European states to form a group with a number of important development partners. The Netherlands could play a prominent role in this group and should call on the UN to set up a commission or task force to this end.
The Netherlands A recent report by the Netherlands Court of Audit on accountability for development spending concludes that the Netherlands’ policy priorities, its budget articles and the MDGs are largely addressed separately. The MDGs are accounted for in the annual
132 UN, Millennium Development Goal 8: ‘The Global Partnership for Development at a Critical Juncture’, MDG Gap Task Force Report 2010, New York 2010, pp. 3-4.
133 UN Millennium Project, ‘Investing in Development: A practical plan to achieve the Millennium Development Goals’, New York 2005.
134 F. Bourguignon et al, ‘Millennium Development Goals at Mid-point: Where do we stand and where do we need to go?’, Summary of paper for the joint European Commission initiative ‘Mobilising European Research for Development Policies’, European Report on Development, September 2008.
135 European Commission, ‘A Twelve-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals’, communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, 21 April 2010.
136 EU Code of Conduct on Complementarity and Division of Labour.
37 report on development cooperation, but this cannot be translated directly in terms of the budget and policy.137 There is therefore a certain tension between donors’ national policy priorities and international goals. The Court of Audit recommends making a sharp distinction between themes that are results-based, and the strategy, channels and conditions that determine the framework for cooperation. The Court also notes that results-based and input-based commitments are not the same, and that it is necessary to distinguish between internal monitoring (to increase learning capacity) and accountability to parliament (and the public).
In the interest of country specificity and ownership, the AIV advises the Dutch government to account to parliament for the budget by recipient country and to include a statement of expenditure by theme, specified per MDG.
A.V The MDGs after 2015?
In this chapter the AIV presents a number of recommendations for a possible contribution by the Netherlands to the process of achieving international consensus on a development agenda after 2015. Its arguments are based on the assessment and criticism of the MDGs as analysed in the previous chapters and summarised briefly below in section A.V.1. They also take account of current global developments, new themes and the requirements of global governance, all of which are addressed in more detail in part B of this report. Three options are examined more closely: abolition of the MDGs (A.V.2), continuation of the current system (A.V.3), or reform and introduction of a renewed MDG system (A.V.4).
A.V.1 Conclusions and lessons learned The Millennium Declaration that preceded the MDGs is still relevant in specifying a number of important conditions for achieving development. The progress reviews of 2005 and 2010 added a number of significant issues in areas like gender and social security.
Some of the elements in the Millennium Declaration were translated into quantitative goals and targets: the Millennium Development Goals. The main advantages of the MDGs are that they expand the concept of poverty, focus on output (results) and not input (financing), provide a worldwide normative framework for the different actors involved in development cooperation, and promote international consensus.
The MDG system has been successful in communicating a complex development problem to a wider public, but it must be accepted that the majority of the goals will not be achieved by 2015. This is partly because of the limited operationalisation of the goals for developed countries (MDG8) and a failure (with a number of exceptions, including the Netherlands) to comply with international pledges, in relation to Official Development Assistance (ODA) and reform of the global trade and financial system.
A number of countries never entirely embraced the MDG concept because they felt that the process of formulating and setting the goals and targets was driven in the first instance by the donor countries. Some African countries saw the MDGs as just the latest in a series of initiatives for the continent that had mainly failed and not resulted in increased aid flows.
137 Netherlands Court of Audit, Basis voor een goede verantwoording over ontwikkelingssamenwerking, The Hague, March 2010, p. 18.
38 A number of themes in the original Millennium Declaration of 2000 were not included in the MDGs, or not to a sufficient extent (some have since been incorporated in the follow- up declarations of 2005 and 2010), but are certainly relevant in a post-2015 system. These include food security, demography, infrastructure in Africa, peace and security, inequality, sustainability, growth and employment, human rights and knowledge. On a number of goals – including climate, gender and global governance – input has been totally inadequate.
A major criticism of the MDG system is that it has no underlying economic theory or a theoretical basis for the choices made. Furthermore, the MDGs take no account of what deprived parts of the world need to do more or less than others to achieve them, nor do they provide much insight into progress made by individual countries. Setting global goals and then implementing them per country has proved insufficiently effective and inspirational.
The choice of 1990 as the benchmark year for the MDGs provides an overly positive image of what has been achieved. The effects of the 2008 financial and economic crisis are difficult to estimate. While the crisis has made it more difficult to implement the MDGs, it was itself the outcome of a failing global financial system. The question of whether just as much progress would have been made without the MDGs is understandable and legitimate, yet difficult to answer scientifically. An accelerated trend since 2000 can only be observed in 20% of the MDG indicators.
Despite this criticism the AIV believes that indicators are useful as a policy instrument, and that benchmarks like those used by the MDGs, should be maintained. The AIV also believes that some of the existing indicators, such as those for education and water, need to be extended so that they also measure quality. It recommends broadening the scope of the indicators to include themes like inequality, wellbeing, sustainability and human rights principles, and target groups such as women.
It is difficult to determine exactly what the MDGs have signified for policy development in developing countries. Donor-dependent countries often tend to say what their donors wish to hear. Some developing countries have adapted the MDGs in their own way by, for example, adding targets for human rights or extra relevant indicators, such as specific diseases. The Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) that still dominate policy in poorer countries generally refer selectively to the MDGs but, despite reforms, they are still considered by many to be donor-driven and not focused sufficiently on the multidimensional aspect of poverty. To date, the MDGs have been unable to prevent certain issues from being underrepresented, including hunger, gender inequality, employment and reproductive rights. In addition, setting unrealistic goals, e.g. in Africa, does not promote ownership.
To do greater justice to developing countries’ own policies, it is equally important to measure progress made in pursuing national priorities and achieving the MDGs. Flexibility in establishing clusters of goals for each country can help to achieve this. It is also important to aggregate national goals and set them off against the global MDGs. A clear link should be established between national policy and the MDGs.
Generally speaking it will not be possible to dictate the levels of effort required to pursue the MDGs though there is peer pressure on those who fail to meet the indicators (naming and shaming). A bottom-up strategy is a more effective way of acquiring support for the MDGs, and today’s better informed network society can play a prominent role in this.
39 To improve linkage between national policy and the MDGs, it is important for developing countries and the emerging economies to play a prominent role in the development of a new strategy. The success of the post-2015 system depends largely on this consultative process.
The MDG agenda and the Paris Agenda on aid effectiveness merit closer coordination to promote donor harmonisation; the number of coordination mechanisms in the Paris Agenda should be limited; implementation at partner country level is the most important. The AIV therefore calls for a link to be made between the Paris Agenda and donor harmonisation around the country-specific MDG themes. There should be an international division of labour by country and theme; it is important to investigate what partner countries feel about this.
If the EU were to take it upon itself to formulate a follow-up policy, consultation with its development partners is essential right from the start. The AIV recommends that like- minded European states form a group with a number of important development partners. Although, as noted previously, the EU is the largest donor and a joint EU standpoint would probably carry more political weight, a group of like-minded countries would have the advantage of being more flexible, increasing opportunities for developing countries to be involved at an early stage. The Netherlands could play a prominent role here and, together with other countries, call for the UN to set up a commission or task force to this end, in which developing countries would also participate.
One point that is important for a number of donor countries, including the Netherlands, is how to coordinate the MDGs, which are grouped by theme, with a country-specific policy. In line with its advisory report no. 69, the AIV recommends that, when accounting to parliament on the budget, the government should specify by aid-recipient country (in the interests of country specificity and ownership) and include a statement on theme-based expenditure per MDG.
A.V.2 MDGs in perspective: should they be abolished? The MDGs have initiated a broad international discussion, generating greater awareness and clarifying standpoints in the development debate. There has been considerable fundamental and detailed criticism, chiefly that the MDGs are an example of donorship rather than ownership. The AIV finds this criticism justified in some cases.
The AIV also believes that the MDGs lack both a solid basis and a vision of a development process that requires structural change. While some consider that a weakness, others see it as a strength: precisely because they lack any theoretical basis, the MDGs do not have to lead to the kind of ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy which the WRR, for example, has correctly objected to. Despite the fact that the MDGs were never intended as a one-size-fits-all approach, many – especially in the donor community – have embraced them as a mantra for development, sometimes through lack of a better alternative. The goals have come to be seen in such absolute terms that anything that falls outside them no longer matters. As a consequence, every self-respecting group has tried to get its area of activity included within the MDGs. A number of examples have been given in previous chapters. The fixation with bringing everything under the MDGs has resulted in many people forgetting that sustainable economic growth with a conscious policy of structural change and redistribution can just as easily contribute to social progress as direct attention to the social sector.
40 Should we then abolish the MDGs? The AIV does not believe we should, for a number of important reasons. The main one is that the MDGs were intended as a global consensus to make development efforts more focused and multidimensional by setting targets and thus creating accountability. If we were now to abolish the MDGs we would be getting off too lightly, especially the developed countries which have had far less to do with accountability. There is general agreement that MDG8 (global partnership), which was added to the process at a later stage, demands very little of the developed countries. The AIV therefore believes that an important element of the evaluation of the MDGs in 2015 should address the question of how the global partnership has developed in reality and what lessons should be learned with a view to improving it.
Where the other goals are concerned, the AIV notes that the MDG system has certainly had a positive impact in certain areas, especially in more recent years. Its main assets have been initiating a global consensus, communicability, universal indicators and the accumulation of statistical data in the form of benchmarks and measurable results. The fixed period, with 2015 as the target year, has undoubtedly exerted additional pressure on donors and local governments to increase their efforts. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine clearly whether this has simply led to priorities being shifted or to an absolute increase in the aid effort, or at least steps to prevent it being reduced.
A.V.3 Should we continue with the current MDG system? The AIV therefore finds that, on balance, it is not advisable to abolish the MDG system completely. That is, however, not a recommendation to continue the present system unchanged. It would be a highly undesirable scenario if, in 2015, we were to conclude that not all the MDGs have been achieved and that a new period needs to be set in which to achieve them. The criticism, as presented in the previous sections, is too serious to continue on the same footing. Perhaps one of the most important factors supporting a change of approach is that the world is now a different place than it was at the end of the last century, when the MDGs were formulated.
The world has recently emerged from a serious recession and a financial crisis, which were caused in the industrialised countries but led to increased poverty in parts of many developing countries, and made it even more difficult to achieve a number of social goals. The World Bank speaks of a setback of several years. The global crisis, together with the rapid growth of a number of developing countries, has produced radical changes in the global balance of power. At the time of writing, events are unfolding in the Arab region the consequences of which we cannot yet foresee, but which will possibly also influence a new consensus on development.
In short, it is no longer the G7 of Western countries – or the G8 with Russia on board – that meet to discuss international coordination, but the G20, which also includes a number of developing countries, in which attempts to reach a global consensus are being made. This is a completely different configuration than in the run-up to the Millennium Declaration at the end of the 1990s, when the OECD DAC secretariat was one of the institutions driving formulation of the Declaration and the MDGs based on it. The Netherlands, too, is in a somewhat different position than it was then, partly because it is not a permanent member of the G20. In addition, a growing percentage of development financing now runs outside the DAC.
The G20 has recently reached agreement on a new development agenda (the Seoul Development Consensus for Shared Growth, see annexe IV). The consensus contains six (G20) Development Principles. Principle 6 on ‘outcome orientation’ focuses on ‘targeting,
41 monitoring and accountability’. The AIV believes that engaging as far as possible with this consensus can considerably increase the chances of reaching a global consensus on a post-2015 system.
Another consideration is the growth of India, China and other developing countries, which is changing the division of poverty in the world.138 Poor people do not live only in poor countries; a large proportion of the world’s poor now live in middle-income countries or emerging economies.139
A situation is emerging with, on the one hand, poor people in poor countries, largely in Africa, and on the other, poor people alongside an emerging middle class in countries with rapidly growing economies. This implies that if we are serious about setting a global goal on reducing poverty and improving access to social services, we can no longer ignore issues of how income and access to services are distributed. There are therefore important arguments not to jettison the current MDG system, but to change it radically.
A.V.4 A post-2015 system for international cooperation The AIV advises the government to advocate a strongly modified system. It is equally important to take a different approach in trying to achieve international consensus and ownership of the international development agenda. The AIV attaches great importance to the proposal that developing countries should themselves determine their own development within a framework of internationally agreed human dignity. Like the WRR, the AIV has argued that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model of development is now a thing of the past.
Taking all this into account, the AIV finds that, in preparing the post-2015 agenda, a process must be set in motion which allows ample scope for different development models and for developing countries – and especially the people in them (who, after all, are what poverty reduction is about) – to fully participate. This is different to the run-up to the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs, which was largely donor-driven. The Netherlands and other donors must, however, identify the contribution they can make to this process. That is one of the aims of this report.
The AIV is therefore of the opinion that an international process of consultation and consensus building must be set in motion forthwith. After all, one of the achievements of the MDGs that deserves to be protected and strengthened is the creation of an international consensus on development. Precisely what indicators are used is less important than the participatory process itself. The AIV recommends setting up an international commission as soon as possible that will, through a participatory process, work on a future system to succeed the current Millennium Declaration/MDG system, possibly with a renewed set of MDGs, and ensuring that this participatory approach continues after 2015.
The original intention of the existing MDGs was to formulate them in the spirit of Amartya Sen’s capabilities theory, which is based on the tenet that ‘freedom is progress’ and a multidimensional view of what constitutes poverty (see section B.II.1). Unfortunately, not all freedoms are incorporated consistently in the current MDGs. To measure development, as many of the freedoms identified in Sen’s theory as possible should be included in the
138 R.J. van der Veen, Waarom Azië rijk en machtig wordt, KIT Publishers, Amsterdam, 2010.
139 A. Sumner, ‘The New Bottom Billion’, The Broker, issue 23, December 2010.
42 new MDG system. Besides including social security, this means measuring security and incorporating the human rights approach to development (including participation, non- discrimination and accountability) in all activities aimed at achieving the goals. Because political rights will be a sensitive issue in a global consensus approach, the focus could be placed on institution building; after all, an effective state is indispensable to development, especially in fragile states.
The AIV considers it desirable that new ideas, like the ‘global social floor’ – an internationally recognised minimum level of subsistence proposed in the 2010 MDG Review – play a role in this process and in reviewing the MDGs. The Netherlands can actively promote this. The crisis has shown just how much a global social floor is needed. Rapid growth in some developing countries and the speed with which financial institutions have recovered from the crisis, have convinced a large group of people that a global social floor is possible and may not be rejected for purely financial reasons.140 The AIV therefore recommends that a new system of MDGs should, if possible, contain a clearly defined and internationally recognised minimum level of subsistence. This might be a task for a subcommittee of experts.
The AIV sees its recommendations as the Netherlands’ contribution to a discussion in which the voice and opinions of people in developing countries and of their governments must also be clearly heard. After all, if we see development aid in terms of ownership and the right to a social minimum, it is up to the recipient – under certain conditions – to determine how it is used.
A number of practical recommendations – some of which have already been mentioned above and others that can be seen as anticipating part B of this report – for the Netherlands’ input in the process of designing a post-2015 system. 1. Focus on the process approach to achieving a new post-2015 system. 2. Do not set new target dates (no new ‘2015’), but measure progress every five to ten years. Review the strategy in a ‘rolling’ process on the basis of the results. Set sustainable targets. 3. There is no need to retain the ‘M’ for Millennium. This is no longer relevant after 2015. Where possible, use the terminology of the G20 and the Seoul Declaration to facilitate international consensus. 4. Refer to actions, strategies and indicators, rather than goals. 5. Limit the current eight goals to a maximum of four or five clusters of goals, for example by grouping health goals together; maintain the indicators and benchmarks agreed so far. 6. Add a maximum of two or three goals or goal clusters, such as peace and (social) security or effective governance, to do justice to themes that are widely considered to be missing from the current system, especially the objective capabilities approach and global public goods, and establish a link between the MDGs and the latter. 7. Embed human rights and gender issues by i) incorporating them throughout as cross-cutting issues by, for example, measuring results according to gender, ethnicity, rural-urban, regional, ‘bottom-top quintiles’ (principle of non-discrimination) and so on; ii) by including references in the post-2015 system to key globally endorsed conventions on human rights and agreements such as Cairo and Beijing; iii) by establishing that all programmes of action must comply with the principles of participation, non-discrimination and accountability.
140 Social Protection Floor Advisory Group (ILO),
43 8. Make sure that donors organise themselves around a new system based on the efficiency principles of the Paris Agenda (division of tasks and fewer national priorities) and, if possible, establish a clear link with MDG themes. 9. In each new goal, describe action to be taken by donor countries, recipient countries and other actors, and specify the roles and responsibilities of the various actors (governments, parliaments, the private sector, trade unions and NGOs). 10. Include a number of indicators of demographic development to support the regular analysis and monitoring of the progress made with development processes, but do not express demographic developments as a goal. Preserve goals and indicators relating to the use of contraceptives, and devote attention to ageing. 11. Ongoing globalisation, recent global developments and the financial-economic crisis of 2008 and 2009 call for a post-2015 system that will introduce improvements to the current international trade and financial systems.
44 B Towards a different approach: a global development agenda
Introduction
In part B of this report, in response to the government’s question whether the development goals should not be seen more in relation to global challenges, and to provide the government with the possible contours of a new international development agenda, the AIV offers an overview of a number of important development themes that have received national and international attention and considers their relevance for a post-2015 system. The first chapter briefly examines current worldwide developments in globalisation, trade and financial systems, technology and demography, which impact on the context for a post-2015 system. This is followed by a chapter on themes and challenges relating to what development is (or should be), and which can serve as a basis for a post-2015 system. The subsequent chapter examines underexposed themes that should be given priority in a post-2015 system. One of the conclusions that emerges from the discussion on these themes is that greater global cooperation is required to confront future challenges. Chapter four therefore addresses a conceptual basis for global cooperation, looking at issues like human rights, global public goods and the need to devote attention to global commons management. The final chapter examines the new challenges for global governance.
B.I Current developments
This chapter takes a brief look at global developments and their consequences, to place the discussion on global governance and the future of the MDGs in a broader perspective. A clear overview of these developments can be found in the UN’s World Economic and Social Survey 2010 (WESS),141 the World Bank’s Global Monitoring Report 2010,142 and the UN World Urbanization Prospects report.143 As well as analysing trends, this chapter also presents recommendations for achieving a new global consensus.
B.I.1 Globalisation at a crossroads Globalisation is at a crossroads. The promise of peace and prosperity after the end of the Cold War has not materialised and, instead, we are struggling with food, energy, financial and climate crises and many conflicts (although the number of armed conflicts has fallen since 1992, from 50 per year to around 30. Fewer people are also dying per conflict).144
141 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2010, Retooling Global Development’, New York, May 2010.
142 World Bank, ‘Global Monitoring Report 2010: The MDGs after the Crisis’, Washington 2010.
143 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Urbanization Prospects 2009 Review’, New York, 2010.
144 This refers to conflicts that claim more than 1,000 battle deaths every year. See the Human Security Centre, ‘The Human Security Report: War and Peace in the 21st Century’, www.humansecurityreport.info (University of British Columbia, Canada), 2005. An update of this report, which originally contained data from 1946 to 2002, was published on 20 December 2006, with additional figures up to 2005.
45 With fragile states a widespread problem, most of today’s conflicts are civil wars.
The UN has observed five trends: a significant shift in the global economy due to the rapid growth of developing countries in Asia, resulting in ‘multiple engines of growth’; increasing income inequality (but with reduced poverty, especially in China); population growth and urbanisation; heavy pressure on the natural environment and biodiversity; and an economic process consisting of non-regulated global value chains, dominated by international companies. Management of the global system is weak. There is tension between decision-making at national and global level, which will only intensify if adequate measures are not taken.145 The AIV endorses the UN’s analysis.
The Millennium Declaration stated that market growth strategies alone are not sufficient to combat poverty and that good public and other institutions and social policy are indispensable. The MDGs refocused attention on human development and poverty reduction, often by increasing budget allocations to the social sectors. However, donor policies continued to contain core elements of the structural adjustment policies of the late 20th century, making it impossible to compensate for the impact of external shocks on employment and incomes. As a result, many countries are no longer on track with the MDGs. The scope for many countries to determine their own policies on industry and other matters also remained limited through, for example, intellectual property provisions, international trade rules, the increased role of foreign investments and non-public money flows, which made it difficult to achieve macroeconomic stability.146
B.I.2 Trade and financial systems International trade has increased in recent decades, largely due to the rapid growth of intermediate products, often within the global value chains of multinational companies. In addition, trade flows have displayed great volatility. Trade negotiations ran aground at the Doha round of the WTO, exposing the organisation’s institutional weakness. The poorer developing countries found themselves facing WTO-imposed restrictions on subsidies to their own industries as well as trade tariffs and protected intellectual rights, leaving them little scope for their own policies. More room needs to be created for a ‘common but differentiated approach’.
The UN’s MDG8 Gap Task Force therefore advises completing the Doha round negotiations as quickly as possible, with sufficient flexibility and aid to strengthen trade and production in developing countries and prevent the expansion of protectionism as a response to crises.147 The task force’s report also calls for the abolition of all agricultural subsidies by 2013, as agreed earlier, and full ‘duty-free and quota-free’ market access for the least developed countries to create employment, as well as simplification of ‘rules of origin’.148 The AIV endorses not only these recommendations but also the importance of encouraging both trade between developing countries and increased regional integration,
145 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2010: Retooling Global Development’, New York, May 2010, chapter 1.
146 Idem.
147 UN, ‘Millennium Development Goal 8: The Global Partnership for Development at a Critical Juncture’, MDG Gap Task Force Report 2010, New York 2010.
148 Idem, pp. xii-xiii.
46 for example by removing reciprocal tariffs and infrastructural obstacles.
In recent years, rather than promoting development, financial markets have further restricted developing countries’ policy space by, for instance, lifting restrictions on capital flows and integrating into the global market, resulting in greater volatility. Financial instruments (derivatives) have become increasingly separated from ‘real’ production sectors, fuelling short-term capital movements and speculation, leading to volatility in capital markets. Self-regulation has not worked and has resulted in costly crises. The G20 has only come up with a partial answer to that problem. Capital flows are much more volatile than trade flows. The policy of liberalisation of capital markets in developing countries, initiated by the IMF, has exposed them to too great risks. They may have acquired better access to financing sources, but macroeconomic management has become more difficult. The large dollar reserves that had to be accumulated for this purpose have in fact led to a flow of capital from developing to developed countries.149 The AIV agrees with the analysis of the UN and the World Bank and observes that, in addition to a greater influx of foreign capital, the international financial system has resulted in greater volatility which mainly affects developing countries and the people who live in them. A new financial structure is therefore urgently needed as an important condition for development, and should therefore be part of a post-2015 system.
B.I.3 New technology Despite the crisis, the spread of information and communication technology (ICT) has continued: 68% of the world’s population now has a mobile telephone (57% in developing countries). The use of the internet has also increased in recent years: at the end of 2008 23% of the global population (1.6 billion people) used internet, but the percentage is much higher in developed countries.150 The crisis has, however, had a negative impact on investments and access to fast internet remains a problem in developing countries. Liberalisation of the ICT market can make the use of telecommunications and ICT significantly cheaper.
The AIV is of the opinion that a post-2015 system must devote attention to developing countries’ absorption capacity for and access to new technology and to improving knowledge transfer, something which the current MDG system barely touches on. The AIV is aware that access to and transfer of knowledge raise important questions relating to intellectual property. These include the complexity of many rules and the legal infrastructure required to allow the system of intellectual property rights to function, despite the fact that many specific arrangements have been made for developing countries. The system of intellectual property rights must be allowed to function in a way that does justice to the notion of knowledge as a global public good.151
149 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2010, Retooling Global Development’, New York, May 2010, chapter 5.
150 UN, Millennium Development Goals report 2010, New York, p. 72.
151 See the project on the Millennium Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights and Development conducted by seven researchers from North and South with funding from NWO-WOTRO Science for Global Development and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The final report will be published in the summer of 2011.
47 The International Task Force on Global Goods endorses two initiatives in this respect. Firstly, strengthening the ‘common knowledge’ platform through international partnerships aimed at improving worldwide opportunities for research and information. Secondly, the task force is working to mitigate the disadvantages of TRIPs (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) for developing countries.152 One way to achieve this would be to conclude a new international agreement to make it easier to transfer scientific knowledge and technological information.153 In addition, under the agreement, rich countries would help poor countries improve their capacity to process, distribute and generate knowledge, thus making up for shortfalls in the latter’s absorption capacity.
B.I.4 Demographic development By the end of 2011, there will be around seven billion people living on Earth.154 That will probably increase to eight billion by 2025, with 4.8 billion in Asia and 1.4 billion in Africa.155 If these trends continue, the global population will have reached 9.15 billion by 2050, with 5.2 billion in Asia and around 2 billion in Africa. Throughout this period, developed regions will remain stable at or around 1.3 billion.156 This means that, in 2050, developed countries will account for only 14% of the world’s population. The scale the population in some countries will have reached by then is already a cause for concern: Niger 58.2 million (now 15.9), Ethiopia 173.8 (now 84.9), Nigeria 289 (now 158.2), Pakistan 335.2 (now 184.7) and Afghanistan 73.9 million (now 29.1).157
The birth rate is falling in almost all countries of the world, including the poorest,158 but in the least developed countries it will still be 2.4 more than the replacement rate in 2050, generating population growth. More than 200 million women wish to use contraceptives but have no access to them. Of 190 million pregnancies more than 50 million end each year in abortion, often conducted illegally and in unsafe conditions, posing an enormous threat to health.159 Full access to contraception for all who
152 International Task Force on Global Public Goods, ‘Meeting Global Challenges: International Cooperation in the National Interest’, Stockholm 2006, p. 68. The amount that developing countries will have to pay every year in copyright under TRIPS is estimated at $60 billion. The original idea was that some of these costs would be compensated by the advantages ensuing from the protection of intellectual property, such as increased trade, supplementary technology transfer and higher foreign investments. These expected benefits are, however, not enforceable.
153 Open access to basic science and technology (ABST).
154 World Population Foundation, Wereldbevolking 2010, sociale and demografische gegevens over de wereldbevolking, Utrecht, 2010.
155 UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Population Division, ‘World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision’,
156 Developed regions include Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
157 UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Population Division, ‘World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision’,
158 The current birth rate in the poorest countries is approx. 4.08.
159 United Nations Population Fund,
48 currently want it would lead to a reduction in abortions and a further reduction in the number of unwanted births, and to a substantially lower peak in the global population in 2050 (some demographers believe that the peak need be no higher than eight billion). Education for girls also lowers the fertility rate.
The inactive percentage of the population (under 15 and over 60) will rise in the rich countries to 48% (now 38%), and in Asia to 42% (now 36%), as a result of the falling birth rate there, but will decrease to 38% in Africa (now 46%).160 This promises to be an economic dividend for Africa, if sensible advantage is taken of the situation. Policy can be based on it, and it can be reflected in the goals for Africa. In Asia, policy will need to take account of ageing.
Urbanisation will rise to 55% in the least developed countries in 2050 (now 29%) and in Sub-Saharan Africa to 60% (now 37%). In rich countries, it is currently 75% and will rise further to 86%.161 Today, urbanisation is not seen as a negative development that should be curbed. Cities have proved to be very good at generating prosperity. Measures to combat urbanisation lead to slums, preparedness to controlled growth of cities and urban prosperity.
There are 214 million international migrants worldwide, 128 million of whom live in developed countries.162
The AIV’s July 2009 advisory report entitled ‘Demographic Changes and Development Cooperation’ (report no. 66) notes that demographic trends only become visible in the long term and bring about very far-reaching changes in the field of development cooperation. They are also determinant for global public goods and have a great impact on a number of elements in the MDGs, including economic growth, employment and unemployment, peace and security, food security, environment, water, climate and poverty.
B.I.5 Conclusions Current developments (and analysis of them) are an important guideline for a post-2015 system.
Globalisation With a view to a coherent post-2015 system, the AIV shares the UN’s observation that it is time for a new consensus, for which successive crises have created both the need and the political space. This consensus will have to encompass success factors for development, a number of which will be discussed in more detail later in this report. The most important of these factors – in line with the WESS report – are as follows: · industry and infrastructure policy aimed at sustainability, employment and poverty reduction, and reducing CO2 emissions; · attention to the development of sustainable agriculture; · development-oriented macroeconomic policy: in addition to controlling inflation, fiscal
160 Idem.
161 UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (DESA), ‘World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision’,
162 UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Population Division, ‘Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision’,
49 restraint and export promotion, also scope for anticyclical policy with priority for essential investment in development and focused on preserving employment and income; · social policy aimed at human development, access to land and financial markets; · universal access to social security through structural transformation of the economy and labour market policy; · a more equal distribution of income and capital resources (including land); · investment in human capital (education); · social policy as an integrated part of economic policy (and not as target group policy); · a properly functioning state (institutions, legislation); · space for country-specific policy; and · policy coherence both within countries and internationally (stable aid flows, financial markets and a fair trade system).163
Trade and financial system A full analysis of a new global trade and financial system is beyond the scope of this report but, in the context of a post-2015 system, the AIV considers the following elements to be important: · multilateral macroeconomic monitoring with the aim of promoting capital flows to developing countries; the developing countries themselves should ensure a secure environment for investments; · regulation of financial markets to prevent excessive risk acceptance, and a new global financial authority; · international cooperation to coordinate taxation of multinational companies; · re-introduction of mechanisms for compensatory financing (protection against external shocks by providing access to international funding sources); · better monitoring by the IMF of the consequences of the national economic policies of developed and developing countries for the international economy, especially for countries with reserve currencies; and · democratisation of the governance of the IMF and the World Bank, and reform of these institutions.164
Technology and knowledge transfer · The AIV is of the opinion that a post-2015 system must devote attention to developing countries’ absorption capacity for and access to new technology and to improving knowledge transfer, which the current MDG system barely touches on. · The AIV is aware that access to and transfer of knowledge raise important questions relating to intellectual property. These include the complexity of many rules and the legal infrastructure required to allow the system of intellectual property rights to function, despite the fact that many specific arrangements have been made for developing countries. The system of intellectual property rights must be allowed to function in a way that does justice to the notion of knowledge as a global public good.
Demography · The AIV advises against including demographic goals in a post-2015 system, as this can have undesirable consequences, including compulsory contraception and abortion.
163 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2010, Retooling Global Development’, New York, May 2010, chapter 2.
164 Idem, chapter 5.
50 · It does, however, strongly recommend that the new system include both an indicator of the availability of contraceptives and a number of demographic indicators to make policymakers aware of these trends, which mostly have very radical impacts in the slightly longer term.
B.II Themes and challenges for development
There are several theories about what wellbeing development entails. Traditional economics looks at rational choices (‘rational choice theory’) and defines utility as a ranking of preferences. Wellbeing is thus defined as the extent to which these preferences are fulfilled.165 Because this definition often contrasts strongly with personal experience, others have been proposed: objective criteria for what is good, such as capability development (objective wellbeing) and a mental state determined by the measurement of happiness (subjective wellbeing).166 In addition, it is often said that development must be sustainable, i.e. it must not be achieved at the expense of the wellbeing of current and future generations. In the debate on what development is, these arguments often overlap.
B.II.1 Capabilities approach The capabilities approach merits separate consideration, as it lay at the basis of the Millennium Declaration and the thinking of UNDP. Nobel Prizewinner Amartya Sen argues that progress is more than just a higher income. Progress means acquiring more freedom and income is only one way of achieving that. He calls for a different approach to economics: ‘The discipline of economics has a tendency to move away from focusing on the value of freedoms to that of utilities, incomes and wealth. This narrowing of focus leads to an underappreciation of the full role of the market mechanism.’167
Sen defines development in terms of people’s capabilities to overcome their ‘unfreedoms’ (capability approach). The economics of wellbeing therefore means the freedom to foster a valuable state of ‘beings and doings’. Sen identifies five basic freedoms: 1. political and participatory freedoms and civil rights: freedom of expression, free elections, etc.; 2. economic facilities: participation in trade and production, a fair labour market; 3. social opportunities: adequate education and healthcare provision; 4. transparency guarantees: openness of government and economic life; and 5. protective security: law and order, social security.168
If we look more closely at these five freedoms, which Sen presents as essential for human development, we see that a number of them can be found in the MDGs (e.g. economic and social opportunities), while others cannot (such as political freedoms, transparency, security and social security). The latter are addressed in a variety of UN statements that determine its development strategy, but are not translated into concrete goals. The AIV recommends incorporating them as much as possible in a post-2015
165 A. van Hoorn, R. Mabsout, E.M. Sent, ‘Happiness and Capability: Introduction to the symposium’, Journal of Socio-Economics 39, 2010, pp. 339-343.
166 See E. Angner, ‘Subjective Wellbeing’, Journal of Socio-Economics 39, 2010, pp. 361-368.
167 A. Sen, ‘Development as Freedom’, Oxford University Press, 1999.
168 A. Sumner, M. Tiwari, ‘After 2015: International Development Policy at a Crossroads’, Rethinking International Development series, Palgrave McMillan, 2009, p. 46.
51 system. This is discussed in greater detail in the sections on human rights, and peace and security. The notion of the global social floor also has its roots in these freedoms. Devoting more attention to them in a post-2015 system also responds to the concerns expressed by civil society, for example in the Global Call for Action against Poverty.169
Incidentally, the OECD referred to Sen’s five freedoms in its guidelines as early as 2001.170 In addition, UNDP’s Human Development Report has also played an important role and, in 2010, presented an overview of human development in the past twenty years.
B.II.2 Sustainability and climate How many natural resources and sources of subsistence will present generations leave for those that follow? That is an important question and it will remain so in the future. The debate dates back to the renowned report ‘The Limits to Growth’, published by the Club of Rome in 1972, the outcome of the Cocoyoc conference in Mexico in 1974, and the Dag Hammarskjöld report a year later. The broad definition of sustainable development given in the Brundtland report (1987) includes issues like education and health care, which are considered investments in human capital to ensure that the following generation can enjoy the same standard of living as the current one. The four dimensions of sustainability, as laid down at the Rio conference in 1992, are the institutional dimension (good governance), social justice, environmental protection and economic efficiency.171
The Earth is too small to achieve all the current international goals at the same time, and certainly given the international climate goal agreed at Cancún in 2010, that the Earth must not be permitted to warm up by more than 2o Celsius. Development has been achieved at the expense of the natural environment; the erosion of biodiversity and climate change are the ecological price we have paid for social and economic development. Further development of the Earth will be accompanied by a substantial loss of biodiversity, which is also threatened by the production of food and biofuels for energy.172 Technological progress has not compensated for the growth in population and consumption. The trend is more people, more consumption and more competition for natural resources. Sustainability is not yet the determining factor in policy at national, European or global level. Citizens and companies, however, expect government to take the lead. Hard international agreements are necessary, with compensation for developing countries. The EU can play a pioneering role here by acting as a forceful intermediary. There is an enlightened self-interest in pursuing development policy.173
169 Global Call for Action against Poverty (GCAP), ‘The World We Want. Civil Society Mobilization at the MDG+10 Review’, New York, 19-25 September 2010.
170 Idem, p. 3.
171 J. Martens, ‘Thinking ahead, Development models and indicators of wellbeing beyond the MDGs’, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Berlin, November 2010, pp. 9-10.
172 N.J. Schrijver, ‘Development Without Destruction: The UN and Global Resource Management’, Bloomington/New York: Indiana University Press/UN Intellectual History Project, New York, 2010.
173 Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, ‘The Netherlands in a Sustainable World: Poverty, Climate and Biodiversity’, Second Sustainability Outlook, November 2007.
52 The report by Stiglitz and Sen mentioned above distinguishes four ways to measure sustainability: (1) large and eclectic dashboards, (2) composite indices, (3) indices that consist of correcting GDP in a more or less extensive way, and (4) indices that essentially focus on measuring how far we currently ‘overconsume’ our resources (including the ecological footprint).174 Each of these indicators has its own limitations. The report concludes that it is, as yet, not possible to devise a single indicator for sustainability, because it comprises too many uncertainties. For example, it is difficult to know what the value of a ‘good’ like the environment will be in the future, there is much discussion about the relative importance of the various indicators, and CO2 emissions are a dominant component that can also be measured separately. It is therefore better to use several indicators, and to record both quantitative and qualitative changes in issues that are of importance for the future. The Sen-Stiglitz commission is a proponent of sustainability indicators alongside subjective welfare and economic indicators.
For the management of natural resources, information at both aggregated and local level is of great importance (because this can lead to different conclusions), as well as information on uncertainties and social values. Science never provides exhaustive knowledge of the interaction between mankind and biophysical systems, and cannot weigh direct local interests against global benefits. Enforcing rules is not always an adequate solution because of a lack of willingness or resources, or sources of pollution that are difficult to trace. Sometimes it is more effective to encourage innovative solutions in behaviour or technology. Financial instruments to promote this, such as tradable environmental allowances, have certain weaknesses, which are the reverse of those of shared solutions (‘commons’, see below). It might therefore be useful to seek a favourable combination of the two. Technical infrastructure is of great importance in determining whether shared resources are used and ensuring effective communication and in establishing links between local and global systems. Complex systems call for layered solutions and institutions that adapt easily to change.175
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) indicates that people who live in poverty are the most seriously affected by the loss of biodiversity (which some see as a Western preoccupation), as well as by drought and flooding caused by climate change. The degradation of ecosystems has negative effects on agriculture, livestock breeding and forestry, sectors in which the poorest are often employed and on which they depend. It is important that policymakers acknowledge this in analyses and policy on climate change and increasing pollution. Secondly, an energy transition is required, in which the interests of the oil and gas industry – which are legitimate in themselves – must not take precedence. The costs of growth for the environment must be calculated. Thirdly, effective regulation is required to promote investment in a ‘green economy’; without this, the private sector will be unable to commit itself. The crisis presents an opportunity to achieve this.176
174 J. Stiglitz, A. Sen, J. Fitoussi, Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris, 2009, chapter 3.
175 T. Dietz, E. Ostrom, P. Stern, ‘The Struggle to Govern the Commons’, Science Magazine, Vol. 302, 1907, December 2003.
176 UN Environmental Program (UNEP), Green Economy Report, prepared for the UN summit on MDGs, New York, September 2010.
53 B.II.3 Measuring wellbeing There appear to be considerable differences between the assumptions of economic theory (rational choice theory) and experience in the ‘real’ world (‘subjective wellbeing’). These differences cannot be explained purely in terms of psychological misperceptions.
The recent report by Stiglitz and Sen therefore recommends not measuring production, but consumption and income (net national income, NNI).177 It also recommends looking at household incomes instead of per capita GDP, including public services like health care and education. This must be combined with an estimate of the capabilities (savings and possessions) per household, taking account of possible ‘bubbles’ in the economy (such as overly high house prices). Average income figures per household should then take account of distribution between income, consumption and savings and between households. Lastly, they must take account of activities per household. This includes, for example, growing vegetables, but also the amount of free time available to the members. After all, the same income with more free time means a higher standard of living.178 Altogether, this provides a better yardstick of economic performance. The report notes – as stated earlier in this report – that the MDGs do not take account of economic growth factors, with the exception of MDG1 (the poverty indicator of a dollar a day). The report offers useful starting points for including economic income and consumption measurements in a post-2015 system.
Happiness theory (subjective wellbeing) and capabilities theory (objective wellbeing) In addition to a better method for measuring economic performance, the Stiglitz and Sen report recommends taking account of multidimensional wellbeing factors. It states that subjective methods for measuring wellbeing provide core data on which it is possible to acquire objective information, which should then be included in the statistics (cognitive evaluations on life, happiness, contentment, and negative and positive emotions).179 Happiness theory is gaining ground, including in emerging economies (e.g. China, which keeps a record of happiness statistics).180
Besides subjective wellbeing indicators, the report specifies eight objective indicators (not including economic utility): health, education, environmental conditions, political voice, personal activities, social connections and relationships, personal insecurity (crime, natural disasters) and economic insecurity. Clear indicators still have to be developed for the last five. Further research should expose a number of other indicators, including inequality (in gender, age, specific groups), the accumulation of various shortcomings, and the relationships between them.181
To what extent do the subjective and objective theories of wellbeing (happiness and
177 J. Stiglitz, A. Sen, J. Fitoussi, Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris 2009.
178 Idem, pp. 11-14.
179 Idem, pp. 58-59 and chapter 2.
180 The Economist, ‘Don’t worry, be happy’, The Economist, 19 March 2011, p. 49.
181 J. Stiglitz, A. Sen, J. Fitoussi, Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris 2009, pp. 58-59 and chapter 2.
54 capabilities theories) differ from each other? Research concludes that there is a large degree of synergy between policies aimed at developing capabilities and those that focus on happiness (in the sense of general contentment with life).182 Nevertheless, measuring subjective wellbeing can supplement the capabilities theory, in that it can confirm policy choices (feedback) or identify problems by, for example, exposing a lack of opportunities. Happiness research also shows that, if a government were to base its policies on subjective wellbeing they would probably be different. There would be less focus on maximising individual gain and more on meaningful social relationships and participation.183
B.II.4 Growth and inequality In the period from 1985 to the mid-1990s, income inequality increased considerably in most countries in the world, especially the larger ones.184 According to the World Bank, it then remained almost constant at that higher average level from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. Although no reliable data are yet available, there is general agreement that income inequality has increased even further as a result of the 2008 crisis. Reports by Oxfam and others confirm this impression.185
Pogge observes that the global trade system has largely benefited the world’s richest people. If growth in per capita GNP only benefits the elites in a country and does not generate employment, it is inaccurate to speak of progress. It often leads to a form of regression, since it further marginalises the poorest groups, at least in the opinion of those who believe that economic growth is not an end in itself and that progress means that basic human needs are fulfilled. Pogge therefore considers explicit attention to income distribution crucial.186
Rapid economic growth in a number of large developing countries has also led to a situation in which the majority of poor people in the world no longer live in low-income countries, as was the case before 2000, but in emerging countries. To combat poverty around the world effectively, a post-2015 system will therefore have to devote more attention to the need for national measures to reduce income inequalities within countries.187
One argument against taking account of inequality within countries is that it could slow
182 R. Veenhoven, ‘Capability and happiness: conceptual difference and reality links, Journal of Socio- Economics 39, 2010, pp. 344-350.
183 W.L. Tiemeijer, Hoe mensen keuzes maken, de psychologie van het beslissen, Advisory Council on Government Policy (WRR), Amsterdam University Press, 2011, p. 111.
184 R. van der Hoeven (ed.), ‘Employment, Inequality and Globalization: A Continuous Concern’, Routledge, 2011.
185 Green, D. and R. King, ‘How Have Poor Women and Men Experienced the Global Economic Crisis’, chapter 3 in Bergeijk, P., A de Haan and R.van der Hoeven (eds.), The Financial Crisis and Developing Countries, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 2011.
186 T. Pogge, ‘Politics as Usual: What Lies Behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric?’, Polity Press, 2010.
187 A. Sumner, ‘The New Bottom Billion’, The Broker, issue 23, December 2010.
55 down economic growth and therefore frustrate poverty reduction in the long term. Recent research has shown, however, that greater income equality is not always achieved at the expense of economic growth.188 Extremely unbalanced growth does, however, undermine democracy, as it gives rich elites the power to put their own interests first and make politicians listen to them. Large income differences are easy to create and very difficult to eliminate.189 UNDP concludes that countries where income inequality declined and where there was strong economic growth in sectors in which the poorest were concentrated had the greatest success in reducing poverty.190
The AIV therefore believes that a post-2015 system should devote attention to inequality and make it explicit in the indicators.
B.II.5 Conclusions The AIV considers it important, in the run-up to a post-2015 system, to consider a number of newer or still relevant development theories and the extent to which they can give a post-2015 system a stronger foundation.
Capabilities approach The MDGs were based on the Millennium Declaration, which many intended as a concrete expression of Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach. According to Sen, development means more freedom and freedom is progress. The AIV considers it desirable in a post- 2015 system to devote more attention to Sen’s concept of freedoms, which remains relevant today. The AIV also endorses this approach because the subjective theory of wellbeing shows that people specify these freedoms as decisive for their happiness. This can mean: 1. including, in line with the final declaration of the MDG summit in 2010, indicators for social security (and the social protection floor); 2. including a cluster of goals on peace and security, with a report on the number of conflicts in the world and indicators that show whether a state is capable of offering its citizens physical protection;191 3. including statistics on violence against women under MDG3 or under a new MDG on peace and security; and 4. including indicators on the quality of political institutions, for example on corruption, the rule of law, voice and accountability, and the effectiveness of the civil service. Such indices already exist, e.g. in the World Bank’s Governance Matters studies.192 These indicators would address the degree of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and democratisation.
188 For an overview, see R.van der Hoeven (ed.), ‘Employment, Inequality and Globalization: A Continuous Concern’, Routledge, 2011.
189 T. Pogge, ‘Politics as Usual: What Lies Behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric?’, Polity Press, 2010, p. 102.
190 UN Development Group (UNDG), ‘Beyond the Midpoint: Achieving the Millennium Development Goals’, New York, 2010, p. 25 and Annex 2.1.
191 S.E. Rice and S. Patrick, ‘Index of State Weakness in the Developing World’, Brookings Global Economy and Development, The Brookings Institution, Washington, 2008, p. 8.
192 Idem, pp. 8-9.
56 Sustainability and climate A special form of wellbeing is that of future generations, i.e. the sustainability prospect. This problem is relevant not only in the future; now too, drought and flooding, and the hunger and high food prices they cause, impact hardest on the poorest groups. Time is pressing, as climate problems, economic, financial and food security crises, and serious social unrest as a consequence of too few socioeconomic opportunities and political freedoms, combined with population growth in certain parts of the world, are already having an impact on the international order. The AIV recommends taking account of the sustainability prospect. This can mean: 1. seeing a post-2015 system as a dashboard of indicators that express sustainability. These indicators measure the progress made by countries in various dimensions; and 2. drawing up benchmarks of desirable indicators and the period in which they should be achieved (sustainable targets) with a view to a sustainable society, with a rolling agenda that measures and updates progress every five or ten years.
Measuring wellbeing More modern theories of wellbeing now also look at subjective wellbeing, how utility is experienced (instead of the traditional ‘fulfilling preferences’). The data gathered by psychologists on this subject are, however, still rarely used in economics. The AIV recommends taking account of the conclusions of the Sen and Stiglitz report in the post- 2015 system. This can mean: · better expression of economic performance than with the current indicators; · measuring subjective wellbeing in opinion polls on household incomes; this would only require adding a set of questions to the standard questions on income, consumption and possessions; · including alternative economic indicators under MDG1, which express the state of society more clearly and align more closely with people’s experiences.
Inequality As a result of the growing inequality in many countries and the consequences for both the reduction of poverty and economic and social development, together with the fact that the majority of the poor in the world now live in emerging countries, the AIV urges more attention for income and other forms of inequality in a post-2015 system and incorporation of aspects of inequality in national progress indicators.
B.III Underexposed themes: What (other) priorities?
Part A of this report mentions a number of themes that are underexposed or completely omitted in the current MDG system. The AIV is of the opinion that a post-2015 system should devote more attention to these themes and issues.
B.III.1 Gender The question is whether gender should be more strongly emphasised in the MDGs by modifying and broadening the indicators for MDG3, or by focusing on it as a theme in all MDGs. In 2005 the UN Millennium Project Task Force on Gender Equality identified seven
57 strategic priorities to achieve MDG3.193 These are strongly related to the outcomes of the Beijing and Cairo conferences on gender.194
New indicators for gender An important indicator for MDG3 could be violence against women, which is internationally acknowledged (e.g. in the Beijing Plan of Action) as a major obstacle to sustainable development. Although violence against women continues to have a great impact on the outcomes of the MDGs, its elimination is not an integral part of the goals.195 It is estimated that one in five women worldwide is a victim of rape at some time in her life.196 WHO reports that women who are the victims of physical, psychological or sexual violence are usually long-term users of healthcare services.197 Outside the household – and especially during armed conflicts – women are also frequent victims of violence. In Sierra Leone, between 50,000 and 64,000 female refugees were sexually abused by combatants.198 There are calls for a separate MDG or indicator to address the problem of violence against women.199 To enable women to develop fully, they must also have better access to financial and other means of production (e.g. credit, land ownership registration and inheritance rights). Investments in water supply and other infrastructure are important in this respect. Improvements are also called for in relation to childcare and discrimination against women in the law (e.g. in divorce law), while studies are needed of the obstacles facing young women who seek suitable employment.200
193 The seven priorities specified by the Task Force are: 1) strengthen opportunities for postprimary education for girls while simultaneously meeting commitments to universal primary education; 2) guarantee sexual and reproductive health rights; 3) invest in infrastructure to reduce women’s time burdens; 4) guarantee girls’ and women’s property and inheritance rights; 5) eliminate gender inequality in employment by decreasing women’s reliance on informal employment, closing gender gaps in earnings and reducing occupational segregation; 6) increase women’s share of seats in national parliaments and local governmental bodies; 7) combat violence against girls and women. In: C. Grown, G.R. Gupta and A. Kes (2005), ‘Taking action: Achieving gender equality and empowering women’, UN Millennium Project, Task Force on Education and Gender Equality, London and Sterling, Virginia: Earthscan, 2005, p. 29.
194 UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), ‘Making the MDGs work better for women; Implementing gender-responsive national development plans and programmes’, New York, 2010, p. 7.
195 The Millennium Declaration (2000) states as its aim: ‘to combat all forms of violence against women and to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women’.
196 UN Millennium Project, ‘Taking Action: Achieving Gender Equality and Empowering Women’, Task Force on Education and Gender Equality, London and Sterling, Virginia: Earthscan, 2005.
197 E. Krug et al. (eds.), World Report on Violence and Health, World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva, 2002.
198 Physicians for Human Rights, Executive Summary, ‘War-Related Sexual Violence in Sierra Leone: A Population-based Assessment’, 2002, p. 3.
199 See, for example, P. Antrobus, ‘Critiquing the MDGs from a Caribbean perspective’, Gender and Development, Vol. 13(1), 2005, p. 95.
200 Amnesty International, ‘From Promises to Delivery: Putting Human Rights at the Heart of the Millennium Development Goals’, London, 2010, pp. 16-18.
58 A barrier to the introduction of new indicators for gender is that measurement is difficult due to the lack of gender-specific information.201 Countries should make a greater effort to collect such information.202 Although the UN Commission on the Status of Women publishes an annual report, gender budgeting is developing very slowly.
Mainstreaming In addition to the criticism that the MDG3 indicators are incomplete, other MDGs are criticised for not devoting sufficient attention to the position of women.203 Without significant improvements in education for girls (MDG3), other MDGs will not be achieved. Educating girls is an effective way of stimulating economic productivity and also helps reduce infant and maternal mortality, improve nutritional and health status, and combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases.204 In this light it is clear that improving the position of women (MDG3) will also have a positive impact on the other MDGs.205 Conversely, if the other MDGs are gender-blind, MDG3 cannot be achieved and it will be difficult to attain sustainable poverty reduction.206
It would be more effective to devote attention to the role of women in other MDGs, such as sustainable development and combating AIDS and poverty. The role of women is, for example, not an indicator or target in the fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases (MDG6), while inequality between men and women must be an important starting point of policy to combat HIV/AIDS.207 In the words of UNAIDS, the problem of HIV/AIDS is ‘feminising’, not only because women are biologically at greater risk of infection, but also because of the difficulties facing women – due to social, financial and cultural factors – in negotiating safe sex.208 MDG1, too, fails to make explicit reference to
201 In 2005 the UN Statistics Division conducted a review of gender statistics in national reports. It showed that important elements are lacking in the collection, composition and reporting of gender-sensitive data. See UN Division for the Advancement of Women, 2005.
202 OECD, ‘Investing in women and girls: The breakthrough strategy for achieving all the MDGs’, based on a speech by J. Lomoy, UN Development Cooperation Forum, 4 June 2010, p. 6; and P. Antrobus, ‘Critiquing the MDGs from a Caribbean perspective’, Gender and Development, vol. 13(1), 2005, p. 101.
203 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘What will it take to achieve the MDGs? An international assessment’, New York, June 2010, p. 1.
204 UN Girls’ Education Initiative (UNICEF), ‘Gender Achievements and Prospects in Education: The GAP Report Part One’, New York, 2005, p. 5.
205 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘What will it take to achieve the MDGs? An international assessment’, New York, June 2010, p. 7.
206 N. Jones, R, Holmes, J. Espey, ‘Progressing Gender Equality Post-2015: Harnessing the Multiplier Effects of Existing Achievements’, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 41, No. 1, January 2010, p. 113.
207 See, for example, P. Antrobus, ‘Critiquing the MDGs from a Caribbean perspective’, Gender and Development, Vol. 13(1), 2005, p. 98.
208 UNAIDS, ‘Agenda for Accelerated Country Action for Women, Girls, Gender Equality and HIV - Operational plan for the UNAIDS action framework: Addressing women, girls, gender equality and HIV’, New York, 2010, p. 16.
59 women, even though poverty is also feminising.209 In addition, much economic capacity is lost through obstacles to girls and women. Agricultural productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, could rise by 20% if women had equal access to land, seeds and fertiliser. In India, GNP would rise by 8% if the ratio of female to male employees were to increase by 10%.210 If poverty is to be resolved, women (and other target groups) must be at the forefront of any effort to understand the nature of the problem.
B.III.2 Security and development: a coherent approach A basic level of security is essential for the development of a state, both in socioeconomic terms and in respect of human rights and the rule of law. In fragile states, building up or reforming the security sector (Security Sector Reform, SSR) is essential in strengthening the level of security. Special attention should be given to building up the police, the judiciary and the legal system. A coherent approach to security and development issues is crucial in fragile states. Creating a safe situation is, in the first instance, a task for the military. Building a civil society with good governance and an acceptable level of law enforcement must make further social and economic development possible and bring about sustainable peace. There are no generally applicable blueprints for achieving this.211
For sustainable development in fragile states, peacebuilding must have local support, strengthen local institutions and be carried out locally. Yet, in practice, this often leads to problems as, in fragile states in particular, (parts of) the local population or authorities and leaders often lack the will or capacity for peacebuilding. In addition the central government of a fragile state often has little or no authority recognised as legitimate and the real power rests with other networks and groups based, for example, on clientism and patronage.212
A post-2015 system would have to include a basic level of security as a condition for development. This makes building or reforming the security sector essential. The World Bank’s ‘World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security and Development’, states that civil security, the administration of justice, and jobs are the key to breaking through cycles of violence.213 In addition to security sector reform, the report calls for the creation of employment, anti-corruption measures, and involving women in community initiatives relating to security, justice and economic emancipation.
The current MDGs have no relevance in terms of preventing violence. Reducing the number of violent deaths would give an indication of improvements in security, but these
209 AIV, ‘Cohesion in International Cooperation’, response to WRR report ‘Less pretension, more ambition’, advisory report number 69, The Hague, May 2010, p. 11.
210 Department for International Development, ‘Gender Equality at the Heart of Development: Why the role of women is crucial to ending world poverty’, 2007, p. 13.
211 See also AIV, ‘Crisis Management Operations in Fragile States: The Need for a Coherent Approach,’ advisory report number 64, The Hague, March 2009.
212 R. van der Veen, What went wrong with Africa. A contemporary history, KIT Publishers: Amsterdam, 2002.
213 World Bank, ‘Conflict, Security and Development: World Development Report 2011’, Washington, April 2011.
60 figures are often not available for fragile states.214 Indicators of whether a state is indeed capable of protecting its citizens could include the existence of internal conflicts and displaced people, illegal seizure of power, severe violations of human rights, perceptions of instability, and the percentage of the territory suffering from conflict.215 Clearly, a number of these indicators are politically sensitive in negotiations. Indices on the fragility of states focus not only on security, but also on economic, social and political freedoms, which are (or can be) partly expressed in the other MDGs. For example, inequality can be a factor in fragility (as current developments in the Arab region remind us). Economic regulations could also be included in an MDG on peace and security. Such statistics can help to provide early warning of conflicts.216 Negotiations on these criteria can build on the Dili declaration on a New Vision for Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, the Geneva declaration on Armed Violence and Development and the Oslo Commitments on Armed Violence.
In the AIV’s view, a post-2015 system must devote more attention both to the problem of peace and security and to supporting effective state institutions.
B.III.3 Food security In many developing countries, agriculture has been neglected so that it can no longer meet the increased demand for food resulting from population growth and changing consumption patterns. Food insecurity has also increased, as more countries have started importing food and because the price of grain and other staple foods is subject to stronger fluctuation. Some see this price volatility as being caused not only by drought and flooding but also by the use of crops for biofuels and greater speculation on the commodities markets. Food prices are currently one of the main causes of poor households’ greater vulnerability, but also provide an incentive to increase their own food production.
The World Bank has serious concerns about the impact of the rising prices of staple foodstuffs on poverty.217 The prices of products like sugar, maize, wheat and rice are high and changeable, and that is likely to continue in the coming period. A 10% increase in food prices will push another ten million people in the world below the poverty line of 1.25 dollars a day. With a 30% rise, that will be 34 million. They come on top of the 44 million people who sank deeper into poverty during the previous price peak in June 2010.
Because food insecurity can be caused by both national policies in developed and developing countries and the international markets, the AIV believes that a post-2015 system should devote explicit attention to the growing problem of food security and to promoting international coherence in efforts to address it.
A post-2015 system should, however, devote attention not only to international factors but also to national initiatives. There are many examples of small-scale farmers launching
214 Idem.
215 S.E. Rice, S. Patrick, ‘Index of State Weakness in the Developing World’, Brookings Global Economy and Development, The Brookings Institution, Washington 2008, p. 8.
216 Idem, pp. 8-9.
217 World Bank, Food Price Watch, Washington, April 2011.
61 their own successful initiatives to ensure food security, sometimes with the help of other organisations. The lesson that can be learned from this is that we should build on the skills and resources that farmers have at their disposal and on practices that already exist, rather than impose our own, one-sided prescriptions. Successful initiatives from developing countries themselves can be used as a source of inspiration.218
B.III.4 Infrastructure The need for better infrastructure in Africa is immense and there is a large funding gap. It has been calculated that the lack of physical infrastructure in Africa results in around 40% less economic activity than in countries where the infrastructure is better, and as much as 2% less economic growth per year.219 The gap between infrastructure in Africa and the rest of the world has only grown larger. In comparison with South Asia, which has a comparable per capita income, Africa is lagging behind, even in areas in which it was ahead in 1970 (at that time Africa had three times as much electricity capacity and twice as many telephone lines). The supply of electricity will have to double in the next decade to meet demand.
There is an enormous lack of financing for infrastructure in Africa, despite its having doubled between 2001 and 2009, from $17 to $35 billion. The annual financing deficit is around $31 billion,220 most of which cannot be covered by non-governmental funding, as the worst problems occur in fragile states, which are not creditworthy. A regional approach is therefore needed and the summits of the African Union show that there is considerable political commitment to achieving this. The AU, together with the African Development Bank, is working on reforms to the institutional coordination of infrastructure development on the continent (Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa, PIDA). New initiatives should dovetail with these efforts. The private sector, development banks, donors and stakeholders should work together to create the infrastructure required.221
Creating the right conditions for developing the private sector is closely related to the physical and non-material infrastructure in the countries concerned. It calls for strengthening the national investment climate, for example by removing obstacles and reducing risks, improving institutions, legal frameworks, access to and the functioning of markets, investing in infrastructure, education and health, and promoting access to the formal economy, technical assistance and financial services (with extra attention to improving access for people in deprived situations). Policy must aim at creating the right conditions, not at cocrete direct support in any form at all to companies.222
A post-2015 system would have to devote greater attention to productivity, taking account of the need for infrastructure and creating the right conditions for private sector development.
218 Idem.
219 African Union, African Development Fund, World Bank, ‘Africa’s infrastructure: An agenda for transformative action’, background paper for UN MDG Summit side event, 21 September 2010.
220 Idem, p. 1.
221 Idem, pp. 7-8.
222 AIV, ‘Private Sector Development and Poverty Reduction’, advisory report number 50, The Hague, October 2006.
62 B.III.5 Conclusions Gender As equality between men and women is indispensable for balanced development, the AIV recommends devoting explicit attention to it in the post-2015 system and including gender indicators in all MDGs. This means: · recording statistics on gender and breaking the indicators down by gender; · clustering these indicators in the separate gender-MDG3 to provide a clear picture of the situation regarding the equal treatment of men and women; and · specifying the gender-specific dimensions of the new clusters for peace and security (violence against women) and effective governance (women’s participation in running society).
Peace and security The AIV recommends devoting greater attention to peace and security and to effective state institutions in a post-2015 system. This means: · a basic level of security must be included as a condition for development. Building or reforming the security sector (SSR) is essential to strengthen levels of security and should therefore be an inseparable part of a post-2015 system for fragile states; · a cluster on peace and security may also contain indicators for early warning of conflicts; and · a cluster for effective state institutions partly responds to criticism regarding human rights (rule of law), without being too highly charged, and is an important factor in the fragility of states.
Food security Food insecurity is caused by both national policies in developed and developing countries and the working of international markets. The AIV believes that a post-2015 system should therefore devote explicit attention to the growing problem of food security and that greater international coherence is required to address it.
Infrastructure The AIV is of the opinion that strengthening infrastructure should be part of a post-2015 system. Private-public partnerships can play a significant role here. This is especially important for Africa.
B.IV Conceptual basis for global cooperation
In donor countries the development debate is dominated by proponents and opponents of global cooperation. Arguments based on international solidarity are pitched against those that advocate ‘standing on your own two feet’, and are justified by appealing to public support for development cooperation (or the lack of it) and the ‘right to development’. Internationally, the debate is even more highly charged, with discussion on the political will, or lack of it, to put certain issues on the agenda. Moral discussions are also often complicated by ‘language sensitivities’. To promote the discussion on a post-2015 agenda, the AIV will examine here two important arguments forming a conceptual basis for international cooperation: human rights and global public goods. The first engages with moral issues and international treaties, the second with enlightened self-interest. The AIV will also briefly examine empirical data on cooperation at local level on shared resources (known as ‘common resource pools’ or ‘public commons’).
63 B.IV.1 Human rights approach Chapter five of the Millennium Declaration refers specifically to the importance of respecting human rights and confirms principles of international equality and shared responsibility. Many researchers emphasise the interdependency of development and human rights.223 In 2003, the AIV also published a report on the importance of human rights approaches to development.224
Although not formulated in terms of ‘rights’, the MDGs are an important milestone in achieving economic, social and cultural rights. Conversely, human rights strategies support achievement of the MDGs, because they address the discrimination, exclusion and accountability failures that often underlie poverty and development problems.225 In the human rights approach, promoting development is not seen as charity. Development is considered to be the right of every individual and it is the duty of the state to guarantee it. A human rights approach provides principles on which action should be based. They include non-discrimination, human dignity, participation and accountability.226
Proponents of a human rights approach emphasise that human rights can strengthen the MDGs in a variety of areas. Firstly, this approach focuses on vulnerable groups, and on people who are discriminated against or whose rights are violated and those who are responsible for this. At the moment, the MDGs are based on average progress by countries as a whole. Secondly, a human rights approach can provide working principles for achieving the MDGs; non-discrimination, participation and accountability can act as guidelines in implementing development policy. Thirdly, changing a goal into a right can encourage people to demand accountability from the state. The MDGs would then no longer be mere targets, but legal obligations to be fulfilled by the state.227 Specifying human rights in relation to the MDGs could result in improved monitoring mechanisms, for example by making use of information gathered and assessed as part of existing human rights procedures, e.g. under the International Convention on Economic, Social
223 See, for example, P. Alston, ‘Ships passing in the night: The current state of the human rights and development debate seen through the lens of the Millennium Development Goals’, Human Rights Quarterly 27(3), August 2005, pp. 755-829; E. Domíniquez Redondo, 'The Millennium Development Goals and the human rights based approach: Reflecting on structural chasms with the United Nations system’, The International Journal of Human Rights 13(1), 2009, p. 29; M. Robinson, ‘The MDG-Human Rights Nexus and Beyond 2015’, IDS Bulletin 41(1), 2010, p. 81.
224 AIV, ‘A Human Rights Based Approach to Development Cooperation’, advisory report number 30, The Hague, 2003.
225 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), ‘Frequently Asked Questions on a Human Rights-Based Approach to Development Cooperation’, New York 2006, p. 11.
226 Idem. Other principles that have priority in human rights are universality and inalienability; indivisibility and/or mutual dependence and solidarity; equality and non-discrimination; participation and inclusion; accountability and the rule of law.
227 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals: Making the Link’, Oslo, 2006. Amnesty International, ‘From Promises to Delivery, 2010: Putting Human Rights at the Heart of the Millennium Development Goals’, London, 2010 and P.J. Nelson, ‘Human Rights, the Millennium Development Goals, and the Future of Development Cooperation’, in: World Development, 25(1), 2007.
64 and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).228 Fourthly, a human rights approach could ensure that attention is devoted to the quality of services, and not only the quantity. Human rights treaties often prescribe minimum criteria, which could also be used to measure the MDGs.229
Lastly, these rights will continue to be valid after 2015; in the long term, all rights must be achieved for all people. In this respect a human rights approach is more sustainable and focuses on overcoming structural causes of rights violations and underdevelopment.
Unfortunately the current MDGs can also undermine human rights. In Vietnam and South Africa, for example, slums have been demolished (accompanied by illegal evictions) to fulfil MDG target 7.10 (to reduce the proportion of urban population living in slums).230 Another example is the building of a dam to improve access to drinking water and employment at the expense of the local population’s right to shelter and food.231
The human rights approach to poverty and development issues has itself not been free of criticism. It is arguable whether the political will exists to refer to MDGs in terms of rights. Many states are unwilling to do this and to accept liability for violations of those rights. One of the strong points of the current MDGs is that they are based on a political consensus on general development goals. Formulating the MDGs in terms of rights could undermine this consensus.232 Other critics emphasise that human rights are often formulated too abstractly and that trying to implement them frequently leads to conflict with existing, often unfair, power relations.233 Enforcing human rights through the courts can be very difficult, and there are very limited opportunities to do so at international level. At national level, legal proceedings are often expensive and not accessible to marginalised groups. What is more, the state can also refuse to implement a ruling.234 Lastly, it is not clear from the rights-based approach which issues should be given priority in the development agenda. For example, education might act as a catalyst, but the right
228 C. Doyle, ‘Millennium Development Goals and Human Rights: In Common Cause or Uneasy Partners’, in: The International Journal of Human Rights, 13(1), 2009, p. 7.
229 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals: Making the Link’, Oslo, 2006.
230 M. Langford, ‘A Poverty of Rights: Six Ways to Fix the MDGs’, IDS Bulletin 41(1), 2010, p. 88.
231 Speech by H.E. Navanethem Pillay (UNHCR) at the Seminar on Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals, The Hague, 25 and 26 May 2009.
232 Paul J. Nelson, ‘Human Rights, the Millennium Development Goals, and the Future of Development Cooperation’, World Development 35(12), 2007, pp. 2041-2055.
233 B. de Gaay Fortman in: Marc Broere, Berichten over armoede, KIT Publishers: Amsterdam, 2009, pp. 176-177.
234 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals: Making the Link’, Oslo, 2006. Proponents of the human rights approach deny that rights can only be enforced through legal instruments. Civil society and a critical media also play a role.
65 to education has equal status to the right to health.235
Aside from the functioning and enforceability of human rights at individual state level, there is also the doctrine of the extraterritorial applicability of human rights: how far can and should states go in defending and achieving human rights beyond their own borders? The nature and scope of such commitments in the field of classic human rights are by now reasonably clear,236 while in the field of economic, social and cultural rights, they are rapidly crystallising.237 The AIV advises the government to be alert to these developments in a post-2015 system and to do what it can to flesh them out.
Practical embedding in the MDGs In theory, there are three scenarios in which human rights approaches could play a greater role in the MDGs. One possibility is that countries add an extra MDG, following the example of Mongolia which has drawn up a ninth national MDG on human rights and democracy.238 A second option is to indicate how each MDG relates to the existing human rights acquis. For example, MDG2 (universal access to primary education) can be traced back to article 13 of the ICESCR and article 28 (1)(a) of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (ICRC, 1989).239 In addition, article 2(1) of the ICESCR emphasises the obligation of both developed and developing countries to seek to achieve MDG8.240 Many countries already use their reporting obligations under international human rights conventions to report on progress on the MDGs.241 Some academics go a step further and call for the MDGs to be replaced by Millennium Development Rights (MDRs) after 2015. The MDRs would comprise the positive
235 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals: Making the Link’, Oslo, 2006.
236 See, for example, Michal Gondek, ‘The Reach of Human Rights in a Globalising World: Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties’, Antwerp: Intersentia.
237 See the activities of the global consortium in ‘Beyond Territoriality: Globalisation and Transnational Human Rights Obligations (GLOTHRO)’ at:
238 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘Millennium Development Goal 9: Indicators and the state of democracy in Mongolia’, Ulaanbaatar, 2009. MDG9 in Mongolia embraces respecting and enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, freedom of the press, free access to information, promoting democratic principles and practices and eradicating corruption.
239 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals: Making the Link’, Oslo, 2006, p. 11. Table 1 shows which human rights correspond to which MDG.
240 This article calls on member states to ensure international support and cooperation to achieve the rights embraced in the convention. M. Sepúlveda Carmona, ‘The obligations of ‘‘international assistance and cooperation” under the ICESCR: A possible entry point to a human rights based approach to MDG8’, The International Journal of Human Rights 13(1), 2009, p. 87.
241 UN Development Group (UNDG), ‘Making the MDGs matter: A country perspective, Report on a UNDG survey’, 2005.
66 obligations of the state to protect, respect and comply with social and economic rights, and to guarantee the universal right to participation and freedom from discrimination (right to equal treatment).242 The AIV does not advise adopting this specific approach per MDG, as it is not politically feasible at this time and could undermine the international consensus on the MDGs.
The third scenario entails a general reference to the importance of the human rights approach in the post-2015 system through a differentiated measurement and incorporation of references. This would enable the underlying principles of human rights to be declared applicable to all stages in the MDG process.243 Updated MDGs could make explicit links to broadly endorsed agreements from the past, through references to Beijing (MDG3), Cairo (MDG5) and relevant articles from widely ratified UN human rights conventions. This would enable a difficult process of renegotiation to be avoided. The AIV believes that this third scenario is the most pragmatic way of incorporating a human rights approach in the MDGs while preserving the international consensus.
B.IV.2 Global public goods Global public goods (GPGs) are goods and services that, in principle, affect or should be available to everyone. It is important to take GPGs into account in formulating a post-2015 development strategy, given increasing globalisation and interdependence. Moreover, shortcomings in the organisation of international decision-making on these goods have contributed to the failure so far to (fully) achieve the MDGs and will continue to be significant in the process of drawing up the new goals after 2015. Future development can only occur if the most important GPGs are addressed effectively. For example, what will it mean for poverty in the world if we do not prevent infectious diseases, address climate change or prove unable to control the financial crisis?
Some commentators call for an approach that seeks to achieve ‘responsible sovereignty’ based on collective interest, especially after the financial-economic, climate and food crises. They lay the emphasis on global public goods in the traditional sense of ‘goods that affect everyone, from which no one can be excluded,244 and where use by one is not at the expense of use by another’ (‘non-excludability’ and ‘non-rivalry’).245 Responsible sovereignty implies that a state also has an external responsibility in the sense of ‘do no harm’ and is no longer only responsible for respect for human rights within its own borders. Sovereignty can also be understood as ‘freedom’ and, in human rights discourse, when exercising one’s freedom it is important to respect the other’s right to exercise their freedom. The role of the state must be that of intermediary between external and domestic needs, so that international cooperation occurs on the basis of
242 E. Dorsey, M. Gómez, B. Thiele & P. Nelson, ‘Falling Short of Our Goals: Transforming the Millennium Development Goals into Millennium Development Rights’, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 28 (4), 2010, p. 520.
243 G. Schmidt-Traub, ‘The Millennium Development Goals and Human Rights-Based Approaches: Moving towards a Shared Approach’, in: The International Journal of Human Rights, 13(1), 2009, pp. 81-83.
244 Below we examine the question of whether the word ‘can’ also implies ‘may’.
245 R. Went, Internationale Publieke Goederen, web publication no. 41, Advisory Council on Government Policy (WRR), The Hague, January 2010, p. 12.
67 Een mondiale publieke goederenaanpak zou meer efficiëntie in de allocatie van middelen brengen in de internationale samenwerking. enlightened self-interest.246 A global public goods approach would lead to more efficient allocation of resources in international cooperation. Mondiale publieke goederen bieden nieuwe mogelijkheden voor het definiëren van gemeenschappelijke belangen nu het traditionele idee dat ontwikkeling in essentie een Global public goods present new opportunities to define common interests now that the nationaal publiek goed is, verandert. In een tijd waarin meer getwijfeld wordt aan de traditional idea that development is essentially a national public good is changing. In a effectiviteit en efficiëntie van ontwikkelingshulp en waarin internationale solidariteit niet time in which more and more doubts are being expressed about the effectiveness and overal vanzelfsprekend meer gevonden wordt, wijzen mondiale publieke goederen naar efficiency of development aid and international solidarity is no longer taken for granted , de gemeenschappelijke belangen die ontwikkelde landen door mondialisering in toene- global public goods point to the interests that the developed countries increasingly share mende mate samen met ontwikkelingslanden hebben.247 with developing countries.247 Wat biedt de agenda met betrekking tot mondiale publieke goederen boven op de klas- What does the global public goods agenda offer over and above classical international sieke internationale samenwerking? Naast het eerdergenoemde inzichtelijk maken van cooperation? In addition to highlighting the above-mentioned need for a joint approach de noodzaak van een gemeenschappelijke aanpak, met bijbehorende financiering, in – with the corresponding funding – in a mutually dependent world, the concept of global een onderling afhankelijke wereld, werkt het concept van mondiale publieke goederen public goods can also clarify how this need should be met. The categories of public goods ook verhelderend voor de wijze waarop dit moet gebeuren. De verschillende categorieën vary in degrees of purity: pure (available to everyone and without restrictions), impure publieke goederen variëren in mate van zuiverheid: zuiver (voor iedereen en onbeperkt (exclusion is possible or use is not unrestricted), club goods (exclusion is possible and beschikbaar), onzuiver (uitsluiting is mogelijk óf gebruik is niet onbeperkt), clubgoederen use is not unrestricted) and joint products (the results are partly a public good and partly (uitsluiting is mogelijk én gebruik is niet onbeperkt) en ‘joint products’ (gevolgen van not).248 actie zijn deels publiek mondiaal goed en deels niet).248 Types of public goods Soorten mondiale publieke goederen Spillover range Pure impure club joint product National · Deterrence of · Surveillance · Extension · Education enemies of borders services · Charitable · Financial · Interstate · Communication activities accounting highway network standards Regional · Watershed · Pest control · Airports · Peace keeping management · Immunizing · Power grids · Reducing acid · Malaria cure populations rain Global · Curbing global · Reducing · INTELSAT · Protection of warming organized · Universal rain forest · Limiting ozone crime Postal Union · (some forms shield depletion · Limiting of) foreign contagions assistance Arce and Sandler 2002: 17
Pure public goods are goods from which everyone can benefit, including those who do Bij zuivere publieke goederen geldt: iedereen kan ervan profiteren, ook de niet-betalers not pay for them (free riders). This can mean that everyone waits until someone else (‘free riders’); daarom wacht soms iedereen op de ander voor actie (‘prisoner’s dilemma’) takes action (prisoner’s dilemma) and makes the price difficult to determine, so that en is er moeilijk een prijs voor vast te stellen. Het marktmechanisme werkt dan ook niet the market mechanism does not work sufficiently to supply them. A significant cause of afdoende om erin te voorzien. Een belangrijke oorzaak die leidt tot interdependentie in interdependence in supplying goods is the fact that many goods can only be provided het voorzien van goederen, is het feit dat veel goederen alleen geleverd kunnen worden als alle, dan wel de meeste landen meedoen (‘summatieproces’), zoals bij klimaat-
246 I. Kaul, ‘Global Public Goods and responsible sovereignty. Special report: collective self-interest.’, The Broker, 1 July 2010. 247 R. Went, ‘Internationale Publieke Goederen’, webpublicatie nr. 41, Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR), Den Haag, januari 2010, pp. 26-27. 247 R. Went, Internationale Publieke Goederen, web publication no. 41, Advisory Council on Government Policy (WRR), The Hague, January 2010, pp. 26-27. 248 Idem, p. 15, voor een nadere begripsomschrijving.
248 Idem, p. 15, for a more detailed definition.
72
68 if all, or most, countries participate (‘summation process’), e.g. in the case of climate change. Sometimes, if the ‘weakest link’ does not cooperate, the whole process fails, as in the eradication of infectious diseases.
In 2006, the International Taskforce on Global Public Goods identified six major GPGs:249 1) preventing infectious diseases; 2) combating climate change; 3) international financial stability; 4) an international trade system; 5) peace and security; 6) knowledge.
This led to a broadening of the concept as applied by some economists. The Taskforce also made a number of important recommendations.
The ‘publicness’ of goods is largely a matter of political choice and is not intrinsic to the nature of the goods themselves.
The literature defines ‘publicness’ on the basis of three elements: decision-making on public goods is participatory, their consumption is available to all, and their benefits are equally distributed (‘equity’).250 In some respects, this touches on the human rights approach. The definition of public goods must do justice to this by identifying potential public goods: a public good is not only what the market rejects, but also what politicians decide belongs in the public domain. Water can, for example, be made a public or a private good (in that people can be excluded from access to it, and its use by one person may be at the expense of another; yet an accessible water supply can be a public good if it is decided that no one may be excluded from it).251 This explicitly does not mean that it must be supplied ‘publicly’ (i.e. by the government).
The kind of policy initiatives proposed by the GPGs taskforce can focus on: · strategy to create ownership of the concept of public goods; · incentive structures to reach agreement; international negotiations are a ‘political market’; · analysing possible ways of providing public goods: which actors supply which part of the public good;
249 International Taskforce on Global Public Goods, ‘Meeting Global Challenges: International cooperation in the national interest’, Final report, Stockholm 2006. There was, however, a crucial difference of opinion on the definition of global public goods. Inge Kaul added a disclaimer to the report (p ii): ‘All but one of the members of the Task Force fully endorsed and signed off on this report. Inge Kaul did not.’ In her view, GPGs are goods that affect all countries and not, as the reports states, from which all countries benefit. Many developing countries, for example, consider the multilateral trade regime unfair. ‘Public’ (in GPGs) therefore means the interdependence of countries in the consumption of goods, which should not be confused with the public utility of goods. In Kaul’s opinion, developing countries would not accept the report for this reason and the taskforce, sponsored by France and Sweden, was dead in the water.
250 I. Kaul, R.U Mendoza, 'Advancing the Concept of Public Goods', in I. Kaul, P. Conceição, K. Le Goulven, R.U. Mendoza (eds), Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 92.
251 I. Kaul, P. Conceição, K. Le Goulven, R.U. Mendoza (eds), ‘Providing Global Public Goods, Managing Globalization’, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 2-26.
69 · promoting the self-production of public goods through technology; · also giving line ministries responsibility for global public goods, since global public goods are an extension of national public goods; and · case studies to identify best practices, including evaluation of issue-related global funds.
It should be noted here, however, that acceptance of the concept by developing countries deserves the highest priority, and that there is a long way to go before that is achieved. It is therefore to be recommended that if the Netherlands embraces the global public goods agenda it should explicitly focus on the dialogue with both small and large developing countries (like China) to reach agreement on this concept.
The AIV recommends establishing a link between the MDGs and global public goods. Controlling infectious diseases, for example, is already a global public good. This injects a more philosophical element into the goals, clarifying the question of why we enter into development cooperation: because it is a matter that affects everyone. It also breaks through the discussion on ‘here’ and ‘there’, as all countries should work to preserve global public goods.
We can make a distinction between human public goods (global norms) and natural public goods (e.g. the open sea or the atmosphere). ‘Millennium Goods’ can therefore become part of an international norm-setting framework, with progress measured in terms of moving towards a level that is acceptable for everyone.
A global public goods approach can also reveal the links between the different goals. In contrast to what some commentators advocate,252 i.e. separate ODA and GPG agendas, it is more logical to argue in favour of integrating the two agendas. After all, different countries have different priorities in respect of public goods. The AIV can provide more detailed advice on how this should relate to, for example, the ODA norm. The advantage of this system is that it applies equally to all countries.253
B.IV.3 Global commons Nobel Prizewinner Elinor Ostrom (2009) studied how users of the same natural resources (such as fishing grounds or meadows) achieve an effective form of shared use, known as ‘commons’ or ‘common pool resources’.254 She challenged the conventional theory that collective use without ownership rights automatically leads to overuse, rendering either government regulation or privatisation necessary (this is referred to as ‘the tragedy of the
252 I. Kaul, ‘Global Public Goods: A key to achieving the Millennium Development Goals’, discussion draft, Third Forum on Human Development, 2005, p. 10. Severino and Ray also make a distinction between GPGs and human welfare/fighting inequalities in J. Severino and O. Ray, ‘The end of ODA: Death and rebirth of a Global Public Policy’, Center for Global Development, March 2009 p. 26. This is inspired by a plea to maintain the 0.7% norm.
253 See also J. Martens, ‘Thinking Ahead: Development models and indicators of wellbeing beyond the MDGs’, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Berlin, November 2010, p. 8.
254 See E. Ostrom, R. Gardner, J. Walker (eds), ‘Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources’, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor: USA, 1994.
70 commons’).255 Collective private systems proved much more effective than government interventions or market-based solutions. Self-regulation often generates a refined system of individual users’ rights, responsibilities and sanctions. This theory can be extrapolated to worldwide level (‘global commons’).
Ostrom’s ideas are generally acknowledged as an important contribution to economic theory from political science and anthropology. The ‘commons’ theory comes close to the concept of global public goods, with the difference that the former reasons from (local) community level, and the global public goods theory from global interdependence. ‘Global commons’ is actually a system of self-regulation that comes into operation at the moment when a global public good (such as the atmosphere) moves from being inaccessible to accessible and needs to be managed, monitored and protected.256 In this sense the global commons, under the conditions described above, are one possible mechanism for implementing global public goods. ‘Common resource pools’ also contain impure public goods, because use by one person is at the expense of another.
Ostrom formulated seven principles for successful ‘common pool resources’: (i) establishing rules for entitlement at the source, (ii) adequate conflict resolution mechanisms, (iii) the duty to maintain the resource in reasonable proportion to the benefits, (iv) monitoring and sanctioning carried out by the users themselves, (v) sanctions should be graduated, becoming stricter as violations are repeated, (vi) democratic decision-making on rules, and (vii) explicit recognition by outside authorities of the right of users to self-organise.257 Ostrom expressed the hope that this insight would also help in finding solutions to the climate problem.258 Commons governance is easier to achieve when it complies with the following conditions: 1) use of resources can be quantified, 2) the rate of change is moderate, 3) there are social networks of users who trust each other, and 4) outsiders can be easily excluded from using the resource. Institutional arrangements should therefore take account of these conditions.259 Knowledge, too, can be seen as a ‘global commons’. The digital revolution has generated virtual communities that share information on the basis of rules they have drawn up themselves, for example, on overuse and to combat pollution.260
255 This theory was proposed by biologist G. Hardin in 1968 and is still taught, despite evidence to the contrary; see C. Hess, E. Ostrom, ‘Understanding Knowledge as a Commons’, MIT Press, December 2006, p. 11.
256 Idem, p. 10.
257 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, ‘Economic governance: Scientific background on the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel’, Stockholm, October 2009, p. 11.
258 New York Times, Elinor Ostrom and Oliver E. Williamson win Nobel in Economic Science, 12 October 2009.
259 T. Dietz, E. Ostrom, P. Stern, ‘The Struggle to Govern the Commons’, Science Magazine, Vol. 302, 1907, December 2003.
260 C. Hess, E. Ostrom, ‘Understanding Knowledge as a Commons’, MIT Press, December 2006.
71 B.IV.4 Conclusions In this advisory report, the AIV recommends incorporating human rights implicitly in a post-2015 system, more than is now the case. After all, all the current MDGs reflect human rights, though they are not explicitly embedded in the goals and targets. In a more ideal world, we would advise a ‘Millennium Rights’ approach, but the AIV does not believes this to be politically feasible for the time being. The advantage of the rights approach is that it is grounded in international treaties and conventions. Below, the AIV recommends incorporating this approach wherever possible.
The AIV recommends establishing a link between the MDGs and global public goods (GPGs). Enlightened self-interest is a less charged argument than moral entitlement, but has the disadvantage of having no grounding in international conventions. The challenge is to define exactly what global public goods are: are they goods from which no one can or may be excluded? International consensus still has to be reached on this issue. The academic discussion is shifting towards ‘may’, as ‘can’ is partly dependent on technical factors. ‘Public’ explicitly does not mean ‘provided by the government’ but public in consumption, distribution and decision-making.
Human rights To retain the bottom-up, participatory approach, the AIV recommends incorporating the human rights approach to development cooperation in a post-2015 system by: 1. incorporating, where possible, the principles of participation, non-discrimination, human dignity and accountability; including in a post-2015 system a preamble with regulatory principles on human rights, gender, etc. (see also ‘public commons’); ensuring that the process of creating a post-2015 system is participatory; 2. establishing explicit links with major human rights agreements that are widely supported and endorsed, for example, referring to ‘Vienna’ in MDG2, to ‘Beijing’ in a new MDG3 and to ‘Cairo’ in a new MDG5; 3. splitting indicators by upper and lower layers in society to make inequality visible (participation); 4. splitting indicators by target group to make forgotten groups (such as indigenous peoples) visible (non-discrimination); 5. continuing to measure different dimensions of poverty; this increases the pressure on governments to be accountable, especially in relation to gender and target groups; 6. including indicators for assessing the effectiveness of the state and/or state institutions; this would also make opportunities for achieving the rule of law more visible; and 7. conducting an international debate on the extraterritorial applicability of civil, political, socioeconomic and cultural rights.
Global public goods GPGs must be given an important role in a post-2015 system by: 1. establishing a link between the goals of the post-2015 system and GPGs, i.e. issues that affect everyone and from which no one may be excluded. In the light of achieving global goals, all countries should contribute to this, both by taking measures at national level and through development cooperation and policy coherence. Defining public goods is a matter of political decision-making. The AIV can advise on how contributions should be related to, for example, the ODA norm. The discussion should not be led by funding opportunities or constraints (implementation follows strategy); 2. where possible, integrating in the new strategy achievement of the six most important GPGs, as formulated by the 2006 International Taskforce: 1. preventing infectious diseases; 2. combating climate change; 3. international financial stability; 4. an international trade system; 5. peace and security; and 6. knowledge;
72 3. conducting a dialogue with large and small developing countries to establish a clear definition of the concept of GPGs, which is a controversial issue internationally. Countries are extremely distrustful of anything that they feel may threaten their sovereignty. A small number of emerging powers (India, Brazil, South Africa) see some merit in the concept, albeit with a limited application; 4. introducing an international dialogue on the concept of responsible sovereignty – by the state acting as an intermediary between domestic and foreign stakeholders to create ownership of the new MDG strategy among donors and recipients and also to make the need for international cooperation clear to the public; 5. advocating the establishment of an international taskforce for responsible sovereignty, that would also represent developing countries.
Public commons Ostrom (2009) elaborated on non-market-related relationships within the economy by looking at the ‘commons’ (a resource shared by a group of users). The AIV recommends including these insights (which are based on experiences with local community governance) in a post-2015 system for global governance. This means mutatis mutandis incorporating Ostrom’s seven rules for successful governance: 1. establishing rules for entitlement; 2. establishing adequate conflict resolution mechanisms; 3. establishing a duty to maintain the resource in reasonable proportion to the benefits; 4. organising monitoring and sanctioning carried out by the users themselves; 5. introducing graduated sanctions that become stricter as violations are repeated; 6. ensuring democratic decision-making on rules; 7. ensuring explicit recognition by outside authorities of the right of users to self- organise.
B.V Towards renewed global governance
B.V.1 Global governance and the network society The AIV notes that a post-2015 system can benefit from a new system of global governance, as current institutions are based on the economic and political reality of 60 years ago and have proved ineffective in managing today’s increased interdependencies and addressing crises. Reform has been piecemeal and therefore often lacking in coherence.
The new system must be determined by shared rights and obligations, differentiated according to level of development. International organisations must return to their core mandates to avoid the current overlap, while new, more representative organisations are required to address issues like financial regulation, the debt burden, technology transfer, climate and migration, including labour migration.261
Global governance is not only a matter of relations between states, but also between NGOs and their networks, civil society movements and transnational corporations.262 More generally, formal institutions do not hold a monopoly on promoting global cooperation, peace, sustainable development and democracy; in these areas in particular, informal
261 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2010: Retooling Global Development’, New York, May 2010, chapter 6.
262 Commission on Global Governance (CGG), ‘Our Global Neighbourhood’, Oxford University Press, 1995.
73 arrangements have an important role to play.263
Coherence between national and global policy Besides the theoretical arguments in favour of responsible sovereignty, global public goods and global governance, practitioners have also been calling for a different approach to development cooperation. This has been expressed in journalistic books by authors like Dambisa Moyo (Dead Aid, 2009) and Dutch diplomat Karel van Kesteren, who claims that aid is ‘lost in chaos’ due to the increase in the number of donors.264 Van Kesteren notes that the Paris Declaration on increasing the effectiveness of aid has largely failed, even in the case of ‘donor darlings’ like Tanzania. A recent analysis (on hypercollective action) states that the Declaration is overly based on a now obsolete model, the coordination of traditional aid by bilateral and multilateral donors.265 Today, aid is increasingly provided by civil society, citizens, companies, single-issue multilateral funds and new donors like China and Brazil, who are not members of the OECD. Returning to the old model is an illusion, as this would be denying social reality. The alternative – setting up an enormous coordination mechanism for aid – is expensive and threatens to become an end in itself. In its new report ‘Attached to the World’ the WRR takes a network society as its starting point.266 In the view of the AIV, a society in which temporary networks play a more prominent role is a more realistic starting point.
Arguments in favour of providing only budget support, with a strict division of labour among donors, have proved unfeasible in practice. Developing countries with strong institutional capacity are now choosing themselves which donors they wish to work with and for what goal. Weak countries, by contrast, are often not equipped for effective accountability and therefore benefit from capacity building. In a number of ‘ideal’ cases, joint budget support can be a good solution.
The question is which approach is the most effective. The advantage of many new actors is that they are often closer to the people for whom the aid is intended. This makes policymaking far less centralised, with one important disadvantage: the absence of an arbiter.267 To solve this problem, Severino and Ray propose regulating the tidal wave of projects as efficiently as possible through legislation, international norms, incentives, information platforms and partnerships. They also suggest improving aid by providing the public with more information on the need for international cooperation, conducting serious consultations with the ultimate recipients of aid during evaluations,
263 Advisory Council on Government Policy (WRR), ‘Less pretension, more ambition’, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2010, p. 249.
264 K. van Kesteren, Verloren in Wanorde, KIT Publishers: Amsterdam 2010.
265 J. Severino and O. Ray, ‘The end of ODA (II): The birth of hypercollective action’, Center for Global Development Working Paper 218, June 2010, p. 3.
266 Advisory Council on Government Policy (WRR), Aan het buitenland gehecht (‘Attached to the World’), Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2010, pp. 12-14.
267 J. Severino and O. Ray, ‘The end of ODA (II): The birth of hypercollective action’, Center for Global Development Working Paper 218, June 2010, pp. 4-11.
74 and cooperating on the use of indicators to measure the impact of aid.268 Donors can be encouraged to improve their policies by means of indices that compare the impact of their activities: ‘cross-donor’ evaluations (by analogy to the micro-finance index, which measures performance in providing microfinancing).
These and other initiatives can only develop in an improved, normative global policy framework. A post-2015 system could fulfil this role, as long as it is interpreted as a system of shared goals with an underlying perspective on development, rather than just a framework for input allocation.269 This implies, in a certain sense, accepting the redistribution of prosperity to promote the ‘health’ of the global socioeconomic system. After all, global demand and employment can also come from low-income countries, not least because these countries (in Africa and elsewhere) are experiencing strong population growth. In the words of the director of the World Bank at the G20 summit in Korea, it is a matter of ‘sink or swim together’.270 A renewed framework could herald a new form of international cooperation, based in the first instance on a minimum level of subsistence. This implies that everyone takes responsibility for the ongoing process of globalisation and the imbalances that it has generated in some parts of the world.271
From this perspective, multilateral institutions should also take on a new role: rather than implementing projects and programmes, they should manage donors. They can do this by bringing financing together, devising a policy perspective, identifying projects seeking support and contracting them out to donors (or other actors) who can bid for them, preferably working together in partnerships (comparable to the method used by the EU-Africa Partnership for Infrastructure).272 This proposal responds to the widespread criticism that donors give so much money to multilateral institutions without any form of consultation or feedback, ensures that bilateral donors can contribute their own specific knowledge, and can promote the added value of civil society (being closer to the aid consumer) and the involvement of individual citizens.273
B.V.2 Global financing Financing development has become increasingly complex. Development and ODA are moving further and further out of line (see figure below). Expenditures are classified under ODA that do not belong there, while development activities are being financed from non- ODA funds.
268 Idem, pp. 34-35.
269 Idem, p. 41.
270 N. Okonjo-Iweala, Managing Director of the World Bank, ‘Why the G20 should be interested in the Development of the G-160+’, Speech at the World Bank Conference on Post-Crisis Growth and Development, Busan, Korea, 11-12 November 2010.
271 J. M. Severino, ‘Millennium Development Goals: Looking beyond 2015’. Blog on ID4D.org, 2007.
272 J. Severino and O. Ray, ‘The end of ODA (II): The birth of hypercollective action’, Center for Global Development Working Paper 218, June 2010, pp. 36-40.
273 Idem, p. 31.
75 If global public goods are also included in the analysis and discussion of development funding, the picture becomes extremely complex. A distinction can then be made between social aid, economic support and global public goods, including combating ‘global public bads’, i.e. the negative effects of national policies on other countries. Opinions can of course differ on exactly what falls into the various categories, but a presentation of all future development fi nancing fl ows would be a better guideline for policy than a fi xation on ODA.
With greater attention to global public goods, there is a clear need to defi ne more precisely what should be fi nanced and how. Some methods of fi nancing are more suited to funding certain development activities than others. For some time now, there have, for example, been calls to devise innovative methods for funding global public goods. The Taskforce on International Financial Transactions for Development recommends a global currency transaction tax, i.e. a tax on foreign currency transactions.274 This would generate revenues and a sustainable fl ow of funds, only impact slightly on trade volumes and contribute to price stability. A tax of this nature is internationally controversial. Other examples of innovative fi nancing are described in ‘The New Public Finance: Responding to Global Challenges’,275 and in a UN study addressing proposals such as an environmental tax, a Tobin tax, a development focus on special drawing rights, an international fi nancial
274 Report of the committee of experts to the Taskforce on International Financial Transactions and Development, ‘Globalizing solidarity: The case for fi nancial levies’, Paris, June 2010. This idea was weighed up against other options, such as a tax on activities in the fi nancial sector, VAT on fi nancial services, a taxation on fi nancial transactions and national taxation of countries’ own currency.
275 I. Kaul and P. Conceição, ‘The New Public Finance: Responding to Global Challenges’, Overview, published for UNDP, Oxford University Press: Oxford/New York, 2006, p. 49.
76 facility, private donations, a global lottery and migrant remittances.276 A more detailed examination of new funding opportunities is beyond the scope of this report.
B.V.3 Conclusions The AIV attaches great importance to formulating an improved system of global governance, including the financing components, as part of a post-2015 system. Recent theories on global public goods and institutional development (public commons) can serve as a starting point for this process (as discussed in the previous chapter).
Global governance The AIV concludes that an ideal scenario for donor coordination is not feasible and should no longer be pursued. It is more realistic to take as a starting point a society in which temporary networks play a more prominent role. They will not replace existing structures, but will operate alongside them. It will remain very important to set norms, both between states and with multilateral organisations, citizens, companies and civil society organisations. This means: · designing a new MDG system that can act as a norm-setting framework for international cooperation for all actors; · giving multilateral institutions a role in the management of donors (rather than just programmes) and returning them to their core tasks; · modifying the G20, so that regions like Africa and the least developed countries have a voice in global decision-making; · devising a new MDG8 with a clear and coherent global governance agenda; and · achieving greater coherence between development activities and expenditures in donor countries and reforming trade and financial systems.
Financing The AIV concludes that financing for ODA and for global public goods currently overlaps. Besides ODA there are more and more ideas on innovative forms of financing. Some forms are better suited than others for certain categories of public goods. This means: · distinguishing between public goods for which ODA is suitable and those which can be financed in another way.
276 Atkinson, A.B. (ed.), ‘New Sources of Development Finance’, UNU-WIDER Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2005.
77 Annexes Annexe I
Mr F. Korthals Altes Chairman of the Advisory Council on International Affairs P.O. Box 20061 2500 EB The Hague
Date 18 November 2010 Re Request for advice on the development agenda after 2015
Dear Mr Korthals Altes,
The General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously signed the Millennium Declaration in New York in 2000. For the first time in history, measurable development goals were agreed: the Millennium Development Goals for 2015. It is now 2010 and much has been achieved. The MDG Review Summit was held in New York in September to take stock of the situation and to see how progress could be speeded up in the five years that remain.
The first international discussions have now been held on the development agenda after 2015. The Netherlands is taking part in them.
In this connection, I would request the Advisory Council for International Affairs (AIV) to draft an advisory report that will enable the government to determine its position in the debate on the post-2015 development agenda. This request does not concern Dutch policy on the MDGs in the 2011 to 2015 period. I would invite the AIV to provide the government with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach and to trace the outlines of a new approach, in so far as it is emerging from the international discussions referred to above and publications such as the recent report by the Advisory Council on Government Policy (WRR), Less Pretension, More Ambition.
At this stage, I believe that a exploratory advisory report would be the most useful. However, I may request a follow-up advisory report at a later stage.
In its response to the WRR report, the AIV has already pointed out that the MDG approach originated in response to the Washington Consensus and the Structural Adjustment Programmes. Publications appeared in the 1980s and 1990s on methods of measuring prosperity and wellbeing that were not only based on purely economic indicators, but also devoted attention to matters such as human dignity and personal development. Thinking of this kind underpinned the series of Human Development Reports launched in 1990, and was reflected more recently in the work of the Stiglitz Commission.
The Millennium Declaration has worked as a catalyst, leading to a broad international consensus on development. The MDGs identified a number of persistent problems that hinder development, such as the subordinate position of women, HIV/AIDS and maternal mortality. Much has been achieved in the fields of education and health care.
However, the current MDG framework is frequently criticised for devoting too little attention to the economic agenda, good governance, participation, empowerment and other political dimensions of the development issue. Criticism has also been voiced about implementation of the MDG model, in particular that the principles on the effectiveness of aid, as set out in, for example, the Paris Declaration, are not always put sufficiently into practice.
I would request you to examine the questions below from the perspective of both developing countries and donors.
Lessons learned
Main question: What has been the value for development of the Millennium Declaration and the concept of the Millennium Development Goals?
The following subsidiary questions could help focus the answer to this question. · Has the Millennium Declaration proved sufficiently successful in addressing the problems that hinder or block development? · Has the Millennium Declaration contributed to the focus on poverty? · What are the advantages and disadvantages of the way in which the targets have been formulated? With respect to the disadvantages, what issues have been neglected in the past ten years? · To what extent has the concept of the Millennium Development Goals influenced donor policy in terms of decisions about the allocation of resources and choices of themes and sectors? To what extent have developing countries been able to influence decision- making by donors? To what extent have the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs been a common enterprise of the states that signed the Declaration? · The goals are formulated in general terms. Has that been an obstacle to country-specific action? Has it affected developing countries’ ownership of their own development? · Has the concept of the Millennium Development Goals contributed to greater policy coherence for development and coordination of aid? If so, how significant was the contribution? · How did the concept of the Millennium Development Goals influence the evolution and implementation of the development agenda in donor and partner countries? · To what extent has the Millennium Declaration proved to be a catalyst in increasing donor countries’ financial commitment (towards the 0.7% norm)?
Towards a different approach?
In 2000, the MDG targets were set for a period of 25 years, with a baseline in 1990. The international balance of forces has changed considerably in the past ten years. Various interconnected crises have occurred. The question is whether developing countries each carry enough weight at international level to pursue their own policies in a time of cross-border crises. Some countries’ policy space seems to be shrinking rather than increasing. Given this context, we might expect that development goals should more often be seen in relation to global challenges such as security, the international legal order, health, environment, water and climate, trade and knowledge development. What are the implications for a new agenda?
I would request the AIV to carry out an objective study of emerging themes in international thinking about development, in order to give the government a better understanding of the possible contours of a new international development agenda: one that inspires, mobilises and is based on consensus between North and South.
Does the AIV’s analysis of the lessons learned, the changing international context and current developments in international thinking on development lead it to expect the international development agenda to take on a completely new form after 2015?
The following subsidiary questions might be useful in answering this question. · What ideas are currently shaping international thought about development and development processes? Does the AIV believe that they could serve as a starting point for a new global development agenda? (If so, why; if not, why not?) Or does the AIV believe that the current approach (possibly with some adjustments) should be continued? · Could issues that are linked to interdependence, such as the distribution of and access to global public goods, form the basis for development goals after 2015? If so, what role will development cooperation play?
I would request you to complete your report by February 2011.
Yours sincerely, (signed)
Ben Knapen Minister for European Affairs and International Cooperation
Annexe II
List of frequently used abbreviations
AIV Advisory council on International Affairs CGD Center for Global Development CMR Human Rights Committee of the AIV COS Development Committee of the AIV DAC Development Assistance Committee EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GDP Gross Domestic Product GNI Gross National Income GNP Gross National Product GPGs Global Public Goods HIPC Heavily Indebted Poor Countries ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social en Cultural Rights ICRC International Convention on the Rights of the Child IMF International Monetary Fonds MDGs Millennium Development Goals NGOs Non-governmental Organisation ODA Official Development Assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PPP Purchasing Power Parity PRSPs Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers R&D Research and Development TRIPS Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights UN United Nations UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNEP United Nations Environment Programme US United States WHO World Health Organization WTO World Trade Organization Annexe III
Official list of MDGs All targets and indicators in italics have been added since 2001 ** target or indicator that was included in the original MDGs but has been moved to another target or indicator
Official list of Millennium Development Goals, effective 15 January 2008 Goals and Targets Indicators for monitoring progress (from the Millennium Declaration) Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Target 1.A: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the 1.1 Proportion of population below $1 (PPP) proportion of people whose income is less than one per day1 dollar a day 1.2 Poverty gap ratio 1.3 Share of poorest quintile in national consumption
Target 1.B: Achieve full and productive employment 1.4 Growth rate of GDP per person employed and decent work for all, including women and young 1.5 Employment-to-population ratio people 1.6 Proportion of employed people living below $1 (PPP) per day 1.7 Proportion of own-account and contributing family workers in total employment
Target 1.C: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the 1.8 Prevalence of underweight children under-five years proportion of people who suffer from hunger of age 1.9 Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption
Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education Target 2.A: Ensure that, by 2015, children every- 2.1 Net enrolment ratio in primary education where, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete 2.2 Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach a full course of primary schooling last grade of primary 2.3 Literacy rate of 15-24 year-olds, women and men
Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women Target 3.A: Eliminate gender disparity in primary 3.1 Ratios of girls to boys in primary, secondary and and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and tertiary education in all levels of education no later than 2015 3.2 Share of women in wage employment in the non- agricultural sector 3.3 Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament
Goal 4: Reduce child mortality Target 4.A: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 4.1 Under-five mortality rate and 2015, the under-five mortality rate 4.2 Infant mortality rate 4.3 Proportion of 1 year-old children immunised against measles
1 For monitoring country poverty trends, indicators based on national poverty lines should be used, where available. All indicators should be disaggregated by sex and urban/rural as far as possible. Goal 5: Improve maternal health Target 5.A: Reduce by three quarters, between 5.1 Maternal mortality ratio 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio 5.2 Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel
Target 5.B: Achieve, by 2015, universal access to 5.3 Contraceptive prevalence rate** reproductive health 5.4 Adolescent birth rate 5.5 Antenatal care coverage (at least one visit and at least four visits) 5.6 Unmet need for family planning
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Target 6.A: Have halted by 2015 and begun to 6.1 HIV prevalence among population aged reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS 15-24 years 6.2 Condom use at last high-risk sex 6.3 Proportion of population aged 15-24 years with comprehensive correct knowledge of HIV/AIDS 6.4 Ratio of school attendance of orphans to school attendance of non-orphans aged 10-14 years
Target 6.B: Achieve, by 2010, universal access to 6.5 Proportion of population with advanced HIV treatment for HIV/AIDS for all those who need it infection with access to antiretroviral drugs
Target 6.C: Have halted by 2015 and begun to 6.6 Incidence and death rates associated with malaria reverse the incidence of malaria and other major 6.7 Proportion of children under 5 sleeping under diseases insecticide-treated bednets 6.8 Proportion of children under 5 with fever who are treated with appropriate anti-malarial drugs 6.9 Incidence, prevalence and death rates associated with tuberculosis 6.10 Proportion of tuberculosis cases detected and cured under directly observed treatment short course
Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability Target 7.A: Integrate the principles of sustainable 7.1 Proportion of land area covered by forest development into country policies and programmes 7.2 CO2 emissions, total, per capita and per $1 GDP and reverse the loss of environmental resources (PPP) 7.3 Consumption of ozone-depleting substances 7.4 Proportion of fish stocks within safe biological limits Target 7.B: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 7.5 Proportion of total water resources used 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss 7.6 Proportion of terrestrial and marine areas protected 7.7 Proportion of species threatened with extinction
Target 7.C: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people 7.8 Proportion of population using an improved without sustainable access to safe drinking water drinking water source and basic sanitation 7.9 Proportion of population using an improved sanitation facility
Target 7.D: By 2020, to have achieved a significant 7.10 Proportion of urban population living improvement in the lives of at least 100 million in slums slum dwellers Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development
Target 8.A: Develop further an open, rule-based, Some of the indicators listed below are monitored predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial separately for the least developed countries (LDCs), system Africa, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States. Includes a commitment to good governance, development and poverty reduction – both nationally Official development assistance (ODA) and internationally 8.1 Net ODA, total and to the least developed countries, as percentage of OECD/DAC donors’ Target 8.B: Address the special needs of the least gross national income developed countries 8.2 Proportion of total bilateral, sector-allocable ODA of OECD/DAC donors to basic social Includes: tariff and quota free access for the least services (basic education, primary health care, developed countries’ exports; enhanced programme nutrition, safe water and sanitation) of debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries 8.3 Proportion of bilateral official development (HIPC) and cancellation of official bilateral debt; and assistance of OECD/DAC donors that is untied more generous ODA for countries committed to 8.4 ODA received in landlocked developing poverty reduction countries as a proportion of their gross national incomes 8.5 ODA received in small island developing States Target 8.C: Address the special needs of landlocked as a proportion of their gross national incomes developing countries and small island developing Market access States (through the Programme of Action for the 8.6 Proportion of total developed country imports Sustainable Development of Small Island (by value and excluding arms) from developing Developing States and the outcome of the twenty- countries and least developed countries, second special session of the General Assembly) admitted free of duty 8.7 Average tariffs imposed by developed countries on agricultural products and textiles and clothing from developing countries Target 8.D: Deal comprehensively with the debt 8.8 Agricultural support estimate for OECD problems of developing countries through national countries as a percentage of their gross and international measures in order to make debt domestic product sustainable in the long term 8.9 Proportion of ODA provided to help build trade capacity Debt sustainability 8.10 Total number of countries that have reached their HIPC decision points and number that have reached their HIPC completion points (cumulative) 8.11 Debt relief committed under HIPC and MDRI Initiatives 8.12 Debt service as a percentage of exports of goods and services
Target 8.E: In cooperation with pharmaceutical 8.13 Proportion of population with access to companies, provide access to affordable essential affordable essential drugs on a sustainable drugs in developing countries basis
Target 8.F: In cooperation with the private sector, 8.14 Telephone lines per 100 population make available the benefits of new technologies, 8.15 Cellular subscribers per 100 population especially information and communications 8.16 Internet users per 100 population
Source: UNDP: ‘Beyond the Mid-point: achieving the Millennium Development Goals’, January 2010 Annexe IV
"! # $ %&% " ! " # $ %& ( ' ' ! ) ( * + , - # .& / 0 * " 21 # . 3"! 4 / , 35 .'!6/ & ' ! .'!/ 7 - & # * 8 & 9 + 7 + & 8 + 8
92
) ( ) ) ) % * & + % ! ,# " $ " ' " ! $ # # " % & )(' & "* + )(' % , - + " )(' . / , $ " , $ & ! # # 0 1 / , % $ + $ $, 2 0 " ! $ # ( " % $
93
% + " . / % , - & $0 ( ' ! * % $ 2 - * ) # $ % )( 3 4
1
94 Previous reports published by the Advisory Council on International Affairs
1 AN INCLUSIVE EUROPE, October 1997 2 CONVENTIONAL ARMS CONTROL: urgent need, limited opportunities, April 1998 3 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS: recent developments, April 1998 4 UNIVERSALITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY, June 1998 5 AN INCLUSIVE EUROPE II, November 1998 6 HUMANITARIAN AID: redefining the limits, November 1998 7 COMMENTS ON THE CRITERIA FOR STRUCTURAL bILATERAL AID, November 1998 8 ASYLUM INFORMATION AND THE EUROPEAN UNION, July 1999 9 TOwARDS CALMER wATERS: a report on relations between Turkey and the European Union, July 1999 10 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SITUATION IN THE 1990s: from unsafe security to unsecured safety, September 1999 11 THE FUNCTIONING OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, September 1999 12 THE IGC AND bEYOND: TOwARDS A EUROPEAN UNION OF THIRTY MEMbER STATES, January 2000 13 HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION, April 2000* 14 KEY LESSONS FROM THE FINANCIAL CRISES OF 1997 AND 1998, April 2000 15 A EUROPEAN CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?, May 2000 16 DEFENCE RESEARCH AND PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY, December 2000 17 AFRICA’S STRUGGLE: security, stability and development, January 2001 18 VIOLENCE AGAINST wOMEN: LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, February 2001 19 A MULTI-TIERED EUROPE: the relationship between the European Union and subnational authorities, May 2001 20 EUROPEAN MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION, May 2001 21 REGISTRATION OF COMMUNITIES bASED ON RELIGION OR bELIEF, June 2001 22 THE wORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST RACISM AND THE RIGHT TO REPARATION, June 2001 23 COMMENTARY ON THE 2001 MEMORANDUM ON HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY, September 2001 24 A CONVENTION, OR CONVENTIONAL PREPARATIONS? The European Union and the ICG 2004, November 2001 25 INTEGRATION OF GENDER EqUALITY: a matter of responsibility, commitment and quality, January 2002 26 THE NETHERLANDS AND THE ORGANISATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE IN 2003: role and direction, May 2002 27 bRIDGING THE GAP bETwEEN CITIzENS AND bRUSSELS: towards greater legitimacy and effectiveness for the European Union, May 2002 28 AN ANALYSIS OF THE US MISSILE DEFENCE PLANS: pros and cons of striving for invulnerability, August 2002 29 PRO-POOR GROwTH IN THE bILATERAL PARTNER COUNTRIES IN SUb-SAHARAN AFRICA: an analysis of poverty reduction strategies, January 2003 30 A HUMAN RIGHTS bASED APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION, April 2003 31 MILITARY COOPERATION IN EUROPE: possibilities and limitations, April 2003 32 bRIDGING THE GAP bETwEEN CITIzENS AND bRUSSELS: towards greater legitimacy and effectiveness for the European Union, April 2003 33 THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE: less can be more, October 2003 34 THE NETHERLANDS AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT: three issues of current interest, March 2004 35 FAILING STATES: a global responsibility, May 2004* 36 PRE-EMPTIVE ACTION, July 2004* 37 TURKEY: towards membership of the European Union, July 2004 38 THE UNITED NATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, September 2004 39 SERVICES LIbERALISATION AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: does liberalisation produce deprivation?, September 2004 40 THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMbLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE, February 2005 41 REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS: A closer look at the Annan report, May 2005 42 THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE AND RELIGION ON DEVELOPMENT: Stimulus or stagnation?, June 2005 43 MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION: coherence between two policy areas, June 2005 44 THE EUROPEAN UNION’S NEw EASTERN NEIGHbOURS: July 2005 45 THE NETHERLANDS IN A CHANGING EU, NATO AND UN, July 2005 46 ENERGISED FOREIGN POLICY: security of energy supply as a new key objective, December 2005** 47 THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION REGIME: The importance of an integrated and multilateral approach, January 2006 48 SOCIETY AND THE ARMED FORCES, April 2006 49 COUNTERTERRORISM FROM AN INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE, September 2006 50 PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY REDUCTION, October 2006 51 THE ROLE OF NGOS AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, October 2006 52 EUROPE A PRIORITY!, November 2006 53 THE bENELUX: THE bENEFITS AND NECESSITY OF ENHANCED COOPERATION, February 2007 54 THE OECD OF THE FUTURE, March 2007 55 CHINA IN THE bALANCE: towards a mature relationship, April 2007 56 DEPLOYMENT OF THE ARMED FORCES: interaction between national and international decision-making, May 2007 57 THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY SYSTEM: strengthening the system step by step in a politically charged context, July 2007 58 THE FINANCES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, December 2007 59 EMPLOYING PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES: a question of responsibility, December 2007 60 THE NETHERLANDS AND EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT POLICY, May 2008 61 COOPERATION bETwEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND RUSSIA: a matter of mutual interest, July 2008 62 CLIMATE, ENERGY AND POVERTY REDUCTION, November 2008 63 UNIVERSALITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS: principles, practice and prospects, November 2008 64 CRISIS MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS IN FRAGILE STATES: the need for a coherent approach, March 2009 65 TRANSITIONAL jUSTICE: justice and peace in situations of transition, April 2009* 66 DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION, July 2009 67 NATO’S NEw STRATEGIC CONCEPT, January 2010 68 THE EU AND THE CRISIS: lessons learned, january 2010 69 COHESION IN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION: Response to the wRR (Advisory Council on Government Policy) Report ‘Less Pretension, More Ambition’, July 2010 70 THE NETHERLANDS AND THE RESPONSIbILITY TO PROTECT: the responsibility to protect people from mass atrocities, June 2010 71 THE EU’S CAPACITY FOR FURTHER ENLARGEMENT, July 2010 72 COMbATING PIRACY AT SEA: a reassessment of public and private responsibilities, December 2010 73 THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE DUTCH GOVERNMENT: identifying constants in a changing world, February 2011
Advisory letters issued by the Advisory Council on International Affairs
1 Advisory letter THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, December 1997 2 Advisory letter THE UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE, July 1999 3 Advisory letter THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, November 2000 4 Advisory letter ON THE FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, November 2001 5 Advisory letter THE DUTCH PRESIDENCY OF THE EU IN 2004, May 2003*** 6 Advisory letter THE RESULTS OF THE CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE, August 2003 7 Advisory letter FROM INTERNAL TO EXTERNAL bORDERS. Recommendations for developing a common European asylum and immigration policy by 2009, March 2004 8 Advisory letter THE DRAFT DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES: from Deadlock to breakthrough?, September 2004 9 Advisory letter ObSERVATIONS ON THE SACHS REPORT: How do we attain the Millennium Development Goals?, April 2005 10 Advisory letter THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS RELATIONS wITH THE DUTCH CITIzENS, December 2005 11 Advisory letter COUNTERTERRORISM IN A EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: interim report on the prohibition of torture, December 2005 12 Advisory letter RESPONSE TO THE 2007 HUMAN RIGHTS STRATEGY, November 2007 13 Advisory letter AN OMbUDSMAN FOR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION, December 2007 14 Advisory letter CLIMATE CHANGE AND SECURITY, January 2009 15 Advisory letter THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP, February 2009 16 Advisory letter DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION, The benefit of and need for public support, May 2009 17 Advisory letter OPEN LETTER TO A NEw DUTCH GOVERNMENT, June 2010
* Issued jointly by the Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) and the Advisory Committee on Issues of Public International Law (CAVV). ** joint report by the Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) and the General Energy Council. *** joint report by the Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) and the Advisory Committee on Aliens Affairs (ACVz).
Capitalism and inequality
The failure of the free market as a challenge for the Rhineland model
Summary Since 1960, the primary focus in the relation between capitalism and inequality has been the increasing gap between poor and rich countries. In the last ten or twenty years, this gap has been decreasing, sometimes even dramatically. Globalization, the emergence of the free market philosophy, combined with various economies’ own efforts as well as those of development cooperation have cut world poverty by half. The attention has therefore shifted to a growing inequality between developed, emerging and under-developed economies. Poverty and inequality are still persistent characteristics of the capitalist system, which is why a lot of people are increasingly in favour of redistribution mechanisms between rich and poor within societies, for example by (re)introducing progressive taxation and stopping the mechanisms that legally and illegally further inequality. Yet the question remains whether this ap- proach does full justice to the complex question of capitalism and inequality. As important as those financial and economic tendencies in a certain country may be, there are also other causes and dimensions. Research often shows that far too little attention is paid to indirect economic factors. A stable family situation, stimulating education and good nutrition during the first thousand days of one’s life; a safe, stimulating and controlling environment, good and relevant schooling and also ethnical and religious conditions may be very important. Sometimes redistributive policies prove to be counter-productive and a non-activating welfare state even tends to lead to lasting poverty. Efforts to keep ex- treme wealth and its expressions within bounds will not be enough if they are not accompanied by a new ethical kit and perhaps even a cultural change. But most of all, measures that are taken only on a national scale will be ineffective and even fu- tile. What is needed is a new, worldwide financial architecture that rules out the pos- sibility of easy circumvention of restrictions, that punishes free rider behaviour by countries, that promotes the proper basic conditions for the functioning of a global market and that—perhaps—can even levy some sort of international tax. But of (at least) equal importance is to examine the relation between capital- ism and inequality in a broader context. Here the following four dimensions are con- cerned: »»First of all, there is the persistence of poverty and subordination for 10 to 20 percent of the world population, both in rich and in poor countries. 2 Jos van Genip
»» Then there is the vulnerability and undervaluation of the other parties con- cerned in the functioning of the market next to shareholders and financial suppliers, i.e. the environment and the labour conditions. »»Thirdly we see, in contrast to a growing middle class in the developing coun- tries, the disruptive impoverishment and shrinking middle class in many de- veloped countries. »»And finally, there is the excessive increase of wealth and income of some upper layers in society, both in poor and in rich countries. Sometimes, this is caused by corruption, sometimes by a lack of efficient regulations. Only 0.01% of the population in the US (and probably also in Russia), not only has a dominant financial position but also a determining political influence. Precisely these different dimensions constantly require a different, yet coherent, ap- proach. »»The persistent poverty at the bottom of society requires public authorities— not only in society but also in trade and industry—to pay attention to educa- tion and schooling, security, care and specific stimulation towards economic participation, e.g. micro credit. »»Environment, working conditions, human rights and other non-financial as- pects, in combination with individual responsibility, regulations and espe- cially new price mechanisms (such as the true price initiative), should all be duly reflected in adapted market mechanisms. »»The social (and ecological) market model, as translated in the Rhineland and Scandinavian system, gets increasing appreciation in other countries and es- pecially among former defenders of the Anglo-Saxon model. Yet at the same time we should seriously consider an update. For many poor and growing economies, it may be a clear alternative to either a socialist model, or to a complete free market ideology. But also in richer countries, it may contribute to the recovery of the position of the middle class and give a new perspective to employment and growth. A transformation, not an abolition of the welfare state, will be part of it. »»The excesses and abuses at the top income and fortune layers of society re- quire measures and regulations on a national scale but they have to be com- pleted with global arrangements. Those arrangements will thoroughly trans- form the Bretton Woods system and initiate a global super-national financial architecture. The reality of globalization can only be matched within systems of law and sanction. But even that will be insufficient, in this field as well as in the field of human rights violation, if there is no new ethical approach to the concepts of market, income and the meaning of prosperity. These macro-economic and macro-political realities also have consequences for our own preferences, choices and behaviour. »»Attention and dedication to social cohesion and bonds remain irreplaceable Capitalism and Inequality 3
for the fight against poverty in our own country, and also for individual citi- zens. The various forms of international solidarity remain equally essential, especially when focused on the causes of poverty and the liberation from this yoke of the lowest layer of a billion fellow citizens. More modern ways of in- telligent assistance, such as carefully programmed micro-credits, can have a lever effect. »»Individual purchase and consumption behaviour, consumers’ actions for fair trade, shareholders’ activities and responsible entrepreneurship are critical for a new balance on the market of supply and demand, whereby sustainabil- ity and labour conditions, as well as other social values, play a role. »»The regaining of faith by and in banks and financial institutions should be part of a broader discussion about cultural change wherein the taboo on dis- cussing the relation between ethics and money is lifted, and wherein a realis- tic contribution to the necessary vision on a new global financial architecture can be developed. For a humane society to have a real perspective, we need to reconcile modernisation and industrialisation on the one hand, and humane labour conditions on the other. We have to reform without throwing away values such as human dignity, responsi- bility, solidarity and subsidiarity. If it appears from data and numerous publications that choices made elsewhere that favour raw capitalism lead to dislocating and some- times devastating results, then we should be critical and contribute much more to the essential national and international debate on the establishment of a social market economy on a global level.
Derailment of the system
A small farmer in Indonesia, a country with a rapidly growing economy, symbolizes the bottom 20 percent of the world population, i.e. those who cannot participate, do not benefit from the globalization and do not profit from the free market or the capi- talist system. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the same was true for the small holder in Western Europe, who was at risk of missing the boat of increasing prosperity. In both cases this is about inequality, in many cases a growing inequality of income and of opportunities. Then suddenly, one realises that this is not only about the small farmer in Asia. It is also about the factory worker in the US, or about the cashier in Walmart, or about the elderly in eastern Europe or the school drop-out in Spain.
The bottom of society Globalization and the free market have promoted equality between what we once 4 Jos van Genip called the poor and the rich countries and the world map of poverty has subsequently changed drastically in the past 25 years. This was realised with the help of technol- ogy and the spirit of enterprise and freer markets, but it was also thanks to education, nutrition, healthcare and better water. Nevertheless, it appears that for ten, twenty, sometimes even thirty percent of the population, there was marginal to no benefit from the economic developments, the technological breakthroughs, the free market or the globalization. In recent and in older studies abundant questions have been asked as to why this is. An important cause of inequality is that the basic conditions for a well-func- tioning market are deliberately violated in a number of countries, through monopo- lies, corruption, and conflicts of interests between politics and commercial life.1 In a recent article in Foreign Affairs about ‘Capitalism and Inequality’, Jerry Muller also points out a number of completely different causes. The glass ceiling to progress is made impenetrable not only because of macro-economic and political factors, but socio-cultural and ethical factors as well. It is about the instability in education in a family where, for example, the father is absent, and also the lack of a supporting and guiding social environment. “One can hardly overestimate the role of the family,” he says, relying on extensive research. And “nothing can replace that emotionally and culturally supporting family.” Stability, intimacy, solidarity and supervision by one’s family, social environment, and church communities are extremely important in creating opportunities to break free from poverty. It also shows why some ethnic and religious groups do better than others. It is not without good reason that so many poor people manage to escape the bonds of poverty. Muller then goes a revolutionary step further. He says that without important public expenditures in the social field, no answer will be found to a number of inher- ent characteristics of capitalism. “The welfare state is not a beast to be starved!” The systematic limitation, demolition or wrong direction of the welfare state as we have seen since Reagan is, according to Muller, one of the main causes of the loss of the American dream and of the persistent presence of poverty in the bottom twenty per- cent in the US and elsewhere. According to The Economist, a paper that can hardly be suspected of anti-capitalist ideas, the question is, how long a policy such as that of the Chinese can be reconciled with social peace and economic growth. Govern- ments from Brazil and India for example have introduced adjustment programmes to benefit the poorest, and their reasons for doing so were not particularly doctrinal. Those who believe the welfare state is outdated will sooner or later realise that if that were the case, the free market will also come under severe pressure. After all, a free market does not work well with growing inequality and a lack of perspective for
1 The reason the economic growth in Indonesia did not follow the neighbouring countries, was determined to be due to the fact that foreign investments in this country were thirty percent more expensive due to “transaction costs”, as they called them euphemistically. This resulted immediately in unequal opportunities for those still under the poverty line. Capitalism and Inequality 5 ten to twenty percent of the population. Analysts and opponents of ‘big government’ say that the present financial and economic crisis would benefit from an increase of expenses on luxury consumer goods, expensive cars, jewellery or wealthy apart- ments. We are talking here about some hundreds of thousands of the super-rich. I wonder what would happen if the bottom twenty percent, say sixty to eighty mil- lion people in the US, would start to have some more purchasing power, as President Obama was striving for at the beginning of his first term. What would happen if that bottom billion would get two instead of one dollar each day? Now that would give a real impulse to the (global) economy! The high-profile economists and politicians of our multilateral institutions and also the frequently cited opinion makers are often rather unfamiliar with the real world of the poor. According to Wijffels, they are even unfamiliar with primary processes like food production. Most of all, they are unacquainted with the econom- ics of the poor. That is why economic growth often excludes the poor, leaves them to be poor or makes them even poorer. If you don’t take the economics of the poor into account, the consequences can be catastrophic. When President Clinton wanted to promote the ownership of a house among the poor and stimulated mortgages by offering commissions to bro- kers, it worked out to be a perverse stimulus because the basic conditions to create the capacity to repay were lacking. The entire world now suffers from the consequences. Meanwhile, it’s not just the poorest that are affected. Almost as shocking as the observation of persisting poverty and exclusion in the bottom layer, is the rela- tively recent recognition that these imperfections have two other victims, namely the environment and labour conditions on the one hand, and the middle class, in particu- lar in the developed countries, on the other.
The most vulnerable We were already aware of the fact that the environment is excessively burdened and becoming exhausted. In Arjan Broers’s very instructive book, Geld en Goed, Herman Wijffels points it out as follows: “The carrying capacity of the earth is overburdened by fifty percent. In financial terms this means that we don’t live on the return but on the capital itself. So we use up our capital.” And obviously this overburdening has to do with our greed and consumption behaviour or, in other words, our morals. But to say that the lack of morality is the only reason, is to return us to the night watchman state of the 19th century—because it is not only my lack of sobriety or renunciation of the golden calf and not only my attachment to other values, which causes this exhaus- tion and overburdening. It is also caused by a failing market mechanism. The cheap furniture made of hardwood from ancient forests is in reality invaluable. A holiday by air in Europe should be much and much more expensive than a train holiday. But for many goods and services the transactions are ruled by supply and demand and 6 Jos van Genip take far too few other aspects into account to determine the real costs. These aspects are the damage for the environment caused by transport, exploitation, noise, cru- elty to animals, harmful pesticides, health in general, removal of essential elements for future life such as biodiversity, regeneration capacity and the valuation of human communities. Market mechanisms with systematic imbalances are maintained be- cause incentives for alternative energy such as true innovation, cleaner combustion engines, promotion of regional products, decent production processes and so many other things are still missing. Most definitely, something is brewing. Young people will individually choose more consciously and the situation will really improve when worried consumers join forces in movements and public actions. Public interventions made corrections to our market in the first half of the pre- vious century and in the same way we now cannot just rely on voluntary actions. We needed laws to forbid child labour, to restrict dismissals, to protect cooperatives, to facilitate societal and workers’ insurances, to fight against poverty for the most vul- nerable. This was the core of the social market model, or the Rhineland model. In essence this model is a correction on the functioning of the market, especially in the area of labour conditions. Despite strong opposition, there was the conviction that the market needed correction but should not be eliminated. Now we are again speaking of a correction, but with two essential differences. It is not only about vulnerable people, but rather about the vulnerable, the helpless— in one word: Creation. And here no unions of stakeholders are around. That’s the reason why politics can get away so easily with delays, immobility or false solutions. This can only be changed if ethical and moral power stations in society link with opinions and movements that go further than simply having more and using more. Churches and world religions could make the difference here. And there is a further essential difference and complicating factor. What we need is authority, one that can really formulate and impose corrections. For example we have the WTO, the World Trade Organisation, but they operate on a voluntary basis. We need a transformation that goes much further. We need to create an effec- tive form of a world authority that is able to steer the rather hard globalization with legal power. For many years, the World Council of Churches has argued for such a direc- tion, and only recently the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace published a report titled Towards reforming the international and monetary systems in the context of global public authority. The starting point here is that globalization is not always wrong and we cannot do without the market, but a whole lot of things have to change. These changes should lead to forms of worldwide authority. It is the translation of the principle of subsidiarity but then upwards. Many real specialists of the haute fi- nance were involved and it plots a realistic and doable path. Capitalism and Inequality 7
The middle class A sense of realism is therefore needed, because another phenomenon has come like a bolt from the blue in the past recent years. It is the stagnation and falling behind of the lower and middle incomes in most developed countries. For three or four generations we’ve experienced progress in our countries and this had an influence on our culture and our attitude to life. Upon the arrival of steam engines and washing machines, cars and microwaves, the necessity to physical labour diminished and people, nota- bly women, were even freed from being housebound. Healthcare made most diseases curable or preventable. Schooling, ranging from primary to academic levels became accessible for everybody, it formed people more and more, making them available for new kinds of jobs. The computer gave access to information and cultural domains that were previously only attainable for the elite. And this was combined with an ever-increasing income, generation after generation. Ownership of a house became more and more attainable, as well as all kinds of luxury goods. The American Dream spread to Europe. A labourer’s son could become the CEO of a listed company, his wife being a senior medical specialist. The issue which really puts the debate on capitalism and inequality on edge is the position of the middle class. The middle class as a ‘reception room’ for the poor and a bridge to capital and higher education, turned out to be the basis for stability, democracy and economic growth. The best economic news of the past two or three decades was the rising and developing of a middle class in both developing and post socialist communities. That was real progress. But in the aforementioned special of The Economist, it appears that—at least in the US—the middle class is not making any progress but that it is, together with the layer just underneath, becoming poorer. For twenty, perhaps thirty years, this was concealed because the family income increased or stayed the same. The partner took a job, both partners worked longer and kept on working later. And then there were the debts, debts, debts… They concealed the fact that individually things were not all together as good as they appeared. And collectively, the debts were used to finance a part of the welfare state. In other words, the magnificent boom, that incred- ible growth of income and expenses was financed with … borrowed money. (I quote again Wijffels in Broers’s book). Suddenly, here and everywhere, one realises that things are perhaps different: limits to growth, income, expenses, work, property, and even to education. It is not only about slowing growth rates. On the one hand we have the diminishing inequali- ty between North and South, and on the other hand we see that inside these countries inequality does not decrease, but rather it increases. We also see another kind of ine- quality. What first was limited to the bottom 10 percent, is in the US now threatening to spread and lead to new ghettos of segregation according to ethnicity, family struc- ture, regional differences. In Europe we see a new dividing line between language, culture and countries. There is no longer a division between east and west but there is 8 Jos van Genip a new demarcation line between south and north with the Polish and Czechs as new winners and Greeks, Spaniards and Italians as losers. There is the great disillusion for young people newly arriving on the labour market, including the highly educated: you aren’t needed, not now and maybe not even later. It is a double disillusion as it also applies to the parents who saved for their children’s studies. For quite some time, there’s been something wrong with the idea of automatic progress, but the financial crisis in the US and later in Europe swiftly unmasked it. The doubt about whether it’s worth it for me or my child to pursue higher education is in fact the doubt about whether progress is still attainable or—nearly everybody’s worry—whether future generations will be as well-off as we are. It’s no wonder we see the rise of new economies as a threat to ours, that we wrongly think the piece of the pie for ourselves will be smaller if it gets larger for someone else. Something doesn’t make sense: the preservation of our level of prosperity, let alone an improvement in our countries, obviously needs a drastic adjustment of the market mechanisms. It is our own insecurity that prevents us from realising how comfortable we still are here in the countries with the Rhineland and Scandinavian model. An avalanche of studies and articles appears in the US, criticising the sys- tem based on the Anglo-Saxon model which was prematurely declared invincible in 1989. Free market, fine, but if it leads to a greater inequality, to the melting down of the middle class, then something is structurally wrong. And if in Scandinavia and in the countries around the Rhine this inequality continues to decrease and the middle class with its prosperity keeps in a strong position, should we then not take a careful look at the system? One has found a measure for this, the so-called Gini-coefficient. It is an indication of how much inequality increases or decreases. We do rather well on this indicator, although we feel something is brewing, at least concerning the eco- nomic climate. And perhaps among large groups the motivation and belief needed to make progress has come under pressure, especially among the 5 or 10 percent of those who seem to get stuck in poverty as we explained earlier.
The top of the pyramid Meanwhile the discussion is primarily about the other side of the picture, the top. Since the Reagan years, since Milton Friedman—the apostle of absolute deregula- tion—, since Ayan Rand—the ideologist in favour of blunt self-interest—, nothing has lead to a greater inequality than the explosion of the wealth of the upper one to five percent. But it is not about jealousy, it is primarily about the question whether the explosively growing richness of the happy few perpetuates or even worsens the poverty of millions of others. The Asian Development Bank says that, due to this increasing inequality, at least 240 million people stayed under the poverty line. One percent of the population of the US is responsible for 20 to 25 percent of the national income. The income of the top 0.01 percent of the US, 16,000 families, Capitalism and Inequality 9 has quadrupled their income since 1983. The bottom 20 percent has raised their in- come only with 0.4 percent. And why? It is not only about entrepreneurship, seizing opportunities or speculations. Mechanisms that, directly or indirectly, specifically benefit the rich and richest, have crept into the aid system. That is how the amount of tax reduction on the houses of the richest 20 percent is four times as big as the amount spent on social housing for the poorest 20 percent. Even more serious is that 200 Americans are responsible for 80 percent of the donations to political parties, donations that amount to billions and billions. Deregulation, the absence of the notion of society’s interests rising above the sum of all the individual interests, the conviction that a welfare state makes people idle, the absence of a social dialogue, the incorrect assignment of financial aid, the dependency on politics and vested interests of a very small elite: they are all failures in a capitalist system which is untenable in this form. And with respect to the absence of a social dialogue, a large number of authors have raised the question of whether we should not look a bit closer into the social market model, i.e. the Rhineland and Scan- dinavian models. After all it is about system failures, failures that in the first place ruin society in the US. But they get an extra dimension as soon as they contaminate the financial and subsequently the economic system in the entire world, as was the case in 2008. One cannot think of a more dramatic example of the deterioration and, more specifically, the inadequacy of the world order to manage a crisis or prevent abuses. In our digging for causes and remedies, we failed to emphasize the lack of a standard, the necessity of decency and virtue. Greed is not bad, we hear, it is good because the sum of every individual greed produces a maximum of prosperity; don’t hamper us with regulations and controls; and in politics and in society one should not refer to the general interest because we can neither measure nor impose it. In the financial world there are greedy predators running around that need to be locked back up in their cage, a cage of a worldwide dimension. The cage bars of the post war institutions that were meant to protect us are too large or they are placed in a wrong place. The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the other so-called Bretton Woods institutions, need to be reformed. The churches have been pleading for this over the last fifty years. Now is the time to strengthen the multilat- eral system with a common effort to reform existing institutions into new authori- ties. Something is brewing: senior bankers gathering together in the offices of the Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt to talk with a cardinal and with theologians about how, what and by which path; CEOs of a number of multinationals like Paul Polman of Unilever meet with archbishop Nichols in the archiepiscopal palace of Westminster to talk about necessary changes; in the Vatican itself, world famous economists and politicians gather with leaders from international financial institutions and with bishops. The time is ripe, act now!, it spells. And now I am going to say something imprudent. If the new Pope refers to the obsession in his church about abortion, con- 10 Jos van Genip traception, gay rights and so on, is that not a sign for the American bishops that says: speak up about the environment, poverty, capitalism and inequality. Use your influ- ence in these matters too, just as you did thirty years ago. And don’t just complain about wrongdoing, but give direction: Tell people that until we have drastic inter- national reforms, those predators, that sometimes tiny elite, will continue to prey with impunity upon many hundreds of millions of fellow citizens. The principles of the Christian social tradition of solidarity and subsidiarity point in just one direc- tion: The fact that nowadays our people are joined by common interests around the world, calls for a safety-net without borders for the poor, and—at the same time—for institutions and regulations with global authority. It even calls for an abolition of the privileged status of financial transactions ranking above the trade in goods and ser- vices—the start, thus, of cross-border taxation, something like the Tobin Tax. But indeed, we cannot realise all this without tackling the global infection with greed and the prevalence of self-interest. At the conference of the Deutsche Bank, a senior executive of Goldman Sachs said: “In the end all regulations are futile. Escape routes are already figured out by my staff even before the ink has dried.” These regu- lations will only be effective if they are supported by an ethical change, and an ethical and moral revival. This should start with the individual banker, but also on a collec- tive basis in institutions, in the economy, in enterprises, in politics. That is easy to say, but what kind of ethics, what kind of morality do we need, and most of all, what are our sources of inspiration? Adam Smith could defend a free market with his invisible hand making cor- rections, because he started from the general acceptance of Christian ethics and the belief in an almighty God. But in a culture which does not share a common inspira- tion, how do we arrive at a an idea of the general interest, without any sanction lurk- ing around the corner. How do we return to the idea that was expressed in The Perfect Prey by a former Dutch top banker, decent in an old-fashioned way: “If you want to get rich in a quick way, don’t get yourself a job in a bank.” There are examples where, beyond religious and anti-religious traditions, an almost global consensus grew regarding what is right and what is not. Child labour, discrimination, respect for a number of basic rights: different domains in which hu- manity has made a tremendous progress after 1945 and 1989. Sure there are still gaps and relapses, but still. The key question for the coming years is whether the relation between money and goods, according to some people between money and God, will be restored. Because that is what Lord Brian Griffiths of Goldman Sachs admits wholeheartedly: if we don’t restore this combination of individual and collective mo- rality, then anything we invent will be futile, whether it concerns new taxes or larger reserve funds, abolition of bonuses or international control. Capitalism and Inequality 11
Our own responsibility
There are four sides to that inconvenient, yet apparently inherent relation between capitalism and inequality. There are always winners and losers on the market. That is the inevitable part of the game. But how high can the profit be and how low the loss? The core of the approach in this story is that the question of capitalism and in- equality in the second decade of this century is neither a confusing mess, nor a simple uniformity; rather, we see four different segments: »»Firstly, the bottom 10 to 20 percent that is reduced to, or locked in, severe poverty, in extreme inequality of income and possession, coupled with the absence of opportunities. »»Secondly, the values and interests which are not included in the balance of profit and loss of enterprises and entrepreneurs, i.e. environment, human rights, consumers’ interests, sometimes quality, production and trade in il- legal products. »»Thirdly, a shrinking and declining middle class, including young people just arriving on the labour market, the pensioners with their shrinking income, small businesses being competed out of the market. »»And finally, the upper class for whom ‘the winner takes it all’ applies, who seem to have no limits to their income and profit growth, no borders, nor—in some cases—ethical boundaries.
If we examine these four dimensions of change in the balance of profit and loss in our global market system, our top priority should be to do something about the biggest losers: the bottom billion people. It is essential that they get more equal opportuni- ties, opportunities to escape from that one or two dollar yoke. It is possible. It has been proven and the success of the immense effort to achieve the goals as described in the Millennium Development Goals was so big in the past few years, that we should stick to this approach. This was also stated in the report A New Global Partnership, presented by the Secretary-General of the UN only recently with the significant un- der title “Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economy”. It contains a double message that applies also to this subject: provide aid for the time being, for this has proven to be very successful. But at the same time we need a structural transformation of the economy, giving opportunities to the poorest. One of the biggest, yet rather successful distortions of the truth is that aid is wasted money. In a time that we need to cut expenses it is of course a comfortable message. But those that say that we certainly need to continue with this proven suc- cessful approach, are not just anybody and surely not some unworldly idealists—for example David Cameron or Paul Polman, the CEO of Unilever. Money for educa- tion, care, water and a basic income to feed the children and repair the leaks in the roof is not wasted. 12 Jos van Genip
But more interesting is what is happening in the UK. Churches over there are not only investing in food banks but also in micro-credits. They do so in close co- operation with schools! A growing number of secondary schools, together with the parishes they belong to, are running loan-programmes for people from the neigh- bourhood. These loans last for a day, a week, a month perhaps, so that these people won’t become victim of the so-called payday loans or usurers. Added to this is that it confirms their dignity because they are known by their name. It has a unique educa- tional dimension: pupils of 13 or 14 years get into contact with another kind of reality than consumption, fashion, chatting and chilling. Their class room is turned into a little bank where they are introduced to poverty, survival and other things from daily life. To end the actual segregation in which an important part of our youth grows up, should be given much more attention. The second adjustment concerns the vulnerable and the defenceless, ranging from the environment to human rights. In these matters too, we as ordinary citizens get involved. There is increasing consumers’ awareness. Every purchase is a choice, a statement for myself, for my surrounding, for the seller and for the production. The power of the organised and non-organised consumer is enormous. Buyer strikes are a negative instrument; but preferences can also lead to positive choices: fair trade products, products free of child labour and manufactured in decent labour condi- tions, products with a green label. Also in the way we behave financially we can con- tribute, for example by investing our money in green and ethical investment funds. It all starts with ourselves. Let’s go back to England again. The Anglican Church under the leadership of archbishop Justin Welby, a late vocation of someone that used to be in the oil and banking businesses, goes a step further. With 8 billion pounds in the church’s pen- sion fund and deposits of thousands of parishes, they are an important financial player. They use their influence for an activating policy. On their shareholders’ meet- ing they think about the relation between performance and bonuses. How could the Libor scandal take place? Why aren’t there more alternative investments? What mat- ters is fulfilling legal and ethical conditions, and many are surprised by the response and especially the coalitions with other big shareholders and investment funds. Thirdly, there is the middle class with shrinking financial strength, whose chil- dren are confronted with unemployment and forced to work longer for an equal or even reduced income. In the US the situation is perhaps more extreme, but also in Europe underlying tendencies evolve in the same direction. What do we do about it? Can we do something about it? The political debate of today: acceptance of globaliza- tion or denial and escapism? From the summits of capitalism is said that the Christian social Rhineland model or the mild social-democratic Scandinavian model could be an attractive al- ternative. We must therefore ‘capitalise’ on that! There is no way back to 1989 for example, the time when the Anglo-Saxon model had won. Neither can we return to the certainties and protection of the 1980 welfare state. Capitalism and Inequality 13
When one says that it is about values such as justice and solidarity, that it is about responsibilities and the use of talents, one gets another outcome. When one is attached to values of Christian social inspiration and at the same time realises that the execution depends on place and time, one knows that a transformation is needed. In the Christian social movement we should also discuss things that make us competitive. We should think about ways to use our talents, how to combine sav- ing and productive investment, how to realise a truly responsible entrepreneurship. Christian social conduct should again be equal to modernisation, dialogue, and, yes, dare to take up an active middle position. We should not get stuck in 1960 or 1980 and cling to acquired rights, mainly serving our own interests. Globalization and sus- tainability are challenges and opportunities, just as once the movement’s acceptance of industrialisation and modernisation kept the movement relevant for the people involved and for the whole of society. What we need to do is build a new socio-economic and ecological market model. That can have a promising future, locally and globally, but we will have to re- invent it, implement and promote it. Crucially, will we have the courage and the vision to adequately involve the global financial system, and therewith the excesses of the top incomes and fortunes. Perhaps due to its technical complexity, perhaps also because we feel powerless, there is hardly any pragmatic debate or translation of our values into a new global struc- ture. We don’t seem to get any further than saying that bonuses should be abolished. Even when it becomes blatantly obvious that extreme differences in income in the long run will cause serious social and political disruptions, the persistent mis- understanding remains that if someone’s income is less, another one will have more. What is at stake is a complete architecture of a new and participatory globalization, not a threatening globalization but one that offers perspectives. This is meant for the poorest in foreign countries and for the group that lags behind or drops out in our own society. The top floor of that globalization building should be the home for a new financial and banking regulation. That regulation will be global, or it will be nothing. There will be no room for tax paradises or a rat-race of deregulation be- tween the different countries fighting for the biggest possible piece of the pie in the global bank sector. There should be room for global guarantee and safety-net sys- tems. We should discuss on the possibilities and impossibilities of imposing taxes on financial transactions. Voices from various sources and places we hear: Finance, a Christian reflection on the matter, is the title of a book from Pierre, duke of Lauzun, who is in the top of the French AFM, the supervising financial authority. In Ger- many, the book Das Kapital, written by Reinhard Marx, archbishop in Munich, has become the best-seller on the list of Der Spiegel. And on several places in Europe entrepreneurs, bankers and theologians come together and think about the demand for a new financial structure. And there is a need for this too, because we still have that other question of 14 Jos van Genip
Lord Brian Griffith of Goldman Sachs. How do we get the new combination of indi- vidual and collective, institutional ethics? His answer is clear: Churches, religiously inspired movements, ideological movements and think-tanks should not hesitate to reflect on these questions and debate the answers. They already do this on so many other topics, but please give this dimension of capitalism and inequality attention. Regulations, a separation of functions, the abolition of bonuses and an increase of reserve funds, they are altogether only half of the solution. The critically important revival of public confidence is only possible if we start from another culture, one of service and a heightened ethical awareness. There was the appeal in the early fifties to reach for peace, reconciliation and mutual solidarity in Europe, and eventually to realise these in super-national institu- tions. Perhaps we are once more at such a crossroads where we should link the reality of globalization with forms of multilateral authority and justice, founded on human- ity, ethics, and values that recognize common welfare and the dignity of each indi- vidual as point of reference.
Au travail! Capitalism and Inequality 15
Literature
Eduardo Aninat, “An Authority over Globalization,” unpublished paper Maarten Biermans, Decency and The Market. Dissertation University of Amsterdam, 2012 Arjan Broers, Geld en Goed, Lessen voor welwillende kapitalisten. Vught: Skandalon, 2013 Marc Chavannes, “De Amerikaanse Kloof,” NRC-Handelsblad, 18 augustus 2013 Pierre de Lauzun, Finance, un regard chrétien. Paris: Embrasure,2012 Reinhard Marx, Das Kapital. Munich: Pattloch Verlag, 2008 Jerry Muller, “Capitalism and Inequality.” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2013 Jeroen Smit: The Perfect Prey: The Fall of Abn Amro, Or What Went Wrong in the Banking Industry. London: Quercus, 2009 Gert van Maanen, The Dream and the Markets, Liber Amicorum 60 Years World Council of Churches Gert van Maanen, “Microkrediet, Schuld of zuurstof.” Festus 20 april 2013 Gert van Maanen, “Armoedebestrijding en Oikocredit.” (Unpublished paper) The Economist, “For richer, for poorer,” Special Report on the World Economy, October 13th 2012 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace , “Towards reforming the international financial and monetary systems in the context of global public authority.” Rome 2011 “Banking on the Common Good, Finance for the Common Good.” Colloquium of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Konrad Adenauer Foundation and Uniapac, Rome May 12-13, 2013 (with important contributions a.o. of Dr. Eduardo Aninat, Jacques Camdessus, Steven Vanackere, Pierre de Lauzun) The Tablet, August 3, 2013, Special on banks, credit unions, investments United Nations, A New Global Partnership, Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, New York 2013 Papal Encyclical Centesimus Annus, 1991 Papal Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, 2009