VOICES Goals Amy Pollard, Andy Sumner, Monica Polato-Lopes & Agnès De Mauroy March 2011

Southern perspectives on what should come after 100 the Millennium Development VOICES Goals Amy Pollard, Andy Sumner, Monica Polato-Lopes & Agnès de Mauroy March 2011 CLICK PAGES AND HOME ICON TO NAVIGATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Contents Introduction Executive Summary 1 For better or worse, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have Introduction 5 constituted the longest standing paradigm that has ever emerged in development thinking. The goals have been an organising framework for Research findings 8 international aid over the last ten years. At the core of countless policy A typology of documents, plans and announcements, they have attracted criticism Southern perspectives 24 as well as support. But what will happen after 2015, when the MDG New framework, deadline runs out? What, if anything, should follow the MDGs? new context 28 So far, the main voices responding to these pivotal questions have Trade-offs for been established experts from powerful countries in the North. This post-MDG planning 32 joint research from the Catholic aid agency CAFOD and the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) seeks to broaden the conversation, and Conclusion and to ensure that the voices of those directly involved in fighting poverty recommendations 35 in the South are heard. Our research describes the perspectives of Appendix 36 104 representatives from civil society organisations, in 27 developing countries from across the world. 1 Key findings • Respondents were split down the New framework, new context Overwhelming support for a post-2015 middle in terms of the longstanding Agreeing the original MDGs took ten framework critique of the MDGs – that they years of gestation and discussion. have distracted from the structural • Whatever reservations they had about With less than five years to go until causes of poverty. the original MDGs, 87 per cent of our they run out, there is considerable • 64 per cent thought that the MDGs Southern civil society respondents time pressure to set a global had contributed to greater gender wanted some kind of overarching, process of deliberation for any new equality; 65 per cent felt they had internationally agreed framework for framework in place. Indeed, the increased focus on addressing HIV development after 2015. political momentum required to build and AIDS; but only 28 per cent The MDGs were “a good thing”, international compacts like the MDGs thought that MDGs had contributed despite their problems is enormous, and we can’t take for to reducing conflict and building • 75 per cent of respondents thought granted that any new framework will peace in their country. that the MDGs were “a good thing”. be agreed to replace them. A post-2015 framework must be No respondent strongly disagreed The world has changed since the developed through an inclusive, with this statement. MDGs were formulated and signed. participative process; in partnership • 72 per cent agreed that development Discussions for a new framework between North and South had become a higher priority will be framed by many factors, • 86 per cent agreed that the process because of the MDGs. particularly the following: of deciding a new framework would • 60 per cent said the MDGs were be as important as the framework • An uncertain and increasingly a useful set of tools for non- itself. They stressed the need for an unstable world governmental organisations (NGOs) open, participative process, including – describing their value for lobbying, Whilst the MDGs emerged in a poor citizens in developing countries. monitoring, fundraising and project relatively benign, stable and fiscally design. • The most frequently expressed buoyant period, a new framework opinion of respondents was a would have to be developed at a • 66 per cent believed that the MDGs desire to see North and South work time when the economic crisis has improved the effectiveness of aid. in partnership to develop a new swept away old certainties; when They described the goals as useful framework – rather than having one the threat of climate change looms for project management, planning or the other take the lead. large; and when changes in global and accountability – but questioned governance and emerging actors the validity of the MDG indicators, It must take better account of have diffused geopolitical power. and pointed to numerous outstanding country contexts It will be more challenging to problems. • An overwhelming 94 per cent of negotiate a major international respondents said that any new • Respondents were remarkably framework in these circumstances, framework must take better account positive about the validity of MDG because the multiple competing of country contexts than the original evaluations – with over 66 per cent interests that will have to be MDGs. believing they would be a true balanced are diverse and also It must address climate change and indication of whether aid has constantly in flux. This context the environment worked in their country. also compounds the challenge of • 59 per cent said that the MDGs • In addition to the enduring ensuring a framework is solid enough had helped to improve government development concerns of poverty, to compel action and hold actors planning. However, many raised hunger, health and education, accountable, but also flexible enough concerns about the implementation respondents stressed that the to adapt to changing circumstances of the goals, and the management of environment and climate change and unforeseen events. increased funds. were top priorities for a new • Just over half of respondents thought framework. the MDGs were more important to Our research includes perspectives donors than they were to anyone from 104 civil society representatives else. Several said they had been of from 27 developing countries around limited relevance to grassroots work, the world. or poor citizens themselves. 2 • Changing patterns of poverty Six ‘types’ of Southern perspective Most of the world’s poor (around a Qualitative data was used to construct six ‘types’, illustrating the range of views from our research respondents. billion people) no longer live in Low Income Countries (LICs). Seventy-two ‘Chuma’ ‘Sister Hope’ per cent of the world’s poor now live Looking for action The planning in Middle Income Countries (MICs); not words pragmatist with LICs accounting for 28 per cent, • The MDGs were • MDGs were an and Fragile LICs just 12 per cent. good in theory, but important rallying The total number of LICs has dropped they were poorly point, both (from around 60 in the mid 1990s to implemented. internationally and 38 today), whilst the number of MICs • Need to strengthen relationships within developing countries. has risen. This is highly significant between the top and the bottom in • The substance of a new framework is development; and between the North the most important thing – keep the in terms of a post-2015 framework, and the South. process in proportion. as it poses the question of how • Countries should learn from their • Need to analyse the interests of all development happens and what the neighbours what works and what doesn’t. different parties involved to broker a best tools are to foster it in different strong agreement. • A new framework should use geographic contexts. The issue of where aid regions as a ‘go-between’ to mediate • Ideally a new framework would be is allocated and what it seeks to relationships at different levels, and developed by both North and South, achieve is key – and a broader adapt goals to regional contexts. but the North should lever their power range of instruments (for example, where necessary. tax and trade policy, multilateral cooperation, climate policy etc) ‘Rom’ ‘Valeria’ may be increasingly critical for Bottom-up is best The rights-based development progress. • The MDGs were advocate a useful ‘hook’ • The MDGs were • Indicator innovation for funding and better than nothing, A variety of new approaches to advocacy. but they could have measuring poverty and development • There are no blue- been much more. have been proposed, many of prints for development – every country • A new framework needs to context is different. ensure governments honour their which focus on the measurement • Inclusive consultation and participation responsibilities to citizens. of people’s wellbeing, rather than will be critical for a new framework. • Minorities must be protected; especially measuring economic production. from threats to the environment and The Sarkozy Commission; the United • Whatever comes after the MDGs must climate change. maximise power for those ‘on the Nations Development Programme ground’, who can adapt development • Whatever comes after the MDGs must (UNDP) Human Development Report solutions to their circumstances. be based on rights, rather than needs. Office (HDRO); Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative ‘Amero’ ‘Jamal’ (OPHI); Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Wellbeing International Capitalise on the frameworks are a MDG gains in Developing Countries Network waste of time • Don’t waste all and Organisation for Economic • The North tried to the hard work and Co-operation and Development dominate the MDG progress made (OECD) One-world indicators framework. through the MDGs. have all proposed richer, more • The MDGs changed the language around • Has been critical to align donors around multidimensional approaches. development, but not what actually goals, and encourage governments happens in reality. to take a holistic approach to • The goals were manipulated by elites;

Load more