REPORT ON THE CONSULTATION PROCESS ON "TOWARDS A POST-2015 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK. Letter of Contract N 2012/ FINAL REPORT

Transcription

1 The European Union s EDF Programme REPORT ON THE CONSULTATION PROCESS ON "TOWARDS A POST-2015 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Letter of Contract N 2012/ FINAL REPORT Prepared by Alexei Jones November 2012 The project is financed by the European Union The project is implemented by IBF International Consulting 1

2 The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. 2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The MDGs: benefits and limitations 5 2. Feasibility of a future framework 6 3. Scope of a future framework 7 4. Shape of a future framework 8 INTRODUCTION KEY MESSAGES FROM EU MEMBER STATES I. THE MDGs: BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS A) Benefits 13 B) Limitations 16 II. FEASIBILITY OF A FUTURE FRAMEWORK A) The formulation process must be inclusive and participatory 22 B) The framework should be global 23 C) The framework should be based on shared responsibilities of all countries 24 D) The framework should be established within strong accountability mechanisms 24 E) Need to ensure consistency and coherence with other related international processes 25 III. THE POTENTIAL SCOPE OF A FUTURE FRAMEWORK A) Primary purpose of the framework 27 B) Applicability and adaptability of the framework 28 C) The engagement of new actors 29 D) The improvement of policy coherence for development 31 E) A comprehensive approach to development financing 33 IV. THE POTENTIAL SHAPE OF A FUTURE FRAMEWORK A) Most important elements that should be included in a future framework 36 3

4 B) Elements that should be avoided in a future development framework 38 CONCLUSION ANNEXES Questionnaire Statistics on responses List of respondents by category 45 4

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the summer 2012, the European Commission launched an online public consultation on "Towards a post-2015 development framework". The purpose was to collect views from a wide range of stakeholders on what framework, if any, should guide international development efforts after the agreed target year for reaching the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). 119 organisations and individuals from public authorities, civil society, the private sector and academia contributed to the consultation. The consultation focused on the four following aspects of the debate on the post-2015 development agenda: A. The MDGs: benefits and limitations B. Feasibility of a future framework C. The potential scope of a future framework D. The potential shape of a future framework 1. The MDGs: benefits and limitations Benefits All respondents agreed that one of the primary benefits of the MDG framework is the strong mobilising effect it has had among international development actors. Almost all respondents have underlined that the MDGs largely contributed to placing the fight against poverty at the heart of development cooperation efforts, which has also translated both into more focused policy and increased aid flows. All agreed that the MDGs have served as powerful advocacy and monitoring tools, and as such, have been a determining factor in the shift towards more results-oriented development cooperation and improved data collection. A majority of respondents agreed that the use of clear benchmarks with measurable targets has indeed contributed to stronger priority setting and more focused attention. Another widely recognised added value of the MDGs is the use of clear and operational indicators and benchmarks to assess progress. The fact that most of the MDG indicators were clear, concise and measurable has triggered greater use of statistics and monitoring reports, and improved comparability of data. While recognising the progress made in terms of poverty reduction at the global level, several respondents nevertheless questioned the extent to which those results can be attributed to the MDG framework itself. Respondents have also very much emphasised the limits and gaps of the MDG framework. Limitations For a majority of respondents, one of the key drawbacks lies in the top-down and donor-led process that has guided the formulation and adoption of the MDGs. As a matter of fact, this is often considered as one of the first pitfalls of the MDG framework, which in turn could partly explain all the other limitations, and especially the lack of ownership of the MDGs by many developing countries. 5

6 Although the MDGs have undoubtedly contributed to achieving significant results in the fight against poverty, a recurrent criticism is that the MDG framework did not actually tackle the root causes of poverty. Respondents from all categories have indeed highlighted that the MDGs tend to focus more on the symptoms of poverty - and only on certain aspects of these - rather than on the fundamental causes of poverty. For many respondents, the MDGs are disappointingly silent on many systemic issues and institutional problems which are nonetheless considered crucial for reducing poverty in a sustainable way. Among the most cited overlooked systemic and structural issues, the following have been particularly emphasised by respondents: rights and non-discrimination, inequality, vulnerability and resilience, peace and security, governance and anti-corruption, economic growth and job creation, accountability, empowerment and participation, social norms and power relations. The MDG framework was also criticised for having treated goals and issues as separate entities. Rather than building on the links and synergies between them, the goals have been treated one by one. For many respondents, this "in silo" and extremely sectoral approach has not properly addressed the challenges of multidimensional poverty. In particular, almost all contributions have also pointed to the fact that the MDG framework did not fully nor adequately address sustainable development in its three dimensions: economic, social and environmental. Another major criticism of the MDG framework stems from the narrow indicators used to measure progress towards the goals and targets. Moreover, a large number of responses in all the categories underlined that the lack of disaggregated data has masked poverty by overlooking inequalities within countries and regions. Last but not least, the absence of proper accountability mechanisms was pointed to as one of the main deficiencies of the MDG framework. Many respondents, mostly from NGOs, regret in particular that the latter does not contain any proper mutual accountability mechanism, and because of this, the commitments made by the international donor community have remained unfulfilled. 2. Feasibility of a future framework There seems to be a wide degree of consensus on many of the core principles that should guide the design and elaboration of the future development framework. To start with, respondents all agree with the fact that the future framework should preserve the strengths of the current MDG framework, while addressing and avoid repeating its weaknesses. Many respondents have underscored the importance for any future global development framework to be closely linked and consistent with other relevant international processes. In particular, strong synergies should be sought between the preparation for a post-mdg agenda and the discussions on the so-called 'Sustainable Development Goals' (SDGs) as agreed at the Rio+20 summit in June Respondents all agreed that the design of the framework should be inclusive and participatory. Early involvement of all stakeholders was perceived as essential to ensure real ownership of the process leading to a new post-2015 framework. It was also largely acknowledged that the future framework should be global so as to recognise the obligations and responsibilities of all countries. Many respondents highlighted that all countries, developed and developing alike, are equally responsible for development and for tackling global 6

7 challenges. Many stressed that the future global framework should thus apply equally to all countries and require from them that they take on responsibilities. Several respondents underlined however that the framework should take full account of the relative capabilities of each country, and recognise the different level of responsibility of countries according to their level of development, resources, role and influence on the global stage. In that respect, many NGOs underlined that the future framework should be based on the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities". A shared concern among many respondents from the various categories was to keep all actors, from the local to the supra-national levels, accountable for the achievement of commonly agreed goals. In that regard, it was largely pointed that the future development framework must properly address global governance and build upon adequate systems of responsibility, mutual accountability and transparency which would apply to all countries and all actors. 3. Scope of a future framework In this part of the consultation, respondents were asked to provide their views on what a future framework should look like. While most respondents stressed the need for a comprehensive and holistic approach to sustainable development, many agreed that the primary focus of the post-2015 framework should continue to be poverty reduction. A wide majority of respondents agreed that the framework should be relevant for all countries, regardless of their level of development. The need to take into consideration the context and needs of each region and country was equally stressed by most respondents. Many respondents thus call for a global framework that would address appropriately and adequately development objectives and global challenges faced by low, middle and high-income countries equally. In that sense, many NGOs suggested that the framework should favour an approach targeted at the poorest populations and marginalised groups rather than at the poorest countries. This is particularly emphasised given the fact that demographics of global poverty have shifted, with a majority of the poor now living in middle-income countries. As already mentioned, most respondents consider it essential that the future development framework is as inclusive as possible. The Busan "Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation" is considered by many as a positive milestone which should be used as a basis for future efforts aiming at involving new actors in the discussion and consultations leading to the post-2015 development framework. Several organisations also warned that the inclusion of new actors (and potentially new donors) should not be an excuse for traditional donors to lower their commitments and ambitions. An immense majority of respondents made it clear that Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) is fundamental for the success of development outcomes, and should therefore be placed at the very heart of the post-2015 development agenda. While many respondents stressed that developed and emerging economies must pay closer attention to the wide-ranging impact of their own policies on development outcomes, numerous respondents also stressed that developing countries bear the responsibility to ensure consistency and coherence between their own domestic policies and development objectives. 7

8 As regards development financing, a shared concern is to adopt a comprehensive approach which reflects adequately the changing development landscape and global economic trends. Many respondents agree with the need to be more innovative, more strategic and more effective in the mobilisation and the use of financial resources for development. In particular, effective use of the variety of sources of financing must be ensured. 4. Shape of a future framework This last part of the consultation focused on the potential shape of a future framework. Respondents were notably asked to indicate the elements they considered most important to be included in the framework, as well as the mistakes that should be avoided. As regards the most important elements and features that should be part of the new framework, respondents clearly emphasised that the process leading to the adoption of a post-2015 framework should be inclusive, participatory and bottom-up, allowing for true ownership by developing countries. Wordcloud 1 - Most cited features regarding the elaboration and structure of the future framework In their comments on the desired content of a future development framework, reference was largely made to a number of overarching principles that should guide the formulation and implementation of the goals, notably the values and principles already emphasised in the Millennium Declaration (such as Human rights, Equality, Equity, Sustainability). As regards the design of the framework, a majority of respondents stressed that the process leading to the design of a post-2015 development framework should not be detached from other on-going related processes. 8

9 Wordcloud 2 - Most cited mistakes to avoid in the process of formulating the post-2015 agenda As regards the content of the goals themselves, many respondents warned against the temptation for a "Christmas Tree" of dispersed goals and topics. Many respondents also stressed that the framework should not be based on, nor perpetuate the traditional donor-recipient logic. In addition, the future framework should clearly avoid treating issues and sectors in a siloed approach and go beyond addressing the sole symptoms and consequences of poverty, but rather tackle its root causes in a comprehensive and holistic manner. Wordcloud 3 - Most cited errors to avoid in the definition of goals 9

10 INTRODUCTION In June 2012, the European Commission launched an online public consultation entitled "Towards a post-2015 development framework" 1. The purpose of the consultation was to collect views from a wide range of stakeholders on what framework, if any, should guide international development efforts after the agreed target year for reaching the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In 2013, a UN Special Event will follow up on efforts made towards achieving the MDGs and will likely raise the issue of what might follow after the target year of Following the decisions taken at the MDG review meeting in 2010, the UN Secretary General has launched a broad consultation process with all stakeholders and established a UN Task Team to prepare the post-2015 UN development agenda 2. Numerous international forward-looking initiatives have thus been launched recently on the so-called post-2015 development agenda : international organisations, national governments, NGOs, think tanks, etc., are actively debating on this topic. It is expected that the results of the EU public consultation will feed into the debate on the strengths and weaknesses of the current MDG framework and on the various options post The EU public consultation constitutes one among several undertakings that the EU has initiated in view of forging a common EU position and preparing a substantial contribution to the UN Review Meeting in In that connection, the European Commission (EuropeAid) is working along three strands: (i) Preparation of a Communication planned for publication in early 2013, which will propose an EU approach to the UN Review Meeting; (ii) Internal study to assess the EU s contribution to the MDGs; (iii) The 4 th edition of the European Report on Development on the post-2015 debate. In order to provide guidance, an issues paper posed a series of questions on the overall assessment of the MDG framework and on how a post-2015 development agenda could be conceived and shaped. It was composed of eighteen questions on four aspects of the debate on the post-2015 development agenda, structured as follows: A) The MDGs: benefits and limitations B) Feasibility of a future framework C) The potential scope of a future framework D) The potential shape of a future framework The public consultation was open for twelve weeks, from 15 June to 15 September All interested stakeholders from within and outside the EU were invited to participate. A total of 119 contributions were received from all parts of the world and from a wide range of stakeholders, spanning from individuals, civil society organisations, local authorities and research institutes to private businesses, foundations, trade unions and professional organisations as well as international organisations. European NGOs constitute the majority of respondents, representing 67% of total received contributions. Several Member States also sent written contributions that are reflected in this report. 1 Online public consultation available at: development-framework_en.htm 2 UN Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda, "Realizing the future we want for all - Report to the Secretary General", May

11 KEY MESSAGES FROM EU MEMBER STATES The following section highlights the main comments and recommendations commonly shared by the EU Member States that contributed to the consultation. Most Member States indicated that the MDGs had served as the main international guideline for their development policies, helping shape their own strategies or setting their sectoral priorities. In their comments, Member States have generally emphasised identical points as other stakeholders concerning the benefits and limitations of the current MDG framework 3. It is worth noting that most Member States agree that a future framework should build upon the strengths and achievements of the MDGs, while fully addressing the shortcomings and gaps of the current framework. Most Member States agree on the need to have a global framework, emphasising that global challenges and crises require global solutions. A global framework is seen as essential to forge international consensus around common priorities and to facilitate commitment from all countries to work together. One of the main advantages is the mobilising effect to renew the momentum on development and poverty eradication. Several Member States have suggested that this would give a positive signal that the international community is committed to working together as one to address and solve some of the key global challenges that all countries, developed and developing, are facing. On the other hand, Member States also identified several potential disadvantages of a global framework. In particular, the difficulty of reaching consensus in the UN context, and the risk of agreeing on a set of goals that are too vague and at the lowest common denominator. Nevertheless, all Member States clearly emphasised the need to involve and include all relevant actors in the design and implementation of such a global framework, notably new actors such as emerging donors and the private sector. To this end, most Member States referred to, and suggested to build upon, the achievements of the Busan "Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation". All Member States agreed on the need for a more inclusive and participatory approach whereby the diverse views, perspectives and realities of developing countries would be fully taken into account. Most Member States stressed that the issues of ownership and responsibility are of crucial importance, and several of them suggested that the mutual accountability dimension is one of the main reason to renew the process and agree on a new set of goals. In that regard, many Member States indicated that strong monitoring and accountability mechanisms were absolutely crucial to the new framework. It was largely agreed that accountability needs to be organised at all levels, from the local to the national, and that they should be applicable to all actors. In that connection, most Member States highlighted the importance of having measurable targets and indicators to assess progress. Most Member States considered that the primary purpose of the framework should be to set clear common goals based on the MDGs (with the "gaps" filled) and the conclusions of recent international conferences (Busan, Rio+20). It was largely agreed that the framework should be relevant for all countries, and the goals universally applicable. At the same time, Member States have also stressed that countries in situation of fragility or conflict as well as Least Developed Countries need special attention. Several Member States suggested the possibility of having common goals with differentiated targets taking into consideration the specific needs and resources of countries. 3 For the sake of conciseness and to avoid repetitions, these issues will be addressed and developed in Chapter One of this report. 11

12 For all Member States, poverty eradication should remain central to the post-2015 framework. While several Member States indicated that the future agenda needs to be broader than the MDGs (notably by tackling the root causes of poverty, putting more emphasis on economic and environmental aspects, etc.), most Member States agree however that the future framework needs to focus on a limited set of key priorities. In that sense, several Member States have pointed to the possible trade-off between prioritisation and comprehensiveness. Most Member States agree that the new development framework should incorporate all relevant sources of financing (domestic as well as international, public and private) and ways to make present funding systems more efficient. All Member States stressed the importance of strengthening domestic resource mobilisation and several also referred to the potential of innovative financing mechanisms. Emphasis was notably put on the need for transparent and predictable financing. All Member States underlined the importance of linking the post-2015 process with the parallel ongoing discussion on the Sustainable Development Goals following the Rio+20 Summit. 12

13 I. THE MDGS: BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS This part of the consultation focused on the strengths and weaknesses of the current MDG framework. Stakeholders were invited to answer questions and/or to provide comments on five questions. Two of the questions related to the extent to which the MDG framework had influenced policies, and been beneficial for the poor. Stakeholders were also asked to specify the main features and elements which, in their view, had been particularly valuable in the fight against poverty, as well as those which had been more problematic. One question focused on the identification of the main gaps in the MDG framework. Interestingly, there seems to be a near consensus among various categories of respondents on the main benefits and limitations of the MDGs. Most of the issues developed in this section have been raised by every one of the groups of stakeholders, regardless of their belonging to one or another category. There are no clear-cut divergences between responses whether looking at the category or the geographic origin of responses. A) Benefits Respondents generally acknowledged that the MDGs had a strong galvanising effect and contributed to a considerable (re)mobilisation of international actors, efforts and resources for poverty reduction. Moreover, a large majority of respondents recognised that one of the main strengths of the MDGs were their simple, concrete and time-bound nature, which has encouraged more focused and more results-oriented actions. Mobilising effect for poverty reduction All respondents agreed that one of the primary benefits of the MDG framework is the strong mobilising effect it has had among international development actors. For the first time in a very long while, numerous and varied actors (governments from developed and developing countries, international organisations, NGOs, etc.) gathered behind the same objectives. The global nature of the framework has indeed enabled the forging of a wide consensus around a set of shared objectives which are, twelve years after their adoption, more relevant than ever. As one NGO expressed, "the MDG framework provided, if not a shared policy framework, at least a common language or architecture in which international and national development policies are framed". A wide majority of respondents, all categories combined, confirmed that the MDGs have been very valuable to set priorities for global action and have served as a reference for joint efforts in development policies. As such, they provided guidance and legitimisation for development policy and practice all around the world. For a majority of respondents, another key aspect of the MDGs is that they made the fight against poverty a priority of international development. For several respondents, this was seen as a welcome shift from the focus on macroeconomic development and structural adjustment that had governed development cooperation in the previous decade. In doing so, the MDG framework has also helped to have a better understanding of the multiple dimensions and drivers of poverty. A majority of respondents, all categories combined, agree that the MDG framework has increased the visibility of the many human development aspects that are closely linked to poverty. In particular, MDGs have emphasised the importance of access to basic social 13

14 services (such as health, education and water) and shed light on other issues that had been previously overlooked (such as gender issues, access to reproductive health, etc.). Several NGOs mentioned for instance that the inclusion of gender equality as a standalone goal had played an important role in emphasising the importance of tackling gender structural inequality and women's rights violations as part of any poverty reduction strategy. The limited number of goals, their simplicity and straightforwardness, has made them easy-tounderstand for a larger audience and has undeniably contributed to their "popularity" worldwide. Many respondents, especially NGOs, underlined that the MDGs served as powerful advocacy tools to reaffirm the importance and strengthen the political and public support for development cooperation policies. They were in particular very useful for communication purposes and for awareness-raising on specific social and human development issues, both in the North and the South. As such, the MDGs have contributed to mobilising and galvanising public support for development and calling for action from public authorities. Influenced policies All respondents agree that the MDGs have played an instrumental role in shaping the global development agenda in recent years, including by mobilising strong political and financial momentum for poverty reduction. Most respondents emphasised that the MDGs had triggered an extensive mobilisation of the international community and influenced and revived donor actions in favour of development and poverty reduction. An important achievement of the MDGs in the view of many respondents is that they significantly reinforced political will around development issues and helped mobilise financing resources for development at a time when international aid levels were declining. A very large majority of respondents recognised that the MDGs have had a strong influence on development policies, programmes and strategies of development actors worldwide and at various levels. Several respondents pointed that the MDGs had been translated into international, regional and national plans. For instance, it was recalled that the MDGs had informed a whole range of other processes, dialogues and conferences, and served as a key reference for many sectoral international agreements and frameworks. They had notably contributed to structuring the work of specialised UN agencies and creating vertical funds. Moreover, respondents representing local and regional authorities stressed that the MDG framework represented a key reference for most of decentralised cooperation. Several respondents indicated that their own development policies, strategies, programmes or projects were influenced one way or another and at varying degrees by the MDGs. For instance, a number of international NGOs indicated that they had fully integrated the MDGs in their own internal policies and programmes. Donor policies were also influenced by the MDGs, as notably shown by the significant increase of aid volumes. One respondent (think tank) mentioned that "the MDGs have contributed to overcoming aid fatigue in donor countries". As a result, the levels of international aid rose again, and so did the share of aid to LDCs as well as the share of aid spent in the social sectors 4. In addition, several respondents from all categories stressed that the MDG framework had also played an important role in establishing and strengthening partnerships between donors and partner 4 According to a UN report, spending on basic social services increased from USD 6.1 bn in 2000 to USD 17.4 bn in 2009 and USD 13.8 bn in See UNDESA, The United Nations Development Strategy Beyond 2015, United Nations, June

15 countries, as well as encouraging joint donor actions and contributing to a certain measure of complementarity between donor actions. In that sense, many respondents have acknowledged the important part that the MDGs have played in improving in aid harmonisation and coordination. Results-oriented approach to development Several respondents have emphasised the strong positive influence that the MDGs have had on the shift towards more results oriented development cooperation. By focusing on concrete goals and targets, the MDG framework is said to have enabled a process with clear benchmarks to take shape, and to have encouraged a focus on objectives rather than policy prescriptions. In addition, many respondents highlighted that the MDGs have encouraged donors and development practitioners to focus their efforts on a number of core and essential sectors. A majority of respondents agree that the use of clear benchmarks with measurable targets has indeed contributed to stronger priority setting and more focused attention. This idea was well summarised as follows: "one of the most important achievements of the MDG framework is the introduction of a limited number of focused goals that have been translated into national agendas/planning priorities". According to many respondents, the focus on results has indeed led in some developing countries, to more systematic, planned approaches to the fight against poverty. For some, this tailoring of the MDG targets and indicators to reflect country specific priorities, conditions and challenges should be considered as the first step towards national ownership. For several respondents, the results-orientation of the MDG framework has also had a positive effect in terms of accountability of donors, national governments and international partners. It was notably mentioned by one respondent that "regular assessment of MDG indicators has ensured that the focus remains on the poorest and most vulnerable countries". In that connection, one respondent (think tank) also pointed that a positive consequence of the results-orientation of the MDGs was the multiplication and growing importance of impact evaluations conducted by donor governments and agencies in recent years. Improved data collection One of the most widely recognised benefits of the MDGs is the use of clear and operational indicators and benchmarks to assess progress. This has, in the view of many respondents, largely contributed to the success of the MDGs. The fact that most of the MDG indicators were clear, concise and measurable has triggered greater use of statistics and monitoring reports, and improved comparability of data. In particular, several NGOs stressed that the indicators proved to be very useful instruments for monitoring progress and for putting pressure on donors and governments for the lack thereof. The focus on indicators has also encouraged significant investment in improving the way development policies and outcomes are measured, monitored and evaluated and led to the improvement of quality data collection. The strengthening of national statistical systems was especially highlighted by several respondents as one of the key accomplishment of the MDGs. In addition, the focus on 8 goals, 21 targets and 60 indicators has made it possible to collect large amounts of data and to gain a more comprehensive picture of the poverty prevalence in many regions and countries. One respondent (international organisation) welcomed in particular that "improvements 15

16 in the availability of household-level data in many countries, particularly in social sectors, allowed historically unprecedented level of information on and understanding of the situation and trends in key indicators among poor families and deprived groups". Progress in poverty reduction Last but not least, all respondents recognised that the MDGs have been at the root of considerable progress in the fight against poverty. It was notably recalled that MDG1's target on poverty is hailed as one of the few that have been already met at a global level. A vast majority of respondents also agreed that the MDGs have led to important progress and the achievement of remarkable results in most countries, especially in the education and health sectors. Many respondents pointed that the MDGs have contributed to put in the international agenda some of the key health problems, recalling that 3 MDGs out of 8 were specifically targeted at health issues. Many respondents thus pointed to the important progress made in the health sector. For instance, it was reported that the number of children dying before the age of five has fallen significantly over the past 20 years, and that access to HIV/AIDS treatment has increased in all regions. Respondents also pointed to the major progress made in access to primary education as well as access to clean water. B) Limitations Respondents were also invited to identify and discuss what they considered to be the main shortcomings and weaknesses of the current MDG framework. A variety of limitations were highlighted by respondents, here again, without any major commonalities or differences among categories of stakeholders. It is however interesting to note that, in some cases, a same feature of the MDG framework could be considered alternatively as both strength and weakness. This doesn't necessarily point to contradictions, but rather to two sides of a same coin. While recognising the major advances achieved thanks to the MDGs in terms of poverty reduction at the global level, several respondents nevertheless questioned the extent to which those results can be attributed to the MDG framework itself. Indeed, many respondents stressed that national poverty outcomes are not easily attributed to specific factors and that progress in poverty reduction rather stems from a combination of factors. Some respondents argued for instance that growth strategies, even if they may have contributed to exacerbate inequality, proved more effective than the MDGs in reducing poverty in many developing countries. As one respondent (NGO) expressed, "we do not know which of these changes are attributable to the MDGs because we cannot check how the world would have developed without them". Most of the limitations are associated to the narrow focus and scope of the MDG framework which led to in-silo approaches, the exclusion of several sectors and policy fields, and very few interconnections made between the goals. In addition, respondents stressed that the definition of the MDGs themselves has been donor-driven and top-down, which has led to a lack of ownership, no context-specificity of the goals, and the absence of proper accountability mechanisms. The MDGs didn't tackle root causes of poverty Although the MDGs have undoubtedly contributed to achieving significant results in the fight against poverty, a recurrent criticism is that the MDG framework didn't actually tackle the root causes of poverty. Respondents from all categories have indeed highlighted that the MDGs tend to focus more 16

17 on the symptoms of poverty - and only on certain aspects of these, such as income-based poverty and lack of access to basic social services - rather than on the fundamental root causes of poverty. By focusing essentially on social objectives and basic needs (such as health, education, water etc.), the MDG framework didn't give enough consideration to the underlying reasons for, and main drivers of poverty. For many respondents, the MDGs are disappointingly silent on many systemic issues and institutional problems which are nonetheless considered crucial for reducing poverty in a sustainable way. Among the most cited overlooked systemic and structural issues, the following have been particularly emphasised by respondents: human rights and non-discrimination, inequality, vulnerability and resilience, peace and security, governance and anti-corruption, economic growth and job creation, accountability, empowerment and participation, social norms and power relations. According to several respondents, the omission of such key issues from the MDG framework has contributed to oversimplifying the development agenda by giving a false impression that poverty could be solved principally by increases in aid in the social sectors. It weakened the importance of shifting policies and promoting structural reforms needed to achieve the goals. As one respondent (think tank) expressed, "the MDGs are an arbitrary selection of poverty dimensions: MDG1a measures lack of economic capabilities, while MDGs 2-7 indicate lacks in human capabilities. But none of the goals refers to deficits in protective capabilities (social protection, human security), political capabilities (freedom, voice, access to justice, transparency) or socio-cultural capabilities (social inclusion, acceptance, non-discrimination)". Not only were several crucial issues for poverty reduction overlooked, but the complex, comprehensive and interconnected nature of development was not properly addressed neither. In turn, the lack of adequate promotion of inter-linkages and integrated approaches has lead to an excessive emphasis on certain "privileged" sectors without enough consideration given to crosscutting issues. The MDG framework focused narrowly on certain sectors with few linkages between MDGs The MDG framework has also been criticised for having treated goals and issues as separate entities. Rather than building on the links and synergies between them, the goals have been treated one by one. For many respondents, this "in silo" and extremely sectoral approach has not allowed to address properly the challenges of multidimensional poverty. In particular, the excessive emphasis on standalone sectors has not encouraged linkages between sectors nor the recognition that certain sectors and issues are cross-cutting. For instance, many respondents stressed that gender equality must be considered as both, a stand-alone goal and a cross-cutting issue necessary for the realisation of all the other Goals. Moreover, several respondents indicated that this narrow approach encouraged a tendency for donors to choose individual areas for support, without enough consideration given to interconnections or cross-cutting issues. In particular, several NGOs underlined that the focus on certain sectors, and within them on limited number of issues, has excluded support for other issues which fell outside them. For example, several NGOs stressed that the fight against Non Communicable Diseases has not received the necessary level of attention or support, because these diseases were not part of the MDG framework per se. A similar criticism was made as regards the concentration on universal access to primary schooling, which has led to less attention being paid to quality of education and to other areas such as secondary education or adult learning. 17

18 Several respondents have pointed that the emphasis on a limited number of sectors and targets alone has also prevented the prioritisation of more systemic issues. For instance, several respondents have highlighted that the focus on single-disease control initiatives has not led to significant investment in, or strengthening of, health systems. Similarly, the focus on enrolment in primary education has not allowed addressing education in an all-inclusive perspective. Several respondents also emphasised that sexual and reproductive health and rights had been treated solely as health issue while it is also about behavioural change and social and cultural barriers. The MDGs also fundamentally failed to address the environmental challenges which threaten and undermine human development. Moreover, the narrow focus has also overlooked the role of actors and needs of specific vulnerable population groups. Several respondents have stressed for instance that the MDG framework doesn't explicitly mention persons with disabilities at any stage or level, nor does it sufficiently consider the young and elderly as both key actors and target groups. Weak or missing dimensions of the MDG framework A wide majority of respondents pointed the lack of comprehensiveness in the thematic coverage of the MDG framework as one of the major limitations of the MDG framework. As a matter of fact, every single contribution pointed to one or more important issues that were allegedly either missing from, or not sufficiently dealt within, the MDG framework. To begin with, many respondents from various categories stressed that the MDGs only reflected part of the "Millennium Declaration" from which they were drawn. In their view, the decision to focus only on a limited number of development goals caused certain development dimensions and fundamental objectives in the Millennium Declaration to be undervalued or simply left out. This is notably the case for peace and security, human rights, democracy and good governance, and the protection of the most vulnerable. Many respondents also highlighted that the MDG framework doesn't take sufficient account of the new realities and dynamics of today's development landscape, characterised by a diversity of challenges, stakeholders and funding sources. In particular, the MDG framework is considered as being too focused on traditional donor-recipient approach, without sufficiently taking into account the increasing role of emerging donors and private sector (e.g. companies, foundations), the wide range of funding beyond ODA (local resources, loans, blending, innovative financing) and the importance of policy coherence for development. Lack of human rights-based approach This shortcoming was particularly emphasised as regards human rights and fundamental freedoms which, although at the heart of the Millennium Declaration, are totally absent from the MDG framework. A majority of respondents consider the lack of a human rights-based approach as one of the major flaws of the MDG framework. For many, this has in turn led to a number of other limitations: "such a lack of an approach centred on human dignity and the progressive and full realisation of all human rights led to the framework s failure to address the structural causes of poverty". For example, in the health sector, while focus on maternal and child health has increased, goals are still targeted at reducing maternal and child mortality - not at realising the right to health for all mothers and children. Lack of a comprehensive approach to sustainable development Moreover, almost all contributions have also pointed to the fact that the MDG framework did not fully nor adequately address the sustainable development in its three dimensions (i.e. economic, social and 18

19 environmental). Many respondents underscored for instance that the MDG framework doesn't give sufficient consideration to the importance and interrelation of broad-based economic growth, social inclusion and equality, nor does it effectively address environmental sustainability. It was recalled by several respondents that employment and decent work were only included in the framework at a later stage, and that environmental sustainability, although present in MDG 7, was hardly visible in the framework and ended up being regularly referred to as the water and sanitation goal. As a matter of fact, environmental sustainability, ecosystems and biodiversity are still not adequately incorporated in the MDG framework. Missing sectors and policy fields In addition, other important policy fields (such as agriculture and rural development, infrastructure and energy) and many global challenges and global public goods (such as climate, energy and environment, peace and security, global health, disaster prevention and management, financial systems) were also seen as missing from the MDG framework. Because of these omissions, some respondents indicated that the MDG framework had unfortunately been of limited relevance and/or applicability in their particular activities. Several respondents belonging to the private sector have for instance argued that the MDGs are so focused on social goals that they neglected other important development objectives, such as creation of local enterprises, job creation, increased competitiveness, income generation by locals, all of which are central to economic development. A couple of organisations working in and with conflict-affected and fragile states have also indicated that the MDG framework has been of limited value to address the specific problems of these countries, mainly because of the absence of agreed goals for security, rule of law and governance which are areas critical to ensuring a transition out of conflict and fragility. The MDGs were not sufficiently context-specific Many respondents criticised the fact that the MDGs adopted a "one-size-fits-all" approach for all developing countries together, without paying sufficient attention to initial conditions or to national and local circumstances and differences. In particular, national and sub-national contexts and specificities were not sufficiently taken into account, nor were different needs and capacities of developing countries. Several respondents recall that many countries have indeed adopted the global targets without adequate tailoring and adaptation to their national contexts. The lack of such adaptation has reportedly translated, in many cases, into decreased relevance of the Goals within national policies. This limitation was only reinforced by the fact that progress towards the MDGs was essentially measured and monitored at global level, thereby masking disparities between regions and countries. A large number of respondents underlined that most of the progress has actually occurred in major emerging economies, and especially in China. It was mentioned that if one looked at poverty reduction having removed China from the equation, global poverty did not fall much, with Sub-Saharan Africa remaining the lagging region. For several respondents, the framework was designed to assess international progress rather than progress of individual countries or regions. According to a respondent (NGO),"applying global targets to individual countries gives the appearance that some countries are failing despite improving significantly compared to their own historical trends. Conversely, in countries that have already 19

20 achieved certain targets relating to health and education, falling standards in the quality of and access to these services has been masked by universal targets and narrowly defined indicators". The MDGs were measured by narrow indicators Another major criticism made towards the MDG framework stems from the narrow indicators used to measure progress towards the Goals and targets. For many respondents, the MDG indicators focused too much on quantifiable, macroeconomic and output-based variables, without paying attention to other more qualitative, outcome-based indicators, notably in terms of equality, opportunities and human rights realisation. As a result, the MDG indicators have failed to measure poverty in its multidimensional understanding. For example, respondents have stressed that many indicators focus on intermediary outputs (e.g. enrolment in education) rather than on outcomes (e.g. ability of students to use that education to find decent work). Allegedly, this has not only contributed to promoting standardised responses and threshold effects, but it also failed to address how people themselves feel about change in their own lives and opportunities. Moreover, a large number of respondents from all categories underlined that the exclusive use of aggregate indicators has masked poverty by overlooking economic inequalities within countries, regions, and different sectors. In particular, the focus on national averages and the absence of data disaggregated by population group, ethnicity and wealth has led to the unintentional "masking" of significant disparities within countries. As one respondent (NGO) expressed, "indicators remained silent on trends for specific population groups meaning that a country might be on track to meet a particular goal at national level but huge disparities may still exist within that country which are totally masked". Several NGO respondents claimed that the exclusive focus on national averages has encouraged socalled low-hanging fruit approaches whereby progress was primarily sought for those population groups who were the easiest to reach. This is said to have created "perverse incentives" in order to reach "quick wins". It was indeed implied that some donors and national governments in developing countries might have been tempted to concentrate their actions on reaching those populations closest to the poverty line whose needs were easiest to palliate, paying less attention to those who are poorest and most marginalised, and hence more difficult to lift out of poverty. The MDG framework lacked proper accountability mechanisms A recurrent shortcoming of the MDG framework concerns the weakness of the monitoring and followup mechanisms and instruments. Most respondents underlined the importance of mutual accountability and responsibility for achieving the MDGs, and that the absence of a rigorous monitoring has led to a weakening of accountability on behalf of all actors involved. As one respondent questioned, "who can be held to account if the MDGs are not met in 2015?" Many respondents stressed that most of the Goals were destined to developing countries. It was notably pointed by one NGO that "whenever accountability has been discussed, it mainly referred to accountability of recipients of aid and their need to meet certain standards for implementation and results". Many respondents, mostly from NGOs, regret in particular that the MDG framework does not contain any proper mutual accountability mechanism, and because of this, the commitments made by the international donor community have remained unfulfilled. Several respondents argued that MDG 8 20

21 (Strengthening of the Global Partnership) is actually the only MDG directly addressed to developed countries. However, the latter contains neither quantifiable commitment nor mechanism for measurement. The formulation of MDGs was not inclusive and participatory Last but not least, a recurrent criticism made towards the MDG framework actually concerns the topdown and non-inclusive process that has guided the formulation and adoption of the MDGs. As a matter of fact, this is often considered as one of the first pitfalls of the MDG framework, which in turn could partly explain all the other limitations, and especially the lack of ownership of the MDGs by many developing countries. As a result, the extent to which the MDGs have influenced the policies and strategies in developing countries is not clear and seems to be much debated. While several respondents reported a growing commitment on the part of developing countries regarding the MDGs and the willingness of certain developing countries to discuss and integrate issues of the MDG framework in their national policy frameworks, many others pointed however to the lack of ownership of the MDGs by many developing countries. As one NGO expressed, "MDGs have sometimes been added into development plans for rhetorical rather than strategic purposes". A vast majority of respondents have indeed pointed to the serious lack of participation, input and ownership of developing countries throughout the process. The latter has indeed been criticised for being led by donor countries and international agencies, through a very opaque, top-down process. For several respondents, this should be considered in fact as the origin of the inherent weakness of the whole MDG framework. Because the formulation process was essentially donor-driven, the framework itself has perpetrated the traditional charity-based donor-recipient approach, limiting the role of developed countries to that of "funders" and leaving developing countries in a situation of aid dependency. It was largely stressed that other vital stakeholders were not involved either in the development of the MDGs. In particular, there was little or no input from poor and marginalised people and vulnerable groups. This has led to a clear lack of ownership by the people and groups affected by poverty. Several NGOs even suggested that the MDGs didn't actually address key issues that the poor populations themselves would identify as the most important (such as equity, non-discrimination, etc.). Building on the achievements of the current MDG framework, and drawing the lessons from their limitations, the second part of the consultation focused on the feasibility of a future framework. 21

22 II. FEASIBILITY OF A FUTURE FRAMEWORK This part of the public consultation concerning the feasibility of the future framework appears to have gathered the highest degree of consent. Most of the issues raised and suggestions made are again largely cross-cutting among the different categories of stakeholders. This suggests that there is a wide consensus on many of the core principles that should guide the design and elaboration of the future development framework. To start with, respondents all agree with the fact that the future framework should preserve the strengths of the current MDG framework, while addressing and avoid repeating its weaknesses 5. Many respondents also agree that the future framework should continue to be guided by the values and principles of the Millennium Declaration which remain fully relevant today. Several respondents underlined that ensuring the continuity with those principles, which have already been broadly agreed upon at the highest level, was essential to guarantee the legitimacy of any future development framework. All respondents also indicated that the legitimacy of the future development framework would depend to a large extent on the design process that would eventually lead to the formulation and adoption of a new set of Goals. A) The formulation process must be inclusive and participatory Respondents commonly emphasised that the process should be inclusive and participatory. All countries (developed, developing and emerging) and all actors (traditional and new donors, developing country governments, the private sector, NGOs, social partners, etc.) should be brought together in the discussions on the future development framework. Many respondents welcomed the initiatives of the UN Secretary-General to establish a Post 2015 High-Level Panel and to set a series of regional consultations and thematic meetings where all stakeholders could participate. Several also pointed to the need to set in motion a bottom-up approach, based on developing countries' and poor people's voices. Respondents all agreed that early involvement of all stakeholders will ensure real ownership of the process leading to a new post-2015 framework. To this end, particular efforts will be needed in order to reach out to the citizens across all countries, and especially to encourage the active participation of the poor and marginalised communities in developing countries. Several respondents argued that the establishment of a new development agenda should be accompanied by communication and public awareness campaigns aimed at explaining the rationale and objectives of the process. In particular, as one respondent expressed: "it should explain why some goals have not been achieved and what is different this time that will make success more likely to be achieved". Another respondent suggested that the consultation process should adopt a "popular education approach so as to encourage an informed and critical engagement of individuals". It was largely claimed that such a participatory process at global level would be an innovation which would also have a positive impact on the subsequent implementation of the framework. In particular, many respondents underscored that genuine and profound inclusiveness would certainly contribute to improving ownership and accountability across all countries. 5 See chapter 1 for more on Benefits and Limitations of the MDGs 22

23 While it is widely acknowledged that bringing more actors and voices into the design process will most certainly make it more complicated to foster consensus at global level, most respondents insisted on the need to work towards a global framework, agreed between all countries to ensure that it is widely accepted and reflects current realities. B) The framework should be global Many respondents highlighted that all countries, developed and developing alike, are equally responsible for development and for tackling global challenges. It was often stated that in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world, political, economic, social and environmental challenges are linked and need to be addressed at the global level. In particular, global issues such as poverty reduction, sustainable development and climate change can t be addressed at national level alone and thus require global solutions. For many respondents, such solutions are most appropriately defined, agreed and implemented in a global framework. To be relevant, such a framework should naturally fully acknowledge, integrate and be adapted to the new international reality, notably the variety and growing role of new actors, the diversity of sources of financing, the need for mutual accountability. A respondent (think tank) suggested that the framework should set out a number of global development goals that recognise the economic and political shifts that have taken place over the last decade, and seek to establish a new commitment from all countries to promote a more sustainable and inclusive future. Through their responses, many respondents seemed to suggest that the potential advantages of having a global framework outweighed the risks and disadvantages of not having one, notably in terms of global mobilisation and shared objectives. Among the most commonly cited advantages, respondents particularly emphasised that a global framework would be essential to foster international consensus and to set a common vision and common standards. Several respondents pointed to the need to reaffirm the value and importance of multilateral processes (as opposed to regional and bilateral solutions) and argued that a global development framework would also contribute to putting back development and poverty reduction in a global and comprehensive perspective. A global framework is also considered as the best way to commit all countries to working together towards commonly agreed goals. Many respondents argued that a well-designed and inclusive global framework would lead to global and shared responsibility and increase mutual accountability. Despite having undeniable advantages, many respondents also pointed the associated risks and potential disadvantages of a global framework. While having a global, inclusive and comprehensive framework is seen as essential by many respondents, several have nonetheless drawn attention to the fact that this might lead to a certain lowering of ambitions. According to some, there is indeed a risk of an agreement on the lowest common denominator, partly because of the numerous compromises and trade-offs that might have to be made between all stakeholders in order to forge a consensus. As one NGO expressed, "in trying to be too ambitious, negotiations for a global framework could flounder as a result of one or several countries positions on certain issues". This seems particularly true for issues that are more politically sensitive or that can be interpreted differently (such as good governance). 23

24 A major challenge, in the eyes of many respondents, concerns the enforcement of responsibilities. As mentioned previously, several respondents believe that a balance will have to be made between having a framework that includes as many actors as possible, and a framework that can be enforced. While a more complex and ambitious scope that fully reflects concerns about sustainability is desirable, many respondents also point to the need to find a balance between being comprehensive and global on one hand, and ensuring simplicity and measurability on the other. In other words, there seems to be a general recognition among respondents that a trade-off might have to be sought between feasibility and comprehensiveness. Finally, stressing the importance of local ownership, several respondents pointed to the inherent risk that a global framework could entail in terms of lack of flexibility and adaptability to national contexts. In that regard, a number of respondents underlined that a trade-off might also have to be sought between universal goals and targets, and the need for region or country specific targets with consideration of the specific needs of certain population groups. C) The framework should be based on shared responsibilities of all countries A shared concern among many respondents from the various categories was to keep actors on all levels accountable for the achievement of commonly agreed goals, and thereby enable coordinated action of global challenges. In that regard, several contributions insisted on the fact that the future framework should reflect consensus across the international community on certain issues and principles (e.g. universality of human rights, focus on inequalities, Global Public Goods, policy coherence ). Many respondents therefore stressed the importance that developed and developing countries, as well as emerging economies, all commit to the achievement of any new set of goals agreed at global level. In that sense, the principle of shared responsibility should be at the heart of the future development framework. Many stressed that the future global framework should apply equally to all countries and require from them that they take on responsibilities, irrespective of their level of development. Many respondents underlined however that the framework should take full account of the relative capabilities of each country, and recognise the different level of responsibility of countries according to their level of development, resources, role and influence on the global stage. Several respondents argued that this differentiation must take into consideration that various categories of countries (low income countries, fragile states, emerging economies) have to deal with specific challenges and responsibilities. In that respect, several NGOs underlined that the future framework should be based on the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities". As suggested by one NGO, "Southern governments should be held to account for their promises and invest their fair share based on ability and prior commitments, as a matter of shared responsibility". D) The framework should be established within strong accountability mechanisms For most respondents, a global framework built upon the idea of shared responsibility also implies the incorporation of adequate systems of global responsibility, accountability and transparency. For several respondents of all categories, such mechanisms should apply to all countries, and for all actors, including the private sector and NGOs. Many NGOs stressed that a global framework should set concrete, binding and universal objectives that are time bound and equipped with efficient accountability mechanisms. 24

25 One respondent (local authority) suggested that the setting-up of such mutual accountability mechanisms probably constituted the most important reason to renew the process and agree on a new set of goals by Many respondents also argued that accountability mechanisms are needed at all levels, from the global to the local. A majority of respondents indicated that such mechanisms should be placed under the auspices of the UN system. While most respondents indicated that it would be preferable to avoid creating new structures and rather build upon and improve the existing ones, some suggestions were made by a few respondents. For instance, one NGO suggested the establishment of a "Sustainable Development Council" within the UN system (similar to the model of the Human Rights Council) with a universal periodic review mechanism. While global mechanisms are important, many respondents stressed however that accountability at the national level was probably more instrumental to the achievement of future development goals. An important number of respondents considered that real progress is achieved at regional and national level, and therefore country-level implementation and monitoring of future goals and targets should be strengthened at that level. In that connection, a number of respondents insisted on the need to reinforce the capacities of organisations in developing countries for sound locally led monitoring of progress towards goals and targets. Several respondents from various categories stressed that accountability should not only be upward but also downward, to the people. In that respect, several NGOs suggested that special attention should be paid to communication structures for informing citizens and to democratic accountability structures for holding citizen representatives to account. Accountability mechanisms should be accompanied by the establishment of transparent monitoring systems. Some respondents stressed the need to keep some of the existing indicators so as to ensure some degree of continuity and comparability between the old and the new framework. At the same time, many respondents suggested that any new monitoring system should move beyond only macro indicators, and be oriented towards measuring outcomes as opposed to only inputs and outputs. Importantly, several respondents emphasised the need for new indicators, notably qualitative and perception-oriented indicators in order to get feedback from people on their perception of progress. E) Need to ensure consistency and coherence with other related international processes Many respondents have underscored the importance for any future global development framework to be closely linked and consistent with other relevant international processes. Importantly, a majority of respondents also underlined the crucial importance of ensuring consistency and strong cross-linkages between various processes that are currently on-going in parallel. In particular, strong synergies should be sought between the preparation for a post-mdg agenda and the discussions on the so-called 'Sustainable Development Goals' (SDGs) as agreed at the Rio+20 summit in June Many NGOs emphasised that both processes cover similar issues (i.e. sustainable development in all its dimensions) and should also incorporate the same overarching principles (e.g. human rights, universality, human well-being). Most respondents therefore suggested that both processes should be conducted in conjunction and build on each other, in order to avoid ending up with two parallel tracks (the post-mdgs and the SDGs ) with different goals, targets and indicators, which would only weaken both. 25

26 While the responses to the consultation seldom address the question of whether or not both processes should be merged or kept as separate, there seems to be a very strong agreement that environmental and development objectives should be brought under the same umbrella. A number of respondents even suggested that both processes should ultimately lead to a single set of goals. As one NGO expressed, "the human and social development framework in follow-up to the MDGs and the recent sustainable development agenda, as agreed at the Rio+20 Summit in June 2012 should converge into one comprehensive development framework". A majority of respondents also insisted on the need to build on - and further advance - the major innovations and accomplishments already recorded at the Busan High-Level Forum. For most respondents, the key achievements range from the inclusion of a variety of development actors, including emerging donors and private sector; to the overcoming of the traditional donor developing country relation. The "Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation" agreed in Busan is seen by many respondents, from all categories, as a solid basis for taking further the work on a future development framework. In particular, building on the achievements of Busan, several respondents highlighted that the private sector and emerging donors are both important stakeholders that should be engaged from the outset of formulating a future framework. One respondent from the private sector indicated that "the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan proved that it is possible to engage both, which is reflected by the broad support for the final outcome document". A few NGOs however feared that although they have contributed to it, emerging donors might not see themselves bound by the agreement reached in Busan. The future development framework should strive to overcoming this weakness and ensuring that all stakeholders not only agree on the same principles, but commit to them. In addition, several respondents stressed the need to take into account the important work of other international actors, such as the World Bank, the G20 and the G7+ 6. The third part of the consultation focused on the potential scope of a future framework. 6 The G7+ includes fragile countries, international organisations and donor countries that agreed on a set of goals and principles on engagement in fragile states (cf. New deal for Engagement in fragile States) 26

27 III. THE POTENTIAL SCOPE OF A FUTURE FRAMEWORK In this part of the consultation, respondents were asked to provide their views on what a future framework should look like. Contributions focused on five different issues, namely: the primary purpose of a future framework; the applicability and adaptability of the framework; the engagement of new actors; the improvement of policy coherence for development; and the comprehensive approach to development financing. A) Primary purpose of the framework While most respondents stressed the need for a comprehensive and holistic approach to sustainable development, many agreed that the primary focus of the post-2015 framework should continue to be poverty reduction. Uphold the focus on poverty within a holistic vision of development For a majority of respondents, poverty reduction should continue to be the primary purpose of the future development framework. A renewed global commitment to reduce poverty beyond 2015 is seen as the best way to complete unfinished business. Moreover, as highlighted in Chapter One of this report, many respondents considered that the central focus on poverty reduction was an essential achievement of the current MDG framework, and that such a focus should certainly be preserved in the new agenda. A large number of respondents, particularly NGOs, pointed that the objective should be much more ambitious than halving poverty, and be further directed towards the eradication of world poverty. Such an objective would not only be consistent with a human rights based approach, but it would also put emphasis on other key aspects and dimensions that are currently missing from the current MDGs. Many respondents underlined the importance of not only addressing the symptoms and consequences of poverty, but also of tackling its root causes across all its dimensions. In that regard, the need to pay more attention to inclusion and the reduction of inequalities within and across countries was particularly emphasised by many respondents. Reference was often made to the Millennium Declaration which, for many respondents, is still fully relevant today and continues to reflect the values and principles that should guide the global development agenda. In particular, many respondents agreed that the future framework should be built on the same principles of universality of human rights, shared responsibility, and embody commitments to equity, as well as environmental, economic and social sustainability. Beyond the necessary focus on poverty, many respondents from all categories insisted on the importance for the future framework to adopt a more holistic vision of development. Many respondents agreed that the future framework should put an equal focus on economic, social and environmental progress. To this end, the future framework should ensure that all the interconnected issues of development as well as new global challenges are tackled together in integrated and coherent way. As one NGO put it, "although poverty reduction should certainly be the main focus, the framework should adopt a 'structural transformation approach' whereby economic and human development as well as environmental sustainability are equally considered and addressed". In particular, it was mentioned that the framework should reflect as many dimensions of the "final ends of global development" as possible (including socio-economic development and poverty eradication, protection of the environment, security, peace-building, human rights, democracy, governance, etc.). 27

28 The economic dimension of development was particularly emphasised by several respondents, including by local authorities and the private sector, arguing that the objective of the future framework should be geared towards inclusive economic growth as the basis for fighting inequality and improving social conditions. Several underlined that the objective should be that all countries are better able to support themselves, arguing that the new framework should focus on development rather than aid, stressing the need to focus efforts towards reducing the need for aid. Ensure the global consensus is maintained Most respondents indicated that another crucial function of any future development framework should be to ensure that global consensus is maintained around a number of shared objectives and principles. In that sense, it is important that the post-2015 framework retains and builds upon the success of the MDGs in providing clear goals for national and international action and encapsulates a renewed shared global commitment to the eradication of poverty. A central concern for many respondents, all categories combined, is to arrive at a global partnership which ensures the engagement and commitment of all actors involved in development work, and to keep actors on all levels accountable for the achievement of commonly agreed goals. To this end, the future framework should represent and reflect a common view of development across the international community in order to favour the mobilisation and coordination of all actors. As exposed in Chapter Two of this report, this is considered by many respondents as a central requirement for the future framework to enjoy greater legitimacy and acceptance by all. B) Applicability and adaptability of the framework A wide majority of respondents agreed that the framework should be relevant for all countries in the world. As such, it should be applicable to all countries, regardless of their level of development, while ensuring a sufficient degree of adaptability for context-specificity. A framework relevant for all countries Given the global nature of the challenges that the post-2015 framework should strive to address, it is particularly important that the latter appeals and applies to all countries, regardless of their level of development. Many respondents thus call for a global framework that would address appropriately and adequately development objectives in all countries, including key global challenges faced by low, middle and high income countries equally. Moreover, several respondents underlined that a global framework would allow coordinating and monitoring progress at global level against a common reference, establishing a comparable base for assessing evolution of development goals across countries. Many respondents have also highlighted that the framework should be global so as to recognise the responsibility of all countries to fight poverty everywhere, and to tackle global challenges that do not pertain to any category of country in particular. The need to commonly address the challenges faced by all countries should however fully recognise the differences in capabilities and responsibilities between countries. Recalling the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities", one NGO suggested that "emerging economies must take up more responsibility while developed countries must take the lead politically and financially". 28

29 Several respondents also referred to the lasting debate on whether development efforts in general, and the framework in particular, should focus primarily on countries or on populations. To this question, most respondents argued that it was essential to focus on the poor and marginalised wherever they are situated. The main reasons for this are twofold: first, the demographics of global poverty have shifted, with a majority of the poor now living in middle income countries, and second, extreme poverty is gradually changing from being a question of poor people in absolute poor countries, to that of domestic inequality in all countries. And, as one NGO expressed, "there are equity gaps everywhere, not just in poor countries". Therefore, priority should be given to the poorest and most vulnerable in any country, notwithstanding its "status" or economic ranking. A framework flexible enough to be adapted to different country contexts and needs The need to take into consideration the context and needs of each region and country was emphasised by a wide majority of respondents. It was often underscored that implementation of the goals at regional and national levels needs to be differentiated so as to establish realistic targets and time frames that reflect each country's specificities. In that regard, a number of organisations have suggested that global minimums should be set, but with individual national targets and indicators reflecting the country context. One respondent (NGO) even suggested that the framework could be designed in such a way as to ensure targeted implementation, through a tiered approach providing a timeline for countries to adjust the goals to their national contexts and taking due account of the various levels of development. However, it was also emphasised that separate roadmaps for different countries might run the risk of leading to more fragmentation. Among the specificities of countries that ought to be considered, respondents cited the historical differences, the development levels, the economic and technical capacities, as well as the specific needs of vulnerable groups within those countries. Many respondents also highlighted the need to integrate special measures to address fragility and the special needs of fragile and conflict-affected states. Referring to the World Development Report 2011, several respondents recalled that not a single low-income fragile or conflict-affected state has achieved a single MDG until now. For many, the post-2015 framework should therefore address some of the critical obstacles to development in situations of conflict and fragility, as well as guarantees that they will not fall back into fragility and conflict. Reference was made in particular to the International Dialogue on Peace-building and State building (IDPS) and the subsequent "New Deal for engagement in fragile states" which led to the adoption of the so-called Peace-building and State-building Goals (PSGs). It was pointed that PSGs were initially conceived as interim goals to achieving MDGs in fragile states, and that signatories to the New Deal had also committed to consider PSGs in the post agenda. C) The engagement of new actors As already mentioned above, a wide majority of respondents consider it essential that the future development framework is as inclusive as possible and that all actors are considered as partners. For most respondents, the Busan "Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation" is considered as a positive milestone in this process of inclusion. It should therefore be used as a basis for future efforts aiming at involving new actors in the discussion and consultations leading to the post development framework. Several organisations also warned that the inclusion of new actors (and potentially new donors) should not be an excuse for traditional donors to lower their commitments and ambitions. 29

30 Working with the private sector in all its diversity Most respondents acknowledged the strong contribution that the private sector can bring to development, emphasising in particular its positive role in fostering economic growth and creating jobs, as well as investing in training, education and research. As a matter of fact, many respondents noted that the private sector already played an important role in development, including through Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives, Public-Private Partnerships, joint innovation and inclusive business models. For instance, several NGOs underlined that the private sector is a key player in health service provision at various levels of health systems in many countries. It was also mentioned that financial private institutions such as banks and microfinance organisations play a key role to facilitate access to credit, savings and insurance options for the poor. One respondent from the private sector suggested that the involvement of the private sector in development should therefore "stop being taboo". Various respondents indicated that evidence was lacking on the real impact of the private sector and its contribution to development, arguing that much was based on case studies but little on empiric evidence. In that connection, while the positive contribution of local small-scale producers and businesses seemed quite unequivocal (as providers of 75% of jobs in developing countries), the role of multinationals in delivering or supporting development goals appeared on the opposite much more dubious. Numerous respondents, mainly NGOs, insisted on the need to look at both the positive and the negative impacts private sector involvement had in development in the past. In doing so, attention must be paid to the fact that the private sector is not a monolithic bloc and should therefore be captured in its multiplicity (ranging from micro businesses, to small and medium enterprises, to large multinationals). Given the diversity of the private sector, many respondents underlined the need to adopt a differentiated approach depending on the type of private actor being considered, focusing on both their roles and responsibilities. Given the key role of small-scale producers and businesses in the economy of developing countries, a number of respondents argued that focus should primarily be on them, paying particular attention to the inclusion of marginalised producers and the empowerment of workers' organisations. The participation of large multinationals was also considered essential by several respondents, not only to fill funding gaps and foster technology transfer, but also because of their size and wide-ranging potential impacts at global and national levels which call for an element of global coordination and oversight of their activities. Most respondents welcomed the growth and popularity of initiatives on Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility decided by many companies, including through the use of codes of conducts, standards and principles. But the need to go beyond such voluntary initiatives and move towards more binding mechanisms was also highlighted. Many respondents stressed in particular that private sector companies should be made more accountable to ensure that their activities benefit development. For several respondents, partnerships with private sector can only provide positive outcomes on development if companies abide by the principles of good governance, accountability, social and environmental sustainability, as well as human rights standards. To this end, suggestion was made to set minimum standards in key areas, ranging from rules on decent working conditions and social protection, public disclosure and financial transparency, to tax evasion and avoidance, etc. Several respondents claimed that such standards could be incorporated into, or be an outcome of, the new development agenda. As one respondent (NGO) expressed, "improved reporting on companies 30

31 impacts on development, including social and environmental aspects, as well as on human rights, would be a highly beneficial result of the post-2015 framework". For several respondents, it is also important to go beyond such regulatory approaches and work on other strands to aim at building partnerships and changing business practice to better serve needs of poor and marginalised communities. One NGO suggested in particular considering incentives to counter balance the profit maximizing orientation of private capital. This could also include the creation of enabling environments for Public-Private Partnerships. Involving and convincing emerging donors The growing influence and central role of emerging donors in development was commonly emphasised as a key fact that needs full acknowledgement. Most respondents stressed that the buy-in of emerging donors in the post-2015 framework will actually be one of the most important determinants of its success and results in the long run. A major challenge for many respondents will consist in finding a common ground between the principles and objectives of traditional development actors, and the diversity of conceptions and practices of emerging donors. Several respondents, especially NGOs, emphasised the need to convince emerging donors to agree and commit to a certain number of core ethical values and principles as well as objectives to be pursued under the post-2015 development framework. It was strongly recommended by many respondents that the EU engages in early dialogue with emerging donors in order to ensure that potential obstacles to consensus are identified soon enough to be addressed, and to ensure the international community avoids setting low standards in a rushed process. At the same time, the need to recognise the specificities of emerging donors and make best use of their knowledge and experience was also underscored. Suggestion was made to allow emerging donors to lead on certain aspects of the new development agenda for which they have particular added value, which would contribute to their engagement and cooperation. Several respondents also underlined the importance of encouraging South-South cooperation and engaging more in triangular cooperation with emerging donors, while ensuring strong ownership by developing countries. A number of respondents indicated that the participation of emerging donors in the formulation and implementation of the post-2015 development framework was essential in order to ensure its success in the long run, especially as regards the implementation of the goals set out and agreed in the framework. Several respondents indicated that emerging donors are becoming key players in the international dialogue on human and economic development, and that their inclusion is also important to influence other governments. The participation of representatives of several emerging donor countries in the UN Secretary-General High Level Panel on Post-2015 was considered very positive in that regard. D) The improvement of policy coherence for development An immense majority of respondents made it clear that Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) is fundamental for the success of development outcomes, and should therefore be placed at the very heart of the post-2015 development agenda. Due to its importance for the success, effectiveness and sustainability of development outcomes, several respondents underlined that PCD should be an integral part of the entire post-2015 process (i.e. goal-setting, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation). In that regard, the design of a post development framework was seen by many as a good opportunity to encourage all countries 31

32 (not only developed countries) and all stakeholders (not only governments) to explicitly commit to PCD. Making PCD relevant for all countries and all actors Several respondents insisted on the need to ensure that PCD discussions in the context of the post framework are focused and concrete, and made interesting proposals in that direction. For example, it was suggested by one NGO that the future framework explicitly emphasises the links between the various goals and includes critical factors of PCD in the specific dimensions of each goal. In doing so, the framework should highlight how policies and targeted actions can be mutually supportive and catalytic, and conversely, explicitly acknowledge the potential contradictions between different policy spheres and show ways of how to ease these contradictions. Some NGO respondents suggested that the framework could go further and be more concrete, notably by providing a clear set of goals that must be taken into account when defining policies with the potential to impact poor people. Moreover, referring to the model provided by the EU PCD Work Programme, one respondent (NGO) suggested establishing a checklist of key priority areas for PCD that are crucial to poverty eradication. It was however unclear from the contributions what kind of operational objectives and targets related to PCD could be included in the framework and at the same time benefit from large consensus. The potential difficulty to reach a consensus on key PCD issues was indeed highlighted by a couple of respondents, referring notably to the enduring complicated discussions on trade issues in the framework of the Doha round, or to the recurrent struggles in reaching an agreement in international climate negotiations. A majority of respondents underlined nonetheless that PCD should be addressed at global level (in respect to global issues such as trade and climate), as well as at country level. Many respondents pointed in particular to the importance for developed and emerging countries to pay closer attention to the wide-ranging impact of their own policies on development outcomes in other areas and in other countries. As one respondent (NGO) expressed, "the major barrier for PCD is the failure of developed countries to redress their harmful policies". However, a majority of respondents also stressed that that developing countries also bear the responsibility to ensure consistency and coherence between their own domestic policies and development objectives. It was notably emphasised that PCD at country level could only be achieved if local governments and administrations are committed to development and own their policy programmes. In that regard, a number of respondents stressed the need to recognise that the realisation of PCD will be progressive given the limited capabilities of developing countries with weak administrative capacities to develop, monitor and adhere to PCD principles. As one respondent (NGO) stated, "even the EU has adopted measured approach in the promotion and implementation of PCD". PCD as part and parcel of mutual accountability mechanisms Several respondents stressed that PCD, more than any other policy instrument, is crucial in addressing the global accountability gap, and should therefore be considered as part and parcel of mutual accountability mechanisms in the post-2015 development framework. It was strongly argued that PCD can only be truly implemented if all policy-makers are held accountable through transparency and detailed monitoring of results. 32

33 As one respondent (think tank) emphasised, "political feasibility issues are more serious than technical feasibility challenges" when it comes to implementing PCD. In order to be fully relevant and meaningful, several respondents insisted that PCD should not only be used as a technical or bureaucratic tool, but that its principles and mechanisms should be made accessible and practical for all stakeholders. As one respondent (NGO) stated, "PCD is a political not a technocratic tool". Several respondents thus pointed to the need for strong political will as well as binding commitments. Many respondents also stressed the need to set up robust institutional mechanisms at international level to monitor PCD, anticipate or prevent policy incoherencies, and eventually repair harmful policies. Several respondents stressed for instance the need for sound screening exercises of relevant policymaking processes at international, regional and domestic levels, in order to make them PCD sensitive. To this end, specific indicators would need to be identified and agreed in order to allow for regular and comparable measurement of progress. Another suggestion was to establish a mechanism through which governments would be obliged to report on steps they have taken to uphold the principle of PCD. Several respondents also suggested that a special accountability body or ombudsperson be created to anticipate and prevent rich or emerging countries policies or those of the private sector from having negative impact on the poor. One NGO mentioned for instance the opportunity of appointing a UN Special Rapporteur on PCD as part of the post-2015 development framework. Furthermore, suggestion was made to consider establishing a complaints procedure through which governments, civil society organisations and local communities could be heard and have their case raised whenever their rights are being undermined by incoherent policies. Such a complaints procedure should be linked to a redress mechanism to provide remedies for the negative effects. E) A comprehensive approach to development financing A recurrent comment made by respondents, all categories combined, is that the economic crisis will make it even more difficult to mobilise development financing, especially ODA. Therefore, many respondents agree with the need to be more innovative, more strategic and more effective in the mobilisation and the use of financial resources for development. A central concern is that development financing needs to respond adequately to the changing development landscape and global economic trends. Although 2015 is also the deadline for EU ODA commitments, several respondents questioned the opportunity and timeliness of linking the discussion on the post-2015 to that of development financing, arguing that both discussions should be kept separate as much as possible. As one respondent (private sector) suggested, "it is better to wait for the right momentum resulting from a new agreement to help mobilise the necessary funds". Improving the quality of development finance and saving costs As was recalled by many respondents, the first step towards improving development financing is to ensure that development money is well spent and to avoid resource waste. For a majority of respondents, improving aid effectiveness is considered essential, especially given the fact that many of the commitments made still remain unfulfilled. In particular, with the increasing number of donors, and the variety of financing sources, the need for enhanced coordination among all development actors was considered as being more important than ever. 33

34 A concern for many respondents was to ensure transparent and predictable development financing. In that connection, several respondents emphasised the need for sound and transparent monitoring instruments that encompass the wide variety of financial flows and sources. However, rather than attempting to integrate all the various financial sources (such as ODA, trade revenues, climate finance and environmental financing) into one single approach, several respondents pointed to the need to make the present system more efficient, including by eliminating duplications. Other suggestions to improve the quality of development financing include the use of results-based financing programmes that are already widespread and have shown positive results in the health sector. One respondent (think tank) also suggested that the new framework should include an assessment of the costing of its implementation, in the form of a financial roadmap for each goal and target, giving detail of the financial responsibility of each stakeholder. Increasing volumes and diversifying the sources of development financing Official development assistance Several respondents insisted on the urgent need for donors to stick to their aid commitments, notably the target of reaching 0.7% GNI by While some respondents suggested that such aid targets should not be repeated because they had become out-dated and had led to distorting effects in the way money is spent, it was pointed that any potential new commitment in terms of ODA should in all cases be made within the existing international agreements (Monterrey Consensus, Doha Declaration, etc.). One of the reasons for this is to seek and encourage the active involvement and commitment of all donors, including emerging donors, towards fair burden sharing. A number of respondents mentioned that the financial contribution of emerging donors should continue to be sought through various means and channels, such as new multi-actor partnerships, triangular cooperation, sovereign funds, national development banks, etc. Recognising the necessity to make a strategic use of limited aid resources, many respondents agreed on the need to focus ODA primarily on the poorest and fragile countries, as they are less able to mobilise sufficient resources from alternative sources. Several respondents underlined however that the objective should be to reduce aid dependency of all countries. To this end, suggestion was made to introduce a progressive phasing-out of aid so as to provide incentives for governments to diversify their financial resources, and notably to increase their own tax revenues. Domestic revenues Domestic resource mobilisation is considered by a majority of respondents as the most important and sustainable financial contribution to development. For many respondents, the future development framework should therefore fully address the responsibilities of developing countries to generate their own domestic resources for financing development, notably through effective and fair taxation. Recognising the need to improve taxation systems in developing countries, many respondents suggested that more efforts should be placed on capacity-building programmes to help increase the effectiveness and efficiency of domestic tax collection. Such programmes should notably address the structural reforms that are needed in many countries in order to set-up pro-poor fiscal and tax reforms, promote fair and progressive tax systems, and tackle the problem of tax evasion and fraud. On this 34

35 last point, numerous respondents (mainly NGOs) stressed the need for regulatory measures such as transparent beneficial ownership or country-by-country reporting by multinational companies. Private sources The need to unlock and adopt an open approach to new sources of funding from the private sector was emphasised by many respondents. While the importance of trade and investment were cited as the most important private flows, several respondents underlined that more synergies and complementarities could be sought between public and private financing for development. In particular, one respondent from the private sector indicated that risk management and development guarantees could be used to leverage private resources. While new funding modalities such as blending were considered by many respondents as a right step in that direction, several NGOs declared that the latter should nevertheless be used cautiously and with guarantees. A number of respondents suggested that the post-2015 framework should set clear rules for how and when such modalities should be used (notably by limiting the level of public finance to support private investment, preferring the use of loans, guarantees and risk management instruments). It was also suggested that the future framework proposes regulation to contain corporate excesses that can destabilise the economy in developing countries (notably through regulation of financial markets, speculation, commodity markets, etc.). Innovative sources of financing A majority of respondents underlined the need to further explore and make full use of innovative sources of financing. According to a number of respondents, while innovative financing mechanisms haven't mobilised huge amounts until now, they have the potential to raise significant amounts of untapped resources. Reference was often made to successful existing mechanisms such as carbon taxes, trust funds and investment facilities, and many respondents seem to consider very promising the establishment of a financial transaction tax. Several respondents considered that it might be useful to include a concrete target for innovative financing in the post-2015 framework. The fourth and last section of the consultation focuses on the potential shape of a future development framework. 35

36 IV. THE POTENTIAL SHAPE OF A FUTURE FRAMEWORK Most of the comments exposed in this part of the consultation have been previously raised and summarised in the other chapters of this report. Therefore, for the sake of clarity and to avoid repetitions, only the key messages will be highlighted. A) Most important elements that should be included in a future framework It is possible to classify the features that respondents consider most important in two broad categories: issues related to process, and issues related to the content of the framework. Process-related features As regards the process-related elements, it appears useful also to distinguish between comments related to: i) the design of the framework, ii) its implementation, and iii) the monitoring and evaluation. Among the most cited features concerning the design of the framework, respondents clearly emphasised that the process leading to the adoption of a post-2015 framework should be inclusive, participatory and bottom-up, allowing for true ownership by developing countries. As regards its implementation, respondents largely stressed that all countries and all stakeholders should be involved, that it should be guided by the principle of shared responsibility, and that it should follow a comprehensive approach which combines all financial resources as well as a broad mix of policy responses beyond aid. Monitoring and evaluation should first and foremost be aimed at strengthening accountability for achieving results. It should be based on clear, concrete and measurable goals and targets, using indicators that go beyond input-based and quantitative data. The table below sums up the most cited process-related features. Design of the framework Implementation Monitoring and evaluation Inclusive: bringing together all countries and all stakeholders Participatory: special efforts to reach out to poor and marginalised communities Bottom-up: based on needs expressed by developing countries and their populations Involvement of all countries and all stakeholders Shared responsibility Beyond aid approach: aid as catalyst to leverage other complementary forms & sources of financing for development Accountability and Transparency: Focus on results: Clear, concise, concrete, binding, time-bound and measurable goals & targets Indicators should be focused on outcomes and not simply input/output Ownership by developing countries Flexibility and adaptability of goals & targets to national contexts Comprehensive approach to financing sources (public & private, domestic & international) Integrated mix of policy responses: Policy Coherence for Development Accurate measure progress: use of more qualitative and perception based indicators Systematic disaggregation of data in order to better monitor and address inequalities 36

37 Design of the framework Implementation Monitoring and evaluation Link post-2015 with other relevant processes (notably SDGs) Aid effectiveness: Implement agreed principles and build on Busan Partnership for Effective Development Effectiveness Comparability of targets & indicators across countries One set of goals to avoid fragmentation Coordination and collaborative work practices Use of qualitative & quantitative targets Knowledge-sharing framework (exchange of best practices) Capacity building and empowerment of beneficiaries Content-related features In their comments on the desired content of a future development framework, respondents have usually referred to: i) the overarching principles that should guide the framework, ii) the key attributes and functions of the framework, and iii) particular issues or sectors that should be included this time round. As regards the overarching principles, most respondents referred to the fundamental values and principles already emphasised and agreed in the Millennium Declaration, and which remain fully relevant. In particular, the principles of human rights, equity, gender equality, and sustainability were repeatedly mentioned. Concerning the key attributes and functions of the post-2015 framework, it is worth noting that a wide majority of respondents agreed that the primary objective should be the eradication of poverty. Most respondents underlined that this objective should be pursued through an integrated approach to sustainable development with an equal focus on economic, social and environmental progress. The importance of peace and security and of responding to the challenge of fragility was also largely emphasised by respondents. Several respondents also highlighted a number of specific issues and sectors that needed to be given high visibility in the post-2015 framework. Those issues were usually considered as having not been properly addressed or missing from the current MDG framework, such as social protection, health systems and decent work. Overarching principles Reference to the Millennium Declaration and to same principles that informed Rio+20 Key characteristics and objectives Focus on poverty eradication: address the root cause of poverty (Interconnectedness of goals) Specific sectors Social protection schemes and social protection floor Human rights Holistic approach to development Health systems and Global Health Coverage 37

38 Overarching principles Key characteristics and objectives Specific sectors Equity and equality Sustainable development in all its Full employment & decent work dimensions: economic, social, environmental Gender equality Peace and security Youth and gender empowerment Sustainability Security & protection Participation Special attention to tackling fragility Human development with strong focus on social sectors People-centred: Well-being and participation of people Empowerment of poorest & most vulnerable population groups Global governance Education, research & technology Food security and sustainable use of natural resources Infrastructure Access to information Civil society empowerment Economic transformation / structural change Wordcloud 1 - Most cited features regarding the elaboration and structure of the future framework 38

39 B) Elements that should be avoided in a future development framework Comments made on the elements to be avoided also generally referred either to the process of setting up a future framework, or to the content and structure of the framework itself. Process-related mistakes to avoid A majority of respondents pointed that the process leading to the formulation and adoption of a post framework should definitely not be top-down nor donor-driven. These were indeed among the most criticised aspects of the process that had led to the adoption of the current MDGs. Many respondents stressed that the new process should be much more open and transparent, and give a strong voice to developing countries and their populations. Moreover, many respondents also emphasised that the formulation of a post-2015 development framework should not start from scratch or aim at "reinventing the wheel". In particular, many respondents advised against ignoring the lessons learned and not building on the positive aspects of the MDGs. Last but not least, many respondents stressed that the process leading to the design of a post-2015 development framework should not be detached from other on-going related processes. In particular, most respondents referred to the elaboration of 'Sustainable Development Goals' following the outcome of Rio+20. It was markedly pointed by many respondents that the international community should avoid duplicating initiatives and creating parallel and uncoordinated processes that might lead to separate and potentially conflicting outcomes. Wordcloud 2 - Mistakes to avoid in the process of formulating the post-2015 agenda 39

40 Content and structure-related shortcomings to avoid Comments of respondents on the shortcomings to avoid concerned respectively the definition of the goals themselves, the approach followed to achieve them, and the monitoring of results. As regards the definition of goals, many respondents warned against the temptation for a "Christmas Tree" of dispersed goals and topics. It was largely pointed that the multiplication of goals and targets would inevitably contribute to overburdening the framework, and thus weaken its operational focus on poverty reduction. The need to avoid too broad and vague goals was also emphasised, as was the need to avoid being too narrow and prescriptive. In particular, several respondents underlined that the goals and targets should not be fixed or graved in stone. In addition, most respondents emphasised the importance to avoid adopting a "one-size-fits-all" approach which would ignore the variety of local contexts and make it more difficult for countries to tailor targets to their national circumstances. Moreover, many respondents stressed that the framework should not be based on, nor perpetuate the traditional donor-recipient logic. In that connection, it was emphasised that the framework should not be ODA-centred and not oversimplify the development agenda by reducing it to a technical process consisting of aid being poured in certain sectors. Indeed, many respondents highlighted that the future framework should clearly avoid treating issues and sectors in a siloed approach and go beyond addressing the sole symptoms and consequences of poverty, but rather tackle its root causes in a comprehensive and holistic approach. Most respondents stressed that the monitoring of progress should not be based solely on quantitative and general input indicators, but rather favour qualitative indicators focusing on the impact on people s lives and living conditions. In addition, a large majority of respondents emphasised that measurement should not be based exclusively on global and aggregate averages that fail to measure inequalities between and within countries. Wordcloud 3 - Mistakes to avoid in the definition of goals 40

41 CONCLUSION There are currently numerous initiatives aiming at feeding into the international debate on what will follow the MDGs after The European Commission's public consultation on "Towards a post development framework" is one of several initiatives that the EU has launched in order to contribute to this debate. The results of the public consultation will notably feed into the preparation of an EU position for the forthcoming international discussions, notably the 2013 UN MDG Review Event. Interestingly, one of the main conclusions that one can draw from this public consultation is that many of the issues raised by the various stakeholders appear rather consensual. There are indeed no clearcut differences between the comments and suggestions made by the different respondents on the sole basis of the category they belong to. NGOs, think tanks, private sector organisations, local authorities and international organisations have indeed made very similar comments on most of the topics addressed in the issues paper. This is particularly true regarding the main lessons learned from the current MDG framework. Similar comments on the main benefits and limitations have been raised by all respondents, indistinctly of their belonging to one or the other category of stakeholder. This suggests that there is a high degree of consensus around the pros and the cons of the MDGs. There is also a strong consensus on the opportunity and need for a new framework. Building on this consensus, most respondents also agree on the key orientations and principles that must guide the design process, the potential structure and content of a future framework. For instance, all respondents agree that the formulation of the framework should be inclusive and participatory, and that all relevant actors should be involved. There was also a high degree of consensus around the idea that the future framework itself should be global, relevant for all countries while taking due account of their context and differences, and based on clear and measurable goals and targets. The need to build in strong transparency and accountability mechanisms into the framework, as well as to strengthen policy coherence for development and to adopt a comprehensive approach to development financing was also unanimous. At the same time, the consultation has also pointed to a number of potential contradictions that will need to be addressed. For example, there might be a possible trade-off between the call for a comprehensive framework that addresses sustainable development in a holistic approach, and the need to prioritise urgent issues and to focus on certain population groups and/or countries. Another possible trade-off might appear due to the fact that the more comprehensive and inclusive the framework is, the more difficult it will be to reach consensus. There is also a high degree of consensus on the fact that the process leading to the agreement on, and design of, a post-2015 development framework should be closely linked to the parallel process on the formulation of 'Sustainable Development Goals' as agreed at the Rio+20 Summit. Given that both processes will ultimately cover very similar issues, most respondents clearly indicated that they should at least be conducted in conjunction, or even be merged. 41

42 ANNEXES 1. Questionnaire A. The MDGs: benefits and limitations 1. To what extent has the MDG framework influenced policies in the country/ies or sectors you work in/with? 2. To what extent has the MDG framework been beneficial for the poor in the country/ies or sectors in/with which you work? 3. What features and elements of the MDG framework have been particularly valuable in the fight against poverty? 4. What features and elements of the MDG framework have been problematic, in your view? 5. In your view, what are the main gaps, if any, in the MDG framework? B. Feasibility of a future framework 6. In your view, in what way, if at all, could a future framework have an impact at global level in terms of global governance, consensus building, cooperation, etc.? 7. To what extent is a global development framework approach necessary or useful to improve accountability with regard to poverty reduction policies in developing countries? 8. What could be the advantages and disadvantages of a global development framework for your organisation/sector, including how you work effectively with your partners? C. The potential scope of a future agenda 9. In your view, what should be the primary purpose of a future framework? 10. In your view, should its scope be global, relevant for all countries? 11. To what extent should a future framework focus on the poorest and most fragile countries, or also address development objectives relevant in other countries? 12. How could a new development agenda involve new actors, including the private sector and emerging donors? 13. How could a future framework support improved policy coherence for development (PCD), at global, EU and country levels? 14. How could a new framework improve development financing? D. The potential shape of a future agenda 15. What do you consider to be the "top 3" most important features or elements which should be included in or ensured by any future development agenda? 16. What do you consider to be the "top 3" features or elements which must be avoided in any future development agenda? 17. Should it be based on goals, targets and indicators? If any, should goals have an outcome or sector focus? Please give reasons for your answer. 18. How should implementation of the new framework be resourced? 42

43 2. Statistics on responses Chart 1. Share of responses per category of stakeholder Table 1. Number of responses per category of stakeholder Category of stakeholder Number of responses Non state actors 100 NGOs 80 Research institutes / Academia 9 Private sector associations / Business organisations 4 Foundations 2 Trade unions 2 Professional organisations 2 Religious groups 1 Public authorities 6 Local and regional authorities 4 Governmental agency 1 National Parliament 1 International organisations 4 Individuals 9 Total

44 Table 2. Number of responses per country of origin Country of origin Number of responses EU 102 Belgium 51 United Kingdom 18 Germany 7 The Netherlands 5 Austria 3 Finland 3 Italy 3 Ireland 2 France 2 Spain 2 Estonia 1 Portugal 1 Denmark 1 Czech Republic 1 Lithuania 1 Poland 1 Non EU 17 Nicaragua 2 Mali 2 USA 2 Canada 2 Mauritius 2 Benin 1 Cambodia 1 Uruguay 1 Malaysia 1 Venezuela 1 Tanzania 1 Togo 1 Total 119 Chart 2. Geographic distribution of responses 44