VIA Don Bosco Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework. Version

Transcription

1 VIA Don Bosco Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework Version VIA Don Bosco is a Belgian NGO, with more than four decades of experience in supporting partner organisations in Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. These partners work with the poorest and most vulnerable populations, providing them with the technical and professional, social and life skills they need in order to prepare them for the world of work; and actively accompanying them to decent work. VIA Don Bosco is a member of 2015 DE TIJD LOOPT, a coalition of more than 25 Belgian NGO s focusing on the MDGs. As a member of this coalition, we broadly agree with the position formulated by the Beyond 2015 European Task Force on the road Towards a post 2015 development framework. Beyond 2015 is a global civil society campaign, pushing for a strong and legitimate successor framework to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). That said, VIA Don Bosco does place its own accents, for example a strong emphasis on the need to realize (all) global public goods which we understand to be: and ensuring that the poorest and most vulnerable gain access to them: international economic stability; international political stability and peace; environmental sustainability; and knowledge. As an NGO active in the education sector, we would strongly welcome a less narrow perspective on education. Limiting the understanding of the developmental challenges in or faced through the education sector to universal primary education (MDG 2) or equal access to primary and secondary education for boys and girls (MDG 3) amounts, among other things, to overlooking masses of (functionally) illiterate adults, denying the importance of quality (also in order to actually achieve access), and ignoring the crucial transitions between different levels of education and between education and the world of work. We strongly recommend that more attention be paid to the conceptually rich Education for All (EFA) movement and that coherence is sought with the EFA agenda. 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? The MDG framework has influenced policies in several ways. It has: Made the fight against poverty one of the key elements of development policy of a significant number of international institutions and governments (albeit with unequal involvement and commitment). In the case of Belgium, the realization of the MDGs is explicitly mentioned by the three official donor agencies (DGD at federal level; VAIS and WBI at respectively Flemish and Walloon regional level). Improved the knowledge of the geography of poverty, without shedding much light on the root causes of it. Led, in some developing countries, to more systematic, planned approaches to the fight against poverty. Stimulated, directly or indirectly, some political debate on new issues such as inequality, innovative resources (with the potential of international taxes such as the FTT, etc). Beyond 2015 Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework Page 1

2 Made budget cuts on development cooperation more shameful, but unfortunately not sufficiently so as to prevent them Belgium being the perfect case in point. While there has been some increase in the pressure on donor governments to respect the 0,7% rule, this has created a tendency to stretch the definition of ODA to an unreasonable extent (f.ex., including costs of reception of asylum seekers) Improved, at least temporarily, the quality of reporting on development assistance and national development efforts linked to the specific social sectors and their indicators of the MDGs. Stimulated, directly or indirectly, public investment in (access to) primary education by donors as well as national governments in developing countries even if the resulting rise in access was often accompanied by a drop in quality and limited to initial access rather than completion. The focus on access primary education was too narrow and there would have been much to gain from closer alignment with the broader Education for All agenda. Stimulated, directly or indirectly, awareness about the interrelatedness of development challenges and the complexity of development processes f.ex. ensuring access to quality education (at more than primary level) is key to addressing many other development challenges (f.ex., maternal health; resilience in dealing with consequences of climate change; HIV/Aids prevention; capacitating rightsholders) 2. To what extent has the MDG framework been beneficial for the poor in the country/ies or sectors in/with which you work? At a global level, there has been major progress in reducing poverty. Indeed, MDG1 s target on poverty is hailed as one of the few that have already been met. But since in fact most of the progress has occurred in major emerging countries, and especially in China (whose success is not linked to a desire to meet the MDGs), it is hard to say to what extent the MDGs have had substantial added value. According to Andy Sumner, if one looks at poverty reduction having removed China from the equation, global poverty did not fall much: 1 Number of Poor (millions) Yet, the recent report of the UN System Task Team on the post 2015 UN development agenda stresses, the historic contribution of the MDG framework in providing a common worldwide cause to address poverty and putting human progress at the forefront of the global development agenda. It also states that, (t)he MDG framework helped to galvanize development efforts, set global and national priorities, and 1 Where will the world s poor live?, Andy Sumner, Presentation to the OECD, June 2012 Beyond 2015 Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework Page 2

3 focus action at all levels. Important progress has been made in most countries, particularly towards the goals of eradicating poverty and improving access to primary education. Yet trends have been uneven within and across countries and regions. The poorest and most discriminated against on the basis of gender, age, disability, ethnicity or otherwise have often been the most disadvantaged. We very much agree with that analysis. The way the MDG framework was conceived led to countries pursuing low hanging fruit that is, achieving progress for those who were the easiest to reach. The benefits of MDG progress accrued least to those who are poorest and most marginalised. On the contrary, the most disadvantaged have seen few or no improvements and the disparities between them and others have only increased. The MDGs therefore did little to tackle the root causes of poverty and marginalisation, such as discrimination, which are embedded in social, political and economic processes. The MDGs have also not succeeded in linking the root causes of poverty to fulfilling human rights which are key to development (such as the right to water, food, security, education, etc). So perhaps the main advantage of the MDG framework has, especially in the monitoring exercises by the UN and others, been the fact of highlighting the impact of poverty on all the other goals, targets and indicators. In the case of maternal mortality, for example, the World Bank noted that, (t)hey die because they are poor. 2 In health and education a similar picture can be drawn: those most likely not to be able to access education are poor girls in rural or conflict areas. The MDGs have therefore brought the lethal impact of poverty to the forefront. The MDG framework s focus on poverty did help to prioritise to a certain extent development efforts on Least Developed Countries. However, it has more recently become clear that the majority of the world s poor currently live in Middle Income Countries, 3 while in the future, as these countries gradually pull their poorest out of poverty, the poor will reside predominantly in conflict affected and fragile states What features and elements of the MDG framework have been particularly valuable in the fight against poverty? The MDGs led to more focus and priority setting in the debates and, to a lesser extent, actions of the international community, particularly as regards social development and social policy. In a number of countries, some of the goals were made explicit in national development policies and in bilateral development cooperation agreements. The specific emphasis on poverty was welcome and no doubt contributed to the fact that poverty eradication was included as a central objective in the Lisbon Treaty. Furthermore, the emphasis on social development in the MDG framework was appealing to citizens and easy for policy makers to adopt, which helped to shift political attention somewhat away from the focus on macro economic growth that had been dominating the development agenda for a long time. However, while relatively much attention paid to social sectors, this attention was too shallow f.ex., MDGs 2 and 3 missed most of the much richer and more pertinent agenda of Education for All and missed the crucial link between education and other development challenges, such as economic development, governance (democracy, stability / peace, ) A key added value was the fact that the MDG framework was built on a set of concrete goals and predominantly quantifiable targets that were relatively simple and straightforward to understand, explain and monitor. Organizations in the South, for example, have been reported to appreciate the framework for improving awareness of development issues, spurring commitment from governments and turning the fight against poverty into a global movement. 5 Progress could be measured, albeit in an overly 2 Global Monitoring Report, World Bank, 2012, p.20 3 Global Poverty and the New Bottom Billion: What if Three Quarters of the World s Poor Live in Middle Income Countries? Andy Sumner, Institute of Development Studies, September Aid workers are doing themselves out of a job, but..., Andrew Rogerson, ODI Blog Posts, 10 July Voices, CAFOD, 2010 Beyond 2015 Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework Page 3

4 narrow manner, on the basis of the agreed indicators. Furthermore, the statistical methodology and data needed as a basis for analysis and policy development was improved as a result of the MDG framework. Knowledge of the geography of the problems was consequently enhanced, even if their root causes were neither identified nor addressed as a result of the MDGs. Importantly, resource flows increased until recently. Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) for all sectors combined increased dramatically immediately following the introduction of the MDGs, and the health sector s share of these resources more than doubled. 6 The nature of the positive elements of the MDG framework is important to transfer to or retain in any new framework that will be elaborated in the future. 4. What features and elements of the MDG framework have been problematic, in your view? Some of the strengths of the MDG framework also proved to be risks and weaknesses. For example, the fact that progress in all fields has been measured by narrow indicators has led to a narrowing of the development agenda. The indicators with regard to education (MDG 2 and MDG 3) are an obvious case in point. The Education for All agenda which emphasizes the importance of quality education and training and life long learning offers a much more inclusive view, more cross linkages with other development issues (f.ex. between education and training and decent work; between education and training and adaptation to climate change; etc.) as well as a richer set of indicators. The narrow focus has also led to only late inclusion, undervaluation or even total omission of some important aspects of development such as peace and conflict, equality, governance and anti corruption, decent work, uneven population growth, environmental sustainability etc. There is an inherent danger in the MDG approach, in that it reduces development to progress on some of the basic needs and development policy to development assistance to the most poor and problematic countries. So one could argue, as has Jan Vandemoortele, that the MDGs represent a reductionist view of development or an oversimplification. 7 They have contributed to a narrowing of the focus of international efforts to providing development assistance to poor and/or fragile countries. At least in principle. Since in reality these countries have not seen their income from ODA increase substantially. Some flaws of the framework were known and criticised from the very beginning. For example, the rightsbased approach to development of the Millennium Declaration was to a large extent lost in the formulation of the Goals. Instead, the MDG framework fostered a charity approach to development, focused on the volume of financial aid, while sidelining structural reform. Through setting targets on the basis of quantifiable indicators, the framework promoted a definition of poverty exclusively as a lack of material things, which can be solved through paying for those things. The lack of a rights based approach led to a number of other limitations of the MDG framework. For example, while reducing extreme poverty (ie. incomes of less than $1.25 per day) by half is a laudable aim, eradicating it would be still better (as a rights based approach would imply), as would raising that limit to, for example $2 per day (the international poverty line). However, should one be aiming to improve people s overall security and build their resilience as part of a future framework, one could even argue, as has Andy Sumner, that $10/day is the minimum requirement. Clearly, this kind of reflection regarding limitations of the Goals can be applied to all the Goals and reflects an inherent weakness of the need to set quantifiable minimum standards to be attained. The emphasis on aggregate measurements has meant that a country might be on track to meet a particular goal but that huge disparities exist within a country which are totally masked, for example 6 OECD 2011; United Nations Statistics Division 2012; Post 2015 Health MDGs, Lu et al, If not the MDGs, then what?, Jan Vandemoortele, Third World Quarterly, Volume 32, Issue 1, 2011 Beyond 2015 Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework Page 4

5 between geographic locations, population sectors or income quintiles etc. Furthermore, countries may have made enormous progress, such as a number of African countries, but may still be missing the targets and as a result be criticised. As Jan Vandemoortele has so rightly pointed out, saying that Africa is missing the targets is missing the point. 8 There was a lot of ambiguity about the level (global, national, regional, local?) at which results had to be measured. Some have even questioned the accuracy of measurements given the desire of countries to prove progress has been made. Certainly, one could argue that the emphasis on quantification was exaggerated, to the near exclusion of all other forms of measurement. The Goals themselves were not formulated in a participatory way, even at the level of participation of national governments. This has remained a problem subsequently and is reflected in a lack of southern ownership. An approach was taken that one size fits all, whereas this is far from the truth. In some cases this approach contributed to a lack of ambition at national level where the goals seemed to be unreachable anyway. The lack of participation and consequently ownership may also have contributed to the failure of the MDGs to engage with power and politics. The transformations needed to achieve the MDGs and further global development should have been driven by domestic politics and local actors. 9 It is at least in part for this reason that full participation by all stakeholders in the process of drawing up the new framework will be so crucial and why the successor framework will need to be conceived differently. Sustainability, although present in MDG7, was hardly visible in the framework and ended up being regularly referred to as the water and sanitation goal. That led to all the other aspects such as environmental degradation and natural resource issues being overlooked perhaps because the access to water and sanitation target is the most quantifiable and measurable. The critical role of environmental sustainability as a cross cutting issue is not apparent but, as with other cross cutting issues, it underpins the achievement of many other Goals. MDG 8, on the realisation of a global partnership, is a particularly problematic Goal in itself. Attempts were made to incorporate a large number of extremely important aspects crucial to the success of achieving development objectives. But the result was that it was vague, and missed out critical issues that directly impact upon the achievement of all the MDGs and poverty eradication, such as the importance of applying policy coherence in order to achieve development objective or the need for financial stability and the regulation of major actors in financial markets (and the last decade has shown how financial crises and speculative behaviour of actors in financial markets can undermine development efforts). It has consequently has failed to deliver. Moreover, it was not subject to clear quantitative targets, binding commitments or deadlines. Lastly, the weakness of the monitoring and follow up mechanisms and instruments has been a major drawback in the MDG framework. This is closely linked to the painful lack of accountability of national governments, international institutions and other actors that will be addressed in the next question. So in conclusion, the MDGs have succeeded in mobilising additional interest and some commitment. But certainly not enough to lead to a major breakthrough or even to a sufficient result. In fact, it is hard to prove that the major and obvious gains in terms of poverty reduction were in any way caused by the MDG approach, given the importance of China in achieving MDG1 s poverty target (as outlined in response to Question 2). 5. In your view, what are the main gaps, if any, in the MDG framework? There are a large number of gaps in the MDG framework. Most importantly, the MDG framework entirely omitted to incorporate a focus on the root causes of poverty, policy coherence and accountability mechanisms, and, in focusing predominantly on the social sectors, overlooked the need to take a 8 Presentation to the Belgian Senate, June After the Millennium Development Goals, Save the Children International, April 2012 Beyond 2015 Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework Page 5

6 comprehensive approach to development, that is, to include other policy areas which impact significantly on the achievement of development objectives. Beyond 2015 will address these issues further in the respective questions later in our submission. Suffice to say here that in our view policy coherence for development (that is, the need to ensure that policies in any area do not negatively impact on people s perspectives for development in any country and preferably support the goals of development) is fundamental to the success of any development framework. There are few policy areas which have no impact on developing countries in one way or another, be that indirectly or directly. But it was entirely missing from the MDG framework, as was a recognition of how the issues are complex and interlinked for example, environmental degradation, water scarcity, food security, health and education and training. Appropriate and rigorous accountability mechanisms are crucial for the success of achieving goals and turn aspirations or commitments into obligations. Accountability is also central to democratic governance and the respect for human rights, both of which, as has been noted, were lacking from the MDG framework. To date, whenever accountability has discussed, the issue has mainly referred to the accountability of recipients of aid and their need to meet to certain standards for implementation and results. The new post 2015 framework must reverse this practice and replace it with a relationship based on genuine mutual accountability which also encompasses the impact of rich countries policies in areas such trade, tax and financial regulation etc. The lack of comprehensiveness in thematic coverage is well known and largely stems from the fact that the MDG framework was never intended to become the (main) development agenda for all actors. It is commonly cited that issues such as climate change or addressing situations of insecurity, fragility or conflict are missing. Now that we have the opportunity to design a new framework for development, it will be crucial to ensure that it is fully thought through in terms of the policy areas which are covered in and by it, and in so doing also capitalise on the links and synergies which exist between them. The framework also failed to measure economic advancement in terms of equality and human rights realisation. Due to the concentration of income, power and access to resources in the top layers of the population in many countries the national average of, for example, infant mortality or learning outcomes at the end of universal primary education can differ greatly from the average for the 80% of the population that excludes the upper quintile. Yet despite the considerable value of inequality indicators to policy design, inequality data has not been sufficiently prioritised in research or planning. The lack of even the most basic inequality indicators for many of the poorest countries renders resource allocation less efficient. Additional social and environmentally related inequality data, would also provide crucial insights into a country s ability to promote human rights and sustainability. Other significant gaps include the lack of: A strong link with the principles and particularly with the rights based approach of the Millennium Declaration. Inclusion of important issues such as peace building/ keeping, uneven population growth, inequality, which are critical to the achievement of development objectives such as poverty reduction and sustainability. Strategic guidance or at least suggestions or possible options on how to reach the goals: the MDG framework gave no indication as to how the Goals were to be achieved. Procedures or process elements to ensure ownership and accountability. Adequate or fairly shared financing across the MDGs and between countries. Targets for so called developed nations, other than very weakly in MDG8. Binding agreements and commitments. B. Feasibility of a future framework Beyond 2015 Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework Page 6

7 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.? Twenty years ago, at the UN Conference on Environment and Development, commonly known as the Rio Conference, the international community clearly demonstrated multilateralism when they stated that their goal was to establish new levels of cooperation among States, key sectors of societies and people, and to work towards international agreements which respect the interests of all and protect the integrity of the global environmental and development system. (Rio Declaration) Less than a decade later, through the Millennium Declaration, governments stated their resolve to create an environment at the national and global levels alike which is conducive to development and to the elimination of poverty. Additionally, it recognised that success in meeting these objectives, depends, inter alia, on good governance within each country. It also depends on good governance at the international level and on transparency in the financial, monetary and trading systems. [They] committed to an open, equitable, rule based, predictable and non discriminatory multilateral trading and financial system. An important task of the process to reach a post 2015 framework is to learn the lessons from the design and implementation of the MDG framework, as well as of other processes. It will be important to conduct discussions which are inclusive and participatory, leading to a win win situation for as many stakeholders as possible and giving all parties a reason to commit to as ambitious a framework as possible, while recognising at the same time that there is a moral obligation to change the status quo in a large number of areas. Developing countries were considered to be the key duty bearers to deliver development outcomes in the MDG framework. Consequently MDG8 a global partnership for development which potentially could have had an impact on global governance was instead limited to assisting developing countries in achieving the seven other Goals through the classic channels of aid, trade and financial liberalisation, and assisting poor countries to achieve debt sustainability. To have an impact on global governance, a future framework must deliver, or commit to change which will deliver, legitimate and adequate systems of global responsibility, accountability and transparency which apply to all countries and all actors. This is essential to secure an international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, arguably one of the most fundamental manifestations of multilateralism to date, can be fully realised. As put by the UN System Task Team in their report on post 2015, Realizing the Future We Want for All, (t)he post 2015 UN development agenda should be conceived as a truly global agenda with shared responsibilities for all countries. Accordingly, the global partnership for development would also need to be redefined towards a more balanced approach among all development partners that will enable the transformative change needed for a rights based, equitable and sustainable process of global development. This would also involve reforms of mechanisms of global governance. Poverty and inequality are not accidents of fate. They are the results of specific power relations and policy decisions which are discriminatory, exclusionary and unjust. It is that injustice which underpins poverty. Governance describes the institutional context within which human rights are achieved or denied. It is about how power and authority are exercised in the management of a national and global public affairs and resources. Crucially, it is about whether the most marginalised are empowered to participate meaningfully in decision making. Governance, as it relates to discussions on a post 2015 framework, should be viewed from two different angles: Global governance arrangements and the potential impact upon a future development framework. The relationship between governance, participation and democracy and poverty, and poverty Beyond 2015 Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework Page 7

8 eradication outcomes If the basic rules of the game are not changed, simply aligning the language used to describe the post 2015 goals with international human rights norms, would be no more than co opting rights rhetoric to give a patina of legitimacy and universality to a deeply flawed development paradigm. Addressing governance at all levels, and not restricting oneself to good governance is therefore a fundamental recommendation of VIA Don Bosco and Beyond To what extent is a global development framework approach necessary or useful to improve accountability with regard to poverty reduction policies in developing countries? As a preface, it is essential to consider poverty reduction not just as a developing country prerogative. As Andy Sumner has pointed out, (t)he proportion of the world s $1.25 and $2 poor accounted for by MICs is, respectively, 74 percent and 79 percent. 10 The poor have not moved, but the country they live in has been re classified with the negative consequence that donors attention shifted away from them. The global development framework must address poverty, and accountability with regard to poverty reduction, in all countries. As a second preface to our response, VIA Don Bosco like Beyond 2015 questions whether poverty reduction (or elimination) should be the only aim of a future framework. In our opinion, the aim of a future framework should be to create a just and sustainable world in which every human being can realise their rights. Accountability mechanisms should therefore not only be geared to poverty reduction/elimination. In times of globalisation and growing global interrelationships between societies, economies and people, poverty eradication and, more holistically, the progressive and universal realisation of human rights, are a universal responsibility and would bring universal benefits. For the latter, one simply needs to look at the impact that the eradication of discrimination against women would have on economic growth, for example. Climate change, income inequality, migration, gender justice, financial regulation, and other issues all have fundamental human rights dimensions that present themselves across countries with very different levels of income. The lack of accountability and transparency has been recognised as one of the deficiencies of the MDG framework. 11 Broadly speaking, accountability refers to policy makers and power holders being held to transparent performance standards against which they are answerable to those affected by their decisions and actions. It ensures that corruption and misconduct do not go unpunished and that good governance principles are upheld. Accountability is therefore central to democratic governance and respect for human rights, as it defines the relationship between state and citizen, and between the rights bearer and duty holder under international human rights law. Accountability improves policy making and ensures that those whose rights are infringed upon in the development process are able to seek effective redress. Grounding the post 2015 framework in human rights standards reinforces accountability by stressing that meeting development commitments is not a matter of charity but of legal obligation. Furthermore, the fact of the future framework being a global one will provide a number of supplementary and necessary elements for accountability to be meaningful. These include: 10 Beyond 2015 would like to thank Andy Sumner for sharing a yet to be published article, entitled Where do the world s poor live? Where will they live in 2020 and 2030? 11 The shortfalls have occurred not because the goals are unreachable, or because time is too short. We are off course because of unmet commitments, inadequate resources and a lack of focus and accountability." UN Secretary General Ban Ki moon, March 2010 Beyond 2015 Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework Page 8

9 Global commitment and obligations if the framework focuses only on developing countries, the mistakes of the past, as outlined in response to question 4 will be repeated, such as a lack of ownership by southern countries, a North South dichotomy being created and donors not being held to account in any meaningful way, if at all. Transparency and visibility both in the sense of noting progress, but also in lack thereof. This would also offer the possibility of recourse to measures such as naming and shaming if desired. Level playing field since VIA Don Bosco like Beyond 2015 believes that all countries and actors should be jointly responsible for achieving the goals of the future framework, then all should be held accountable in proportion to their responsibility. Monitoring and reporting will be meaningful. However, as human rights standards are universally accepted and must be translated into enforceable legislation at the appropriate level, enforceability and in turn accountability will also have to be addressed differently at different levels. The national and particularly the local levels are crucial for demanding and ensuring accountability. Nonetheless, a mix of accountability mechanisms will be required. Where the future framework addresses issues with respect to which international standards or norms already exist, the focus should be on strengthening existing accountability mechanisms (such as Human Rights Monitoring and Reporting, Peer Review Mechanism, reports on implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements) or following best practice examples (e.g. national/regional human rights commissions/court). Where the framework covers issues where there is a gap in effective mandatory accountability mechanisms, such as in the area of corporate transparency and accountability, new mechanisms will need to be put in place. Formalised global or supra national systems of enforcing accountability go hand in hand with citizen monitoring and action. Locally led monitoring is indispensable in reinforcing and complementing global systems. It provides a means both to empower people in the development process to articulate their priorities while taking greater decision making control over their lives, as well as enabling them to hold duty bearers, such as providers of basic services in local government and the private sector, more to account for delivery and performance. Local monitoring can take various forms. At its core, it should be a culture and practice, embedded in both social norms and development policy. It is about people working together in some organised way to identify and track the priority issues that affect their communities, so that barriers to progress can be addressed and solved, with support as necessary from the public sector and other accountable agencies. Locally relevant issues might concern, for example, unstable local water supply conditions, school access and quality, epidemic disease control, transparency over access to and use of natural resources or difficulties ranging from hidden fees, poor information and discrimination in obtaining social welfare entitlements. However, local monitoring relies on citizens having the space and information needed to speak up. There must be therefore be adequate protection for citizens who act as whistleblowers to ensure that those who raise up issues, or detect and expose bribery, fraud, theft of public funds or other acts of wrongdoing are adequately protected and do not face retaliation. Questions to be monitored, and information transmitted to public sector duty bearers, could, for example, include: how many qualified teachers have been deployed to rural areas?; did teaching and learning materials reach schools and training centres in the poorest areas?; has the water pump been working continuously this week, and, if not, how long has it remained unrepaired?; are seeds available from local traders?; what is the retail price of staple food?; does the health post currently have anti retroviral and anti malarial drugs?; is the information publicly accessible about which health clinic services are free and which ones have charges?; how many young children were weighed at the health post this month?; have child grant and pension payments been transmitted to all those eligible? Beyond 2015 Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework Page 9

10 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? A global framework that takes a human rights approach, prescribing fundamental principles and standards to create an enabling environment for a robust civil society would go a long way in strengthening civil society. On the other side of the coin, an active and vibrant civil society is crucial to the successful implementation of a global post 2015 framework: by being key actors that contribute to the realisations of set goals; monitoring the framework s implementation; and securing government accountability. In this context, the fundamental principles that the global framework will need to prescribe are: Freedom of association and assembly for men, women and children. The right to freedom of expression for men, women and children. The right for civil society organisations to operate free of unwarranted state interference. Freedom of movement, mobility rights and the right to travel for all people. Legal recognition facilitating the work of CSOs, including women s rights organisations. The legal space to seek and secure necessary resources in support of legitimate roles in development. The right to information. Open and participatory decision making in public policy, as stated in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration of Environment and Development and Agenda 21 which recognises that issues involving sustainable development are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens. Provision of protection when the integrity of a civil society organisation or the lives of its staff and members, or of other human right defenders, are threatened. C. The potential scope of a future framework 9. In your view, what should be the primary purpose of a future framework? Based on the Millennium Declaration and informed by the strengths and weaknesses of the MDGs, the primary purpose of a future framework should be to articulate a set of clear, concrete, binding objectives which have been agreed upon through a participatory process, which are time bound and universal in nature, which are focused on the eradication of poverty and the fulfilment of human rights, which embody a commitment to environmental, economic and social sustainability, equity, security, good governance and policy coherence for development and which have the capacity to capture and maintain appropriate and adequate support at public and political levels. The framework must have democratic accountability at its core and the commitments must be measurable, with associated indicators which are both quantitative and qualitative, and which better reflect the multidimensional nature of poverty and how people experience it. The framework must reflect a move towards the principle of universality and must harness and build on commitments made in Rio, Busan and other international fora which seek to address contemporary challenges faced in particular by the poorest and most vulnerable. 10. In your view, should its scope be global, relevant for all countries? The scope of the new framework must be global if it is to truly address the global challenges faced by people in low, middle and high income countries. More particularly, the focus should be on realizing global public goods and ensuring that the poorest and most vulnerable gain access to them: international economic stability; international political stability and peace; environmental sustainability; and knowledge. Beyond 2015 Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework Page 10

11 It should also be guided by the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities whereby every country has obligations, but that those obligations may differ to reflect the country context, and be accountable both to its citizens and to the international community. People around the world continue to suffer poverty, inequality and insecurity. Therefore, all countries should be committed to making development progress, both individually and collectively. And those who are poorest and most vulnerable should be prioritised regardless of where they live. The framework should be global in order to develop and measure, accurately, indicators of sustainability, well being and societal progress. This will require a radical departure from the MDG framework. Specifically, the measures must go beyond GDP as a means of assessing progress and focus on human rights, equality, justice and respect for planetary boundaries. The scope of the framework should include key principles and policies: Human Rights are universal and must be implemented both at national and international levels and must be respected by all actors, including the private sector. Global public goods international economic and financial stability; international political stability and peace; environmental sustainability and protection; and knowledge must be realized, with special focus on access for the poorest en most vulnerable. Inequality must be addressed within low, middle and high income countries in order to eradicate extreme poverty and to reduce relative poverty. Every country, regardless of its development status must prioritise this. Inequality must also be addressed at the global level between low, middle and high income countries. High income countries have to fulfil their obligations at the global level. Climate change mitigation and adaptation is essential at a global level. Those countries producing high levels of carbon dioxide should be held responsible for significantly reducing their emissions and to contribute according to their pollution to adaptation measures. All countries have to make their policies coherent for the development of people living in poverty. High and middle income countries have obligations towards low income countries e.g. in trade relations and agricultural policies. All countries have to be accountable within the framework and respect the principle of transparency. This would overcome a weakness of the MDGs. In the new framework there should be both quantitative and qualitative goals and indicators also for high income countries. A global framework will enjoy greater legitimacy and acceptance than one which is not. It would ensure global recognition of global responsibilities, the growth of economic and social capacity in many developing countries, and contribute to ending the antiquated North South dichotomy. Most importantly, it would have the potential to truly address global challenges. 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? A future framework should certainly focus on the poorest and most fragile countries but it also needs to address appropriately and adequately development objectives in other countries. However, two points should be made here. Firstly, VIA Don Bosco interprets the notion of development objectives extremely broadly. In addition to issues of policy coherence, human rights etc being mainstreamed, we recommend that the future framework addresses the key global challenges faced by the world today, ie. challenges that do not pertain only to developing, or even middle income countries alone, but that pertain to global public goods. Under global public goods, VIA Don Bosco understands such matters as international economic and financial stability; international political stability and peace; environmental sustainability and protection; and knowledge. Hence the need for a global framework. Beyond 2015 Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework Page 11

12 Secondly, while a focus on the poorest countries is necessary, since the demographics of global poverty have shifted and a majority of poor people now live in middle income countries, it is outdated to imagine that a post 2015 framework should only apply to low income countries. Furthermore, one possible conclusion that can be drawn from the different nature of global poverty is that extreme poverty is gradually changing from a question of poor people in absolute poor countries to questions about domestic inequality. 12 This therefore begs the question as to the nature of the appropriate response. International aid becomes less relevant and domestic policies much more so. This is yet another reason why a focus in the future framework on less traditional areas, such as policy coherence, governance and so on is so important. Nonetheless, priority should be given to the poorest and most vulnerable people in any country, independent of the development status the country has been attributed. A specific focus should be given to the most marginalised, disadvantaged and excluded, which would include people with disabilities, indigenous people and other minority groups. It should also be acknowledged that the poverty incidence is generally higher in the poorest and most fragile countries. This results in shocking statistics, such as the fact that approximately half of the children who die before their fifth birthday lived in the poorest and most fragile countries. 13 No single fragile or conflict affected state is on track to attain a single MDG. Therefore these countries do need specific attention. A common feature of the poorest and most fragile countries is their higher levels of insecurity and violence. To be meaningful, a future framework must address the interlinked challenges of conflict, insecurity and poverty since progress is fundamentally held back in countries where insecurity is high. The new framework must take into account a broader perspective on how insecurity impacts on the way in which poverty is experienced by citizens, as well as address the root causes of insecurity. For example, the lack of employment opportunities in countries can increase the risk of instability and conflict. A clear focus on job creation should therefore be included in the future framework. 12. How could a new development agenda involve new actors, including the private sector and emerging donors? Like Beyond 2015, VIA Don Bosco would support the inclusion of all stakeholders in discussions on post However, we support a maximal outcome such as businesses not just being involved in discussions, but also making pledges to contribute to meeting future agreed goals and improved reporting etc. being agreed. Since the issue of financing development is the subject of question 14, the issue of leveraging private sector investment and public financing of the private for profit sector will be dealt with exclusively there. The UN System Task Team, in its report, Realizing the Future We Want for All, likewise recognises the important role of the private sector, particularly in delivering the development objectives of a future framework, but also in their being part of the discussions leading to agreement on a future framework. Sustained economic growth for reduction of poverty, inequality and vulnerability will require strengthened partnerships among governments, the private sector and civil society while safeguarding human rights and empowerment of women Where do the world s poor live? Where will they live in 2020 and 2030?, Andy Sumner, The Millennium Development Goals and Fragile States: Focusing on What Really Matters, David Carment and Yiagadeesen Same, January Realizing the Future We Want for All, UN System Task Team on the Post 2015 UN Development Agenda Report to the Secretary General, June 2012 Beyond 2015 Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework Page 12

13 The role of the private for profit sector has been growing exponentially in importance over recent years, in its own right and through public procurement contracts and public private partnerships. However, information is lacking on the real impact of businesses contribution to development. Much is based on case studies and proof can be found of both a positive impact (such as in research and development, innovation and goods and service provision) and negative (environmental pollution, depletion of natural resources, buying up huge swathes of quality land in developing countries for biofuels or grain for animal feed, pharmaceuticals and extractive industries). This points to two issues regarding how companies should be more involved in a future development agenda. Firstly, it will be critical that a future development agenda addresses both the positive and negative impacts (ie. the role) of the private sector in the multitude of areas in which it is active or which suffer spill over effects (from security, to mobility, infrastructure, health, or finance), as well as its responsibilities, for example in terms of transparency and accountability. That leads to the second point. Improved reporting on companies impacts on development, including social and environmental aspects, as well as on human rights, would be a highly beneficial result of the framework for many reasons (such as rewarding good performers and, ideally, penalising those companies whose operations are harmful to development objectives, although in this instance reporting would need to be done by an external body since no company will voluntarily report negative outcomes). Could a new convention, or similar measure, on private sector transparency be envisaged through the post 2015 development framework? Reviewing the regulatory environment in countries, as part of transparency and accountability measures would also be valuable and would encourage the private sector to invest more, while also achieving valuable goals in the realm of good governance. Indeed a greater involvement of and by the private sector to this end could also bring results where donors have so far only met with limited success. However, reviewing regulatory environments should also involve standardising the rules applied to corporate behaviour across states and territories, so that companies are no longer able to seek more advantageous conditions elsewhere. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) must underpin all the core business operations of all companies without exception. Despite the existence of a plethora of standards in a variety of different areas (such as fair labour standards and the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines) and codes of conduct covering various areas (such as transparency or human rights), these are voluntary, difficult to monitor, relying as one does on companies own reporting structures, and therefore insufficient. So issues of tax avoidance and evasion (for example through transfer pricing) remain to be resolved, but could be, for example through countryby country reporting. Binding regulation for minimum standards in key areas should be envisaged, thereby combining a CSR approach with a corporate accountability approach. Given the huge impact of the activities of large corporations (for instance in the financial sector, but also in food, energy etc) and their potential to cause or trigger major crises with global ripple effects which massively undermine progress in terms of poverty eradication, the realisation of human rights etc, such accountability must be incorporated into or be an outcome of the new development agenda. Because, despite the existence of all these standards and principles, including the UN Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework, private sector aims are not primarily geared around fulfilling human rights, ensuring pro poor impacts or contributing to sustainable development. Does this matter? Can a win win situation be developed whereby harmful effects are mitigated, positive outcomes maximised and people are increasingly lifted out of poverty, and their rights fulfilled? According to the literature available, current models of cooperation are not leading to a balancing of the desire for making economic profit with achieving development objectives. While many companies are beginning to accept that producing in a sustainable manner, using local producers and relying on responsibly sourced raw materials is in their longer term interest, this sustainability factor is yet to be embedded in all core business operations. Such an outcome would be highly valuable from the post 2015 development agenda. Beyond 2015 Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post 2015 development framework Page 13