Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework

Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework 13.09.12 Save the Children is the world s leading independent organisation for children. We work in 120 countries. We save children s lives; we fight for their rights; we help them fulfil their potential. We work together with our partners to inspire breakthroughs in the way the world treats children and to achieve immediate and lasting change in their lives. We have consulted widely across Save the Children members in order to bring as complete a response as possible to this consultation. As an organisation with children s rights, values and principles at the core, we believe that a post-2015 development framework must be based on universal and equitable development, with the human rights principles of universality, equality and inalienability underpinning it. Furthermore, unlike with the MDGs, these principles must be visible in the objectives established. It is also important to note that Save the Children as a global organisation is in the process of formulating its official position on the most appropriate post-2015 framework. The views expressed in this answer reflect the current consensus among Save the Children members, and may evolve as we develop our official positions. Save the Children is a participating organisation in the Beyond 2015 campaign and as such has contributed to, and in places drawn on, the submission of the campaign s European Task Force. 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? As a development NGO focusing on children s rights, the emphasis of the MDGs on human development via the social sectors was welcome. It provided a counterbalance to the emphasis some placed on infrastructure, rule of law and macroeconomics. Furthermore, at least six of the MDGs have immediate relevance for children, while the remaining two (MDGs 7 and 8) would have indirect impacts. The MDGs have also prompted a number of subsequent multilateral initiatives such as Every Woman Every Child. Based on a survey earlier this year 1, Save the Children staff believe that the MDGs impacted most particularly on some donors policies, with Official Development Assistance (ODA) being channelled increasingly to social development issues, such as education and health. The degree to which the MDGs influenced developing country governments policies was less clear and rather depended on the country concerned, although a number of staff noted that there was greater openness to discuss these issues since they were now linked to a global agenda. Some Save the Children staff observed that the extent of a government s alignment with the MDGs was proportional to its dependence on foreign aid. 2 However, some countries, such as Vietnam or Rwanda, did localise the targets of the MDGs into their national strategies. Save the Children also works in many policy areas that have not been covered by the MDGs, such as child protection, and from which the MDGs may in fact have drawn attention away. Moreover, we 1 The responses to this section draw considerably on an internal report commissioned by Save the Children US, Aspirations for a post-mdg Framework, based on the Experiences and Perceptions of Save the Children, Carlisle Levine, April 2012 2 ibid Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework Page 1

work to fulfil children s rights, whereas the lack of a rights-based approach to the Goals may have made it more difficult to use rights language in conversations with governments. This is regrettable given the obligations that rights impose on governments, and others, and the opportunities they offer to children and their caretakers, to claim their rights. Lastly, Save the Children would like to highlight the fact that the MDGs have influenced our own internal policies quite considerably. Most notably, our 5-year global campaign, Every One, is entirely geared to helping to meet MDG4 on child mortality, with a secondary aim of contributing to MDG5. Our previous global campaign, Rewrite the Future, was linked to but not built exclusively on, MDG2 focusing on universal primary education. Furthermore, Save the Children country offices have found that the MDGs helped them to align their own strategies with those of governments. Case Examples In Bolivia, the government was reluctant to include family planning in the Safe Birth and Motherhood Plan. But when Save the Children pointed to the MDG indicator on contraceptives, the government accepted Save the Children s recommendation. In Nepal and Pakistan, Save the Children staff use MDG-related data to show government officials where the country currently stands and what needs to happen before 2015 in order to achieve the MDGs. These charts capture the governments attention and spur conversations about how, working together, they can help their countries advance toward the MDG targets. 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, and the MDGs have contributed to that by marshalling international efforts behind common goals. 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, it is hard to say to what extent the MDGs have had substantial added value in this regard elsewhere. According to Andy Sumner, if one looks at poverty reduction having removed China from the equation, global poverty did not fall much. 3 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. It also states that, (i)mportant 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 the latter part of 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. Our analysis has shown that less than 30% of countries are making equitable progress towards MDG 4. 4 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. One could therefore conclude that the MDGs were equity blind and did little to tackle the root causes of 3 Where will the world s poor live?, Andy Sumner, Presentation to the OECD, June 2012 4 A Fair Chance at Life, Save the Children, 2010 Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework Page 2

poverty and marginalisation, such as discrimination, which are embedded in social, political and economic processes and which impact on the achievement of all the Goals. The MDG framework s focus on poverty did help to prioritise to a certain extent development efforts on Lower Income Countries (LICs). However, it has more recently become clear that the majority of the world s poor currently live in Middle Income Countries (MICs). 5 In the future, however, as the LICs gradually pull their poorest out of poverty, and others enter the MIC category, the poor might, according to one theory, reside about 50:50 in MICs and in LICs (including conflict affected and fragile states). 6 These trends regarding where poverty lies have considerable implications for donor policies towards MICs and conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS) particularly, in order for those policies to achieve pro-poor outcomes. This is especially the case given that in the former aid is being cut, while donors hesitate to plough too much money into the latter. These poverty trends therefore have implications for the issues to be included in the future framework and how they may best be included. 3. What features and elements of the MDG framework have been particularly valuable in the fight against poverty? The MDGs have a specific emphasis on poverty, which was welcome. They also focus on a number of other aspects, such as health and education, which impact considerably on efforts to eradicate poverty. The Goals have led to more focus and priority-setting in the debates and, to a lesser extent, actions of the international community, particularly as regards human 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. That said, the focus on social development and poverty - would have been still more valuable were the MDGs to have addressed livelihoods. 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. These factors have no doubt contributed to the remarkable longevity that the MDGs have known: now twelve years later and the MDGs are still high on the development agenda. The framework may have been still more valuable should greater effort have been made to communicate it to the wider public, including local civil society organisations. In sum, the MDG framework features that were particularly valuable include: their simplicity and limited number; their time bound and measurable character with operational indicators; their emphasis on objectives rather than policy prescriptions to achieve those objectives; and their emphasis on children. 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 narrow focus on a select number of social issues and the fact that progress in these field has been measured by even narrower indicators has led to only late inclusion, undervaluation or even total omission of some important aspects of development such as freedom from violence and insecurity, equality, governance and anti-corruption, decent work and social protection, environmental sustainability, disaster risk reduction etc. Nonetheless each one of these is critical for a human development approach to produce optimal results. 5 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 2010 6 Sources: Aid workers are doing themselves out of a job, but..., Andrew Rogerson, ODI Blog Posts, 10 July 2012; Where do the world s poor live? Where will they live in 2020 and 2030?, Andy Sumner, IDS, upcoming 2012 Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework Page 3

Similarly, the focus on specific areas and narrow targets led to policies to achieve those, but did not sufficiently emphasise the importance of building the necessary local and national capacity to sustain those policies going forward without external support. Save the Children staff have commented that the MDGs focus on access not quality, on surviving not thriving. The MDGs also tend to reinforce the siloing of issues, rather than building on the links and synergies between goals and targets. There is therefore an inherent danger in the MDG approach, 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. The emphasis on aggregate measurements and national averages 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 between geographic locations, population sectors, genders, or income quintiles etc. In Burkina Faso, just to cite one example, an overall reduction in child mortality rates at the aggregate level masks an actual increase in child mortality among the poorest 20% of the population. 7 Similarly, while child mortality may have been brought down in global terms, in fact the improvements are less significant for girl child mortality than for boys. 8 And this despite the Goal on gender equality (which highlights the previous point regarding siloing ). As mentioned in response to Question 2, since there were no targets dedicated to reaching the most marginalised (such as the poorest quintile), or indeed all population groups, countries focused on pursuing low-hanging fruit and unwittingly contributed to greater inequality and discrimination. Other instances have been noted in which the Goals have created perverse incentives that may have exacerbated inequality. For example, in Uganda the Government and donors have been criticised for investing in health and education only in the most stable parts of the country, thereby ignoring the people living in the north of the country, who are already suffering the effects of civil war. That in turn serves to exacerbate the sense of exclusion among northerners which had itself contributed to the war. 9 In certain circumstances, the MDGs have been criticised for having lowered the standard of what states are obliged to deliver on under human rights law. For example, in taking measures to achieve MDG2, many governments have not set targets on other aspects of the right to education, notably that primary education should be free and compulsory. 10 Greater use should also have been made of more qualitative targets in order to encompass a more comprehensive approach to development and poverty and especially to capture the more extensive notion of childhood poverty. Save the Children would have wished, for example, to see a greater use of age-disaggregated indicators and qualitative vulnerability measurements. 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 at the global level, whereas this is far from the truth at a national level. In some cases this approach contributed to a lack of ambition at national level where the goals seemed to be unreachable anyway. Indeed, some governments are wary of agreements that they perceive as being imposed on them by the North. 7 A Fair Chance at Life, Save the Children, 2010 8 An Equal Start, Save the Children, 2011 9 Working with the grain to change the grain: Moving beyond the Millennium Development Goals, Phil Vernon and Deborrah Baksh, International Alert, Sept. 2012, cited in Growing Gaps, Narrowing Opportunities: Tackling inequality to give our children a better future, Save the Children, upcoming 2012 10 Save the Children internal paper on child rights governance, the MDGs and post-2015, August 2012 Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework Page 4

Lastly, the weakness of the accountability, monitoring and follow up mechanisms and instruments has been a major drawback in the MDG framework. This is closely linked to the lack of accountability of national governments, international institutions and other actors that will be addressed in the next question and Question 7. 5. In your view, what are the main gaps, if any, in the MDG framework? The MDGs do not provide a framework for development in its broader sense, owing to the lack of comprehensiveness in thematic coverage. It is well-known that the framework is not even as comprehensive as the original Millennium Declaration, so issues such as climate change, insecurity, fragility and conflict, governance and human rights are missing. The framework also failed to measure the equality of progress within a country. Very often the progress experienced by the lowest income quintile in a population is far behind the national average, on a range of indicators. This kind of disparity also exists for many other non-income-related parameters, such as gender. Less often spoken about is the lack of attention paid to policy coherence for development in the MDG framework and its implementation. Policy coherence in this context refers to the need to ensure that no policies negatively impact on people s perspectives for development in any country and preferably support their goals of development. Policy coherence is fundamental to the success of any development framework. There is limited value in ploughing in huge quantities of ODA to reduce poverty if with a few trade and/or agriculture policies (for example) one can undo the good that has been done, or cause harm to people and their livelihoods in other ways. 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 been 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 establish relationships based on genuine mutual accountability of all actors (please see our response to Question 7 for further details). 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.? The Millennium Declaration contained an entire paragraph on the importance of improving global governance, for example it refers to the importance of good governance at the international level and on transparency in the financial, monetary and trading systems. We are committed to an open, equitable, rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory multilateral trading and financial system. Unfortunately, these principles were largely lost when the Declaration was translated into the set of eight Goals, except for a few vague references in MDG 8. MDG 8 which potentially could have had an impact on global governance - is the Goal that has received the least focus and attention, has the least tangible targets and was essentially limited to assisting developing countries in achieving the seven other Goals through the classic channels of aid, trade and financial liberalisation, and in achieving debt sustainability. The world has changed since 2000. There are ever more pressing challenges that require effective global governance, including climate change, resource scarcity, increasing movements of people and goods across borders, and population growth. The heightened need for effective global governance comes at the same time that the world is seeing shifting global power dynamics (including the rise of emerging economies, low or stagnating growth in a number of large advanced economies, pockets of high economic growth in some low income countries and the proliferation of actors engaged in Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework Page 5

development including government, the private sector, civil society organisations, foundations, universities and religious institutions. For all of these reasons, the success of any future framework relies on getting global governance right. If there were ever a time when the development dynamic could be defined simply as one of donor-recipient relations, that time has passed. The post-2015 framework should recognise that there are many issues and challenges that affect all countries, be they climate change or income inequality, as well as the wider range of actors involved. The post-2015 agenda should take the opportunity to further development-specific goals around global governance. These should have specific targets/indicators (which may include non-quantitative measures, but must be explicit and precise) and be backed up by an accountability mechanism so that actors can be held to account for their commitments. 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 makes it doubly important, therefore, that the future framework is a global one, in which all countries commit to cooperate to making change, rather than focusing on improving the development situation of LICs. 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? As a preface, it is essential to consider poverty reduction not just as a developing country prerogative. Based on national poverty lines, 170m people live in poverty in high income countries 11 and 27% of children (more than one in four) are at risk of poverty or social exclusion in Europe. 12 The global development framework must address poverty, and accountability with regard to poverty reduction, in all countries. However, higher income countries should simultaneously continue and increase efforts to assist lower income countries to eradicate poverty through international cooperation. 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. A global framework which incorporates global accountability mechanisms, as well as working to reinforce national ones, would therefore be of value. The fact of the future framework being a global one will provide a number of necessary elements for accountability to be meaningful, such as the creation of global commitments 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, the private sector and other actors not being held to account in any meaningful way, if at all. Broadly-speaking, accountability refers to policy-makers and power-holders being held to transparent performance standards against which they are answerable, through democratic institutions and processes, most particularly at national level (eg. through a democratically elected parliament, or an independent judiciary). It ensures that corruption and misconduct do not go unpunished and that good governance principles are upheld. 11 What Do National Poverty Lines Tell Us About Global Poverty?, Ugo Gentilini and Andy Sumner, IDS, June 2012. 12 Eurostat, 2010 Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework Page 6

Post-2015, accountability must be addressed at four levels: the accountability of the international community vis-à-vis poorer countries (regarding policies and activities in areas such as trade, tax and financial regulation etc.); the accountability of governments to their citizens as well as to external donors; the ability of a population to hold its own government to account for lack of progress and to demand transparency in funding decisions and allocations (which necessitates an enabling environment including the freedom of speech); the accountability of other actors (eg. private sector) for the effects of their activities. Mechanisms are therefore needed at multiple levels (supranational through to sub-national) and 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 those existing mechanisms (such as Human Rights Monitoring and Reporting, Peer Review Mechanism, reports on implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements). 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. A decision will need to be taken on the best level for accountability mechanisms nationally or supranationally on a case-by-case basis, depending on the issue. 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? Save the Children could not imagine how the future framework could be successful in tackling the global challenges we face, such as climate change, the effects of financial and economic crises etc, if the future framework were not global and mutually beneficial, ie. applying to and binding on all countries but based on the principle of common-but-differentiated responsibility. This is quite apart from the fact that a future framework would likely be rejected by lower income countries if it only focused on them and not on higher income countries and the effects of their policies and actions as well. Such a framework should also aim to build the capacity of all countries government and civil society together to own and drive their own agenda. The future development consensus will provide great benefit if it reframes and redefines human progress and sets out the key areas which need to be addressed in order for people s rights to be achieved, together with measures to do so, even if the framework is not drafted using human rights language. The framework must be conceived in such a way that global goals can be meaningful and beneficial in national contexts, for example through differentiated targets and using different types of targets, in order to more likely gain the buy-in of countries which could be reticent of a global framework. In terms of our work with our partners, provided an ambitious and comprehensive framework is agreed upon, and that this is better communicated on the ground, this will generally mean that civil society organisations (CSOs) will attempt to align themselves with the aims of the framework, within their domain. This again will act as a unifying force for CSO action. The risk is that in trying to be ambitious, negotiations for a global framework could flounder as a result of one or several countries positions on certain issues, or that the framework could end up too complex and unmanageable. These risks must be avoided by building alliances early on with key strategic partners (such as emerging countries), by focusing on addressing the root causes of poverty and human rights violations and identifying those areas which will provide the most benefit to the poor and marginalised, and reduce inequalities across a range of indicators. A global framework will necessarily involve compromise. However, discussions about the content of the future framework must not be allowed to endanger progress on areas where there is considerable consensus. Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework Page 7

C. The potential scope of a future framework 9. In your view, what should be the primary purpose of a future framework? The primary purpose of a future framework should be to create an equitable and sustainable world in which every child can realise their rights. Based on the Millennium Declaration and informed by the strengths and weaknesses of the MDGs, the framework needs to achieve this purpose - 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, and which have the capacity to capture and maintain appropriate and adequate support at public and political levels. They must embody a commitment to equality, environmental, economic and social sustainability, poverty eradication, peace and security, good governance and policy coherence for development. The framework must have 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 at international fora by the international community which seek to address contemporary challenges faced in particular - by the poorest and most vulnerable children, such as discrimination, violence and insecurity, lack of participation, undernutrition and climate change. The framework must enshrine national ownership of the development agenda and be geared to developing sustainable national capacity to realise those goals. 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. It should be guided by the principle of commonbut-differentiated responsibility whereby every country has obligations, but that those obligations may differ to reflect the country context and the nature of what is being achieved. 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. A global framework will enjoy greater legitimacy and acceptance than one which is not. It would ensure global recognition of global responsibilities, and contribute to ending the antiquated North- South dichotomy. The fact of the future framework being global in nature will reinforce accountability. Countries must be accountable both to their citizens and to the international community, in line with our response to Question 7. Quantitative and qualitative measures will need to be developed at a global level which can be applied nationally. 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 framework should be global to make a reality of policy coherence for development. High and middle income countries have obligations towards low income countries in their trade relations, their financial, energy, agricultural policies and so on, that they will do no harm to the development perspectives of other countries. And all governments have similar obligations towards their own populations to ensure equitable progress between income quintiles, population groups, gender etc. Mechanisms will need to be established to this end including a monitoring mechanism and a means for redress. Some of these mechanisms should be global, while others may be national or local. Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework Page 8

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. Furthermore, while a focus on the poorest countries is necessary, since the demographics of global poverty have shifted and a large proportion of poor people now live in middle income countries, and will continue to do so in the future, it is outdated and inappropriate to imagine that a post-2015 framework should only apply to low income countries. As Sumner has stated, extreme poverty is gradually changing from a question of poor people in absolute poor countries to questions about domestic inequality. 13 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 issues such as policy coherence, governance and so on is so important. Priority should therefore be given to the poorest and most vulnerable people in a country, independent of the development status the country has been attributed. The future framework should address the key global challenges not just development objectives in the traditional sense - faced by the world today, ie. challenges that do not pertain only to low, or even middle, income countries, such as climate change and issues of sustainability. Hence the need for a global framework. Nonetheless, it should be acknowledged that the poorest and most fragile countries do need a special focus as they experience the most difficulty in making progress on any number of indicators. According to the World Bank s 2011 World Development Report, fragile and conflict-affected states account for 47% of the world population, but 60% of undernourished people, 61% of impoverished people, 77% of children not in primary school, 65% of people without access to safe water and 70% of infant deaths. No single fragile or conflict affected state is on track to attain a single MDG. Therefore these countries do need specific attention, which must include sustainable and consistent development financing and a better transition from humanitarian aid to development cooperation (linking relief, rehabilitation and development, or LRRD). 12. How could a new development agenda involve new actors, including the private sector and emerging donors? All actors organisations, companies, countries etc - should work together to apply the aid effectiveness principles, and in doing so deliver effective development co-operation. As regards the private sector, it should be noted that it is not a monolithic bloc and ranges from micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) through to large multinational corporations (MNCs). Furthermore, involving the private sector could take many forms. In our response to this question, we will focus on including MNCs in achieving development objectives for the following reasons: the need to address globalisation and global challenges in the future framework; their size and wide-ranging, potential impacts (both positive and negative) at global and national levels; the need for an element of global coordination and oversight. This in no way negates the very important role of all other companies, especially MSMEs, for example in providing jobs and incomes to people, contributing to economic growth and helping to lift people out of poverty, thereby contributing to development. The role of the private sector has been growing exponentially in importance over recent years. For this reason, private sector buy-in will contribute to the success of the new framework. However, evidence is lacking on the real impact of businesses contribution to development. Much is based on 13 Where do the world s poor live? Where will they live in 2020 and 2030?, Andy Sumner, 2012 Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework Page 9

case studies and proof can be found of both a positive impact (such as in research and development) and negative (environmental pollution, depletion of natural resources, buying up huge swathes of quality land in developing countries for profit). It will therefore be critical that a future development agenda engage and involve the private sector in order to address both its positive and negative impacts in the multitude of areas in which it is active or which suffer spill-over effects, as well as its responsibilities, for example in terms of transparency and accountability. 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. The social and environmental impacts of the private sector could be improved through integrated reporting (such as the proposal put forward by Aviva in advance of Rio +20), in which they are accounted for alongside financial accounts. The post-2015 agenda should play an important role in pushing forward global action on integrated reporting and could even envisage a new convention, or similar measure, on private sector transparency. Certainly an accountability mechanism, including a means for redress, should be foreseen. There are wide-ranging definitions of what constitutes responsible corporate behaviour but a lack of consistent global frameworks to guide this. Indeed, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a notion has become tainted by misunderstanding. At a minimum, companies should run responsible businesses that maximise decent work, economic development and tax revenue opportunities in developing countries. 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 longerterm interest, the sustainability factor is yet to be embedded in all core business operations. And despite the existence of a plethora of codes of conduct, standards and principles in a variety of different areas (such as fair labour standards, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the UN Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework and the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines), these are voluntary and difficult to monitor, relying as one does on companies own reporting structures. They are therefore insufficient. So issues of tax avoidance and evasion (for example through mispricing) remain to be resolved, but could be, for example through country-bycountry reporting. Binding regulation for minimum standards in key areas should be considered, 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. As regards the involvement of other actors such as emerging donors, since Save the Children believes that the future development framework should establish global goals of relevance to all countries, it goes without saying that emerging donors must be involved going forward. The buy-in of emerging donors will be one of the most important determinants of the strength and results of the post-2015 framework. Their involvement should take several forms: Dialogue on human development since they have important experience to share on what their development processes have been. Commitments to delivering on the goals set out in the framework, as well as as future donors to less well-off countries. Influencing other governments with whom consensus will need to be forged. Reinforcing adherence to ethical principles, such as non-violation of people s human rights. Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework Page 10

13. How could a future framework support improved policy coherence for development (PCD), at global, EU and country levels? The principle of Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) must be placed at very heart of the post- 2015 development agenda. It will be absolutely fundamental to achieving real, lasting, positive change, especially given the shifting nature of poverty, and the links between and impact of all policy areas on the achievement of development objectives. As recently stressed in the UN System Task Force in their report on post-2015, to realize the future we want for all, a high degree of policy coherence at the global, regional, national and sub-national levels will be required. 14 Since the current MDG framework was adopted, globalisation has advanced to a stage where it is no longer sensible or possible for political leaders to ignore the global impacts of domestic policy. Nowhere is this as evident as in the field of development cooperation. The ongoing economic, hunger and climate crises clearly demonstrate the impact of policies and actions of some countries on the poorest. Yet, there are currently no robust institutional mechanisms that prevent a country s policies (or those of the private sector) from having a negative impact on the world s poorest people, or oblige it to alter course. Save the Children believes that establishing a PCD mechanism could address this critical global accountability gap more than any other policy instrument by applying a do no harm principle across policies and by holding actors responsible for implementing it. PCD must apply at national and international levels to all policy areas and all actors, including in the realms of trade, tax and financial regulation, agriculture, energy etc. The crux of policy coherence however lies in implementation, once an agreement has been reached and principles (or other means) drawn up. If one just takes the EU as an example, one can see to what extent goodwill in one Directorate General (DG) can be overridden by the actions of another DG. And this despite a legal obligation to apply the principles of PCD across all policy areas. Establishing a complaints procedure which can trigger a revision of harmful policy provisions and which is linked to a redress mechanism to provide remedies for the negative effects of policies and actions on poor people will be crucial to the effectiveness of the PCD mechanism. The complaints procedure must be open to governments, civil society organisations and local communities. 14. How could a new framework improve development financing? In order to make progress in the financing for development agenda, the new framework will have to build upon the existing agenda: the Monterrey Consensus of Financing for Development, the subsequent Doha Declaration on Financing for Development, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, the Accra Agenda for Action and the very recent Busan Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. It is crucial that all donors - traditional and emerging - live up to their commitments on aid volumes and aid effectiveness. Global public financial transfers are crucial in a world where most developing countries still have average national GNIs which are a fraction of those of advanced economies. However, given increasingly constrained aid budgets, greater attention needs to be placed on domestic resource mobilisation: Domestic revenues must be strengthened through effective taxation. The fact that revenue collection levels are low in developing countries is due both to poor national tax systems but also to illicit financial flows through multinational companies tax evasion and fraud (amounting to approximately eight times the size of ODA, and resulting in a tax loss of 14 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 Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework Page 11

USD160 bn a year). Regulatory measures such as transparent beneficial ownership or country-by-country reporting by MNCs could help to curb tax evasion and avoidance. These measures should be accompanied by fair and progressive tax systems allowing for redistribution of income and wealth, raising revenue to finance public goods and services, and re-pricing good and services in order to internalise ecological and social costs. In addition, increasing constraints on aid budgets are leading to the use of new financing modalities, such as blending grants and loans and using public development finance to leverage private finance or private sector investments. The post-2015 framework should set clear rules for how public development finance that supports private sector investments should be used for the public good. These could include: Capping the level of finance that development agencies and institutions may give to the private sector in order to keep an appropriate balance between public and private sector financing. Preferring loans, guarantees and risk management instruments to support private sector investments; aid should only exceptionally be used to subsidise private sector investments. Setting clear conditions when supporting private investments with public finance, including: o Financial and developmental additionality: this means that public finance should only support projects that would have otherwise not taken place; and that these projects need to show through ex-ante assessments and ex-post evaluations that they are contributing positively to the achievement development goals. o Support for domestic private sectors, preferably through national and regional development finance institutions rather than international financial institutions. o Full operational transparency in decision-making processes and spending allocations. Ideally a future framework could also: Propose regulation to contain corporate excesses, including ending speculation, regulating commodity markets etc. The financial crisis has amply demonstrated the costs of inadequate financial sector regulation and an opaque financial system. Include measures to strengthen a country s ability to counter crisis. Unsustainable sovereign debt situations have invariably forced countries to adopt regressive and anti-social policies that undermine their ability to fulfil their human rights obligations. Securing international monetary stability, fair, predictable and transparent treatment of sovereign debt crises, reforming the system of Special Drawing Rights and allowing countries to put in place measures to regulate capital flows are important measures to strengthen countries ability to weather crises. Look to embedding the use of innovative financing mechanisms. Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework Page 12

D. The potential shape of a future framework 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? Firstly, Save the Children believes that a number of overarching principles should guide the development of a meaningful, global framework. These principles include: Applying a human rights-based approach which puts human rights principles at the heart of the framework and delivers equitable results, focusing particularly on the most marginalised communities and groups of people. An unequal distribution of development outcomes is neither inevitable nor acceptable. 15 Of particular note is the fact that, in addition to being more subject to inequality, children are also more vulnerable to inequality than adults owing to their unique life stage: even short-term deprivations can have lifelong consequences (such as a poor diet). 16 The principle of non-discrimination must be applied across the objectives of the post-2015 development agenda, for example through using absolute targets where possible. Improving security and protection violence and abuse, insecurity and conflict blight the lives of hundreds of millions of children every year. 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 framework should therefore address the root causes of insecurity, enhancing governance and increasing people s resilience. o Furthermore, inequalities increase the risk of children experiencing violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect. Children from stigmatised groups are more vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse and to the harmful impact of institutionalization for example. Increasing sustainability - the future development agenda must ensure environmental, social and economic sustainability. It must ensure the sustainable management of scarce resources, respecting planetary boundaries, sustainable consumption and production patterns, promote domestic resource mobilisation and the redistribution of wealth, and address people s wellbeing and quality of life (in addition to more traditional areas of social sustainability). Ensuring the participation of all stakeholders, including children, in decision-making processes as well as in the monitoring of the implementation of the future framework will be fundamental for improving governance and accountability and transparency. Secondly, in designing a global framework which will necessarily focus on issues of global concern, it will also be important to retain a focus on human development via the social sectors, such as health, education, food security and nutrition, with clear, measurable targets. A clear focus on livelihoods, including decent work and supportive measures such as social protection, should be included in the future framework. Social protection systems are fundamental to reducing inequalities (for example, through improving access for disadvantaged groups to basic services, as well as through redistributing income from richer to poorer people, particularly when combined with progressive taxation). Thirdly, accountability and transparency must be addressed: as discussed in Section A, transparency and accountability for results at all levels was lacking in the MDG framework. The future framework must include accountability mechanisms which hold governments and all other actors (such as the 15 After the Millennium Development Goals: setting out the options and must haves for a new development framework in 2015, Save the Children, April 2012 16 GROWING GAPS, NARROWING OPPORTUNITIES: Tackling inequality to give our children a better future, Save the Children, forthcoming 2012 Save the Children Submission to the EC Public Consultation Towards a post-2015 development framework Page 13