Global partnership –
thoughts on a new leitmotif
for international politics
Reader Jos van Gennip Lecture
The Dutch Senate, January 22, 2014
Reader Jos van Gennip Lecture
The Dutch Senate, January 22, 2014
Jos van Gennip Lecture
The aim of the Jos van Gennip Lectures is to provide an impetus to the Dutch public debate and policy
by placing current developments in the international global development debate in a Dutch context.
The Jos van Gennip Lectures are organized by NCDO and Institute of Social Studies (ISS) as a token of
appreciation for Van Gennip’s commitment and invaluable contribution in the fields of international
development cooperation and global sustainable development.
NCDO is a Dutch expertise and advisory center for citizenship and international cooperation. It
promotes public awareness of international cooperation and the importance of active Dutch
involvement in this area. NCDO carries out research, provides information and advice, stimulates
public debate, for example by organizing the Jos van Gennip Lectures, and is actively involved in the
field of training and education. During the implementation of these activities NCDO cooperates with
government, political and social organizations, the business community, the research sector and with
citizens directly.
More information can be found by visiting www.ncdo.nl
The International Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague is part of the Erasmus University
Rotterdam (EUR). ISS is a highly diverse international community of scholars and students from the
global south and the north, which brings together people, ideas and insights in a multi-disciplinary
setting which nurtures, fosters and promotes critical thinking and conducts innovative research into
fundamental social problems. ISS shares expertise with a wider public by providing high-level policy
advice, serving as a platform for debate and the exchange of ideas and engaging in consultancy can
mark itself as a unique and still growing Institution. Being both research- and teaching-based, the
collected talent and significant contributions its academics have made in the field of development can
be at least partially attributed to the multicultural and close-knit community that has marked the
Institution’s history.
More information can be found by visiting www.iss.nl
Cover photo: Bart Maat / Hollandse Hoogte
Amsterdam, January 2014
NCDO is the centre for global citizenship.
P.O. Box 94020, 1090 AD Amsterdam
tel +31 (0)20 568 87 55
info@ncdo.nl, www.ncdo.nl
JOS VAN GENNIP LECTURE
THE DUTCH SENATE, JANUARY 22, 2014
Global partnership – thoughts on a new leitmotif for international politics
PROGRAMME
15.00
Welcome and registration
15.30
Opening by Hans Franken, Vice-President of the Senate
15.35
Introduction by moderator Rolph van der Hoeven, Institute of Social Studies
15.45
Lecture by Horst Köhler, former President of the Federal Republic of Germany
and member of the UN High Level Panel of eminent persons on the Post-2015
Development Agenda - Global partnership – thoughts on a new leitmotif for
international politics
16.30
Lecture by Lilianne Ploumen, Minister for Foreign Trade and Development
Cooperation
17.00
Discussion
17.40
Concluding remarks by Pieter van Geel, Chairman of the NCDO Board of
Supervisors
17.45
Drinks
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

BIOGRAPY HORST KÖHLER

BIOGRAPHY LILIANNE PLOUMEN

A LIFE OF DIGNITY FOR ALL
UNITED NATIONS

A NEW GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP
THE CO-CHAIRS OF THE HIGH-LEVEL PANEL OF EMINENT
PERSONS ON THE POST-2015 DEVELOPMENT AGENDA

A WORLD TO GAIN
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE NETHERLANDS

A DECENT LIFE FOR ALL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DE NEDERLANDSE INZET IN DE POST-2015 ONTWIKKELINGSAGENDA
MINISTER PLOUMEN

THE EU IN 2030
MARGARITAS CHINAS

THE POST- 2015 DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

CAPITALISM AND INEQUALITY
JOS VAN GENNIP
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP - THOUGHTS ON A NEW LEITMOTIF FOR INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
INTRODUCTION
The Jos van Gennip Lecture is a series of lectures named after former Dutch Senator Mr. Van
Gennip, who resigned as Chairman of the Board of NCDO in February 2012. The lectures are
organized by NCDO and ISS as a token of appreciation for Van Gennip’s commitment and
invaluable contribution in the fields of international development cooperation and global
sustainable development.
The aim of the lectures is to provide an impetus to the Dutch public debate and policy by
placing current developments in the international global development debate in a Dutch
context. The lectures cover topics on international cooperation and sustainable
development. Specifically, it focuses on analyses of (global) social, economic and ecological
developments and their impact on the Dutch international cooperation and global
sustainable development policies.
This reader provides background information for the second Jos van Gennip Lecture, to be
held on January 22, 2014: Global partnership – thoughts on a new leitmotif for international
politics. It contains the biographies of Horst Köhler and Lilianne Ploumen, both of whom will
speak at the lecture, the programme and a number of relevant articles and reports on the
lecture’s subject.
BIOGRAPHY HORST KÖHLER
Horst Köhler served as the ninth President of the Federal Republic of
Germany between 2004 and 2010. During his term of office he was not only
engaged in the domestic arena but he was committed in the field of foreign
issues as well. He advocated a human dimension to globalization with clearly
defined rules and was therefore a staunch campaigner for poverty eradication
and the African continent.
During his career, Mr Köhler was appointed as State Secretary in 1990 in which position he negotiated
the German-German monetary union with the GDR leadership. Additonally, he achieved the
agreement on the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the GDR in Moscow. Moreover, he was chief
negotiator for the Maastricht Treaty on European Monetary Union, as well as the Personal
Representative (Sherpa) of the then Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl for the World Economic Summits
of the then G7.
In 1993 he became President of the German Savings Bank Association and worked to create a modern
image of the organization and recognized the particular responsibility of the savings banks for small
and medium-sized enterprises and for the social climate in the municipalities.
In 1998 he took the position of the President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development in London until 2000, when he was proposed as the new Managing Director of the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington, DC. He acted in this position until his election as
Federal President in 2004.
President Köhler was a member of UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on the Post-2015
Development Agenda from 2012-2013 and continues to serve in a number of national and
international organizations in honorary positions.
BIOGRAPHY LILIANNE PLOUMEN
Lilianne Ploumen holds a Master’s Degrees in Social History (1988) and
Strategic Marketing Management (1992) In 1983, while still at university,
Lilianne Ploumen became a community outreach worker in the Crooswijk
area of Rotterdam. Two years later she joined the Institute of Psychological
Market Research (IPM), working in the statistics department and as a
research project leader. IPM focuses on research-based consultancy.
In 1995 she founded Ploumen Projecten, an organisation specialising in market research and
innovation for commercial and non-profit clients. In the same year she also began working as a
fundraising coordinator for Mama Cash, an international fund supporting women’s initiatives, going
on to become director of the organisation from 1996 to 2001.
From 2001 to 2007 Ms Ploumen worked for the development organisation Cordaid, first as head of
quality and strategy and later as director of international programmes. She was Chair of the Labour
Party (PvdA) from October 2007 to January 2012.
On 5 November 2012 Lilianne Ploumen was appointed Minister for Foreign Trade and Development
Cooperation in the Rutte-Asscher government.
Lilianne Ploumen previously held the position of Vice Chair of the Evert Vermeer Foundation, and was
a member of the Labour Party’s South-North Committee (advising on international cooperation). She
has also been a board member of feminist organisation Opzij and Women Inc. and member of the Stop
Aids Now! supervisory board.
A/68/202
United Nations
General Assembly
Distr.: General
26 July 2013
Original: English
Sixty-eighth session
Item 118 of the provisional agenda*
Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit
A life of dignity for all: accelerating progress towards
the Millennium Development Goals and advancing the
United Nations development agenda beyond 2015
Report of the Secretary-General
Summary
The present report is submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution 65/1,
in which the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to report annually on
progress in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals until 2015 and
to make recommendations for further steps to advance the United Nations
development agenda beyond 2015.
Renewed efforts are essential for achieving the Millennium Development Goals
by the end of 2015. While providing an assessment of progress to date, the report
also identifies policies and programmes that have driven success in the achievement
of the Goals and can contribute to accelerating it. These include emphasizing
inclusive growth, decent employment and social protection; allocating more
resources for essential services and ensuring access for all; strengthening political
will and improving the international policy environment; and harnessing the power
of multi-stakeholder partnerships.
A new post-2015 era demands a new vision and a responsive framework.
Sustainable development — enabled by the integration of economic growth, social
justice and environmental stewardship — must become our global guiding principle
and operational standard. This is a universal agenda that requires profound economic
transformations and a new global partnership. It also requires that the international
community, including the United Nations, embrace a more coherent and effective
response to support the agenda. As we make the transition to this new era, we need to
continue the work begun with the Millennium Development Goals and ensure that
extreme poverty is ended within a generation. In keeping with United Nations
principles, this post-2015 framework can bring together the full range of human
aspirations and needs to ensure a life of dignity for all.
* A/68/150.
13-40932 (E) 130813
*1340932*
A/68/202
I. Introduction
1.
The world’s quest for dignity, peace, prosperity, justice, sustainability and an
end to poverty has reached an unprecedented moment of urgency.
2.
In 2000, the States Members of the United Nations agreed on a bold vision for
the future that reaffirmed the fundamental values of freedom, equality, solidarity,
tolerance, respect for the planet and shared responsibility.
3.
That vision, enshrined in the Millennium Declaration (General Assembly
resolution 55/2) and rooted in the Charter of the United Nations, recognized the
need to pool efforts as never before and to advance on three fronts simultaneously:
development, peace and security, and human rights. Global challenges, local
solutions; shared burden, shared gain: this remains the credo of international action
for our collective well-being.
4.
Among the promises made in the Millennium Declaration was a compelling
pledge to spare no effort to free all women, men, girls and boys from the abject and
dehumanizing conditions of poverty. The call itself was not new; the commitment to
better standards of living is part of the purposes and principles of the United
Nations. But what was new was the sense of possibility — the conviction that
through a combination of targets, tangible investments, genuine action and political
will, countries and people working together could end poverty in all its forms.
5.
The Millennium Development Goals gave expression to this resolve. Since
their adoption, Governments, partners and an inspiring constellation of groups and
individuals around the world have mobilized to tackle the many dimensions of
poverty. Those efforts have generated unprecedented advances in human
development.
6.
There has been substantial progress in achieving the Millennium Development
Goals and several successes in reaching specific targets globally and in individual
countries. However, the prospects for achieving all of the Goals differ sharply
across and within countries and regions. More than a billion people still live in
extreme poverty. Far too many people face serious deprivation in health and
education, with progress hampered by significant inequality related to income,
gender, ethnicity, disability, age and location. The prolonged global economic
downturn and violent conflicts in recent years have exacerbated poverty, inequality
and exclusion. Biodiversity loss, the degradation of water, drylands and forests and
the intensifying risks of climate change threaten to reverse our achievements to date
and undermine any future gains.
7.
We must do everything we can to achieve the Millennium Development Goals
by the end of 2015. That work is unfinished and must continue in order to secure the
well-being, dignity and rights of those still on the margins today, as well as of future
generations. By meeting our existing commitments, we will be in the best possible
position from which to agree upon and implement a universal agenda for sustainable
development after 2015.
8.
At the same time, the world has changed radically since the turn of the
millennium. New economic powers have emerged, new technologies are reshaping
our societies and new patterns of human settlement and activity are heightening the
pressures on our planet. Inequality is rising in rich and poor countries alike.
2
13-40932
A/68/202
9.
A new era demands a new vision and a responsive framework. Sustainable
development, enabled by the integration of economic growth, social justice and
environmental stewardship, must become our global guiding principle and
operational standard. This framework can bring together the full range of human
aspirations and needs. It offers a template for mutually reinforcing approaches to
global challenges. Sustainable development is, in short, the pathway to the future.
10. So the challenge remains, even as it has taken on new complexity and
increased in scale: we must fulfil our promises and meet the aspirations of the
world’s peoples, and we must summon the unity to realize the dream of the Charter
and the Millennium Declaration. Ours is the first generation with the resources and
know-how to end extreme poverty and put our planet on a sustainable course before
it is too late.
11. The transition to sustainable development must not mean any diminishment
whatsoever in the commitment to ending poverty. As underscored in the outcome
document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, held in
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2012 (General Assembly resolution 66/288), poverty
eradication is an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. This is a
matter of basic justice and human rights. It is also a historic opportunity. If ours is
the generation that can end poverty, there should be no deferring this essential
mission, no shrinking away from the task. In a world of great wealth and
technological advances, no person anywhere should be left behind. No person
should go hungry, lack shelter or clean water and sanitation, face social and
economic exclusion or live without access to basic health services and education.
These are human rights, and form the foundations for a decent life.
12. Nor can progress be achieved or sustained amid armed conflict, violence,
insecurity and injustice. These ills often have roots in social and economic
deprivation and inequality. In the same vein, poverty can be a precursor and
breeding ground of instability. We know that upholding human rights and freeing
people from fear and want are inseparable; it is imperative that we do more to act on
this basic truth.
13. The present report is intended to galvanize greater efforts to end poverty and
achieve sustainable and inclusive growth. We will need enlightened and courageous
leadership in the halls of government and the engagement of responsible businesses
and civil society the world over. I have drawn considerable inspiration from a
dynamic United Nations-led process — a global conversation launched in 2012 on
the priorities of a new development agenda that would build on the Millennium
Development Goals. In a series of global, regional and national consultations in
nearly 100 countries and through a social media platform, more than a million
people have shared their views on “the world they want”. I am profoundly grateful
to all who expressed their hopes and expectations and offered ideas and constructive
criticism. The United Nations is strongly committed not just to listening to those
voices, but also to amplifying and acting on what we have heard and learned.
14. In defining a new agenda, Member States can also benefit from the insights of
a set of illuminating reports. My High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the
Post-2015 Development Agenda, co-chaired by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono,
President of Indonesia, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, President of Liberia, and David
Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, called for major transformative economic and institutional shifts: a new
13-40932
3
A/68/202
global partnership and a data revolution for monitoring progress and strengthening
accountability.
15. Reports by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, the Global
Compact Office, the United Nations System Task Team on the Post-2015 United
Nations Development Agenda, the regional commissions and our partners in civil
society and academia have also provided important inputs and recommendations for
the formulation and content of the processes ahead.
16. The common ground in these contributions far outweighs any differences.
Indeed, it is possible to see the emerging outlines of a new sustainable development
agenda: universal in nature yet responsive to the complexities, needs and capacities
of individual countries and regions; bold in ambition but simple in design;
combining the economic, social and environmental dimensions while putting the
highest priority on ending poverty and reducing inequality; protective of the planet,
its biodiversity, water and land; rights-based, with particular emphasis on women,
young people and marginalized groups; eager for new and innovative partnerships;
and supported by pioneering approaches to data and rigorous accountability
mechanisms. Guided by this far-reaching vision, a limited set of goals with
sustainable development at the core, as called for at the United Nations Conference
on Sustainable Development, could be constructed to encapsulate current challenges
and the priorities of the new agenda and to guide the transformation we need.
17. In the present report we take stock of where we are and where we need to
go — first, in the time that remains until the end of 2015, and second, in the period
beyond that. As a contribution to the discussions and negotiations of Member States,
I offer my sense of the lessons we have derived from the Millennium Development
Goals and set out a number of possible elements for consideration in charting a way
forward. I look forward to a rich process of consultation and debate as the crucial
year of 2015 draws near.
18. We are all aware of the vulnerabilities and perils that define daily life across
the world. But there is also simultaneously a sense of wondrous potential made
possible in part by science and technology but even more by our own hard work and
devotion to common progress. Based on everything I have seen and heard during my
six and a half years as Secretary-General, I am convinced that, collectively, we have
the leadership, conviction and courage to address short-term uncertainties while
seizing the opportunity for long-term change. In that spirit of hope and resolve, I
offer the present report to the membership of the United Nations.
II. Achieving the Millennium Development Goals and
accelerating progress
19. The Millennium Development Goals are our promise to the world’s poorest
and most vulnerable. They have succeeded in placing people at the centre of the
development agenda.
20. We have made remarkable progress. Many countries — including some of the
poorest — have aligned their policies and resources with the Goals to make
unparalleled gains. Several critical targets have already been met or will be met by
the end of 2015, both at the aggregate level and in individual countries. Sizable
gains have occurred in even the poorest countries.
4
13-40932
A/68/202
21. However, progress has been insufficient and highly uneven. Rural areas and
marginalized groups continue to lag behind on virtually all goals and targets.
Countries in or emerging from conflict, disaster or instability face significant
challenges. In addition, the economic and financial crisis has complicated efforts,
including by putting pressure on official development assistance.
22. Yet progress continues. In the Millennium Development Goals Report 2013, it
is stressed that despite challenges and gaps, the agenda embodied by the Goals
retains great power in engendering collective action for faster results.
A.
Where do we stand on the Goals?
23. At the global level, poverty and hunger have been reduced significantly. In
developing regions, the proportion of people living on less than $1.25 a day fell by
more than half, from 47 per cent in 1990 to 22 per cent in 2010, with the majority
living in rural areas. Much of this progress, however, has been made in a few large
countries, primarily China and India. Moreover, even if the poverty target has been
met, 1.2 billion people are still living in extreme poverty. For example, despite
recent strong economic growth and declining poverty rates in sub-Saharan Africa,
the number of people living in poverty is rising, and the region is still vulnerable to
shocks that can rapidly erode gains.
24. The target of halving the percentage of people suffering from hunger by 2015
is within reach. The proportion of undernourished people in developing regions fell
from 23.2 per cent in the period from 1990 to 1992 to 14.9 per cent in 2010-2012.
However, one in eight people remain chronically undernourished, and one in four
children suffers from stunted growth because of malnutrition.
25. We risk failing to keep our promise to enable all children to go to school. The
number of children out of primary school declined from 102 million to 57 million
between 2000 and 2011. But progress has slowed significantly over the past five
years. Without renewed efforts, the target of universal primary education by 2015
seems beyond reach, particularly in conflict-affected countries. Half the world’s
out-of-school children live in sub-Saharan Africa, with the gap largest for children
and adolescents from the poorest households. Much stronger efforts are needed to
improve the quality of education and provide lifelong learning opportunities,
especially for girls and women, those belonging to ethnic minorities, persons with
disabilities and children living in conflict-affected areas, rural areas or urban slums.
26. Women and girls are major drivers of development. Yet challenges to
achieving gender equality and women’s rights remain significant. In many
developing countries, girls are denied their right to primary education. Women have
been gaining employment in non-agricultural sectors, but often in less secure jobs
with fewer social benefits than those held by men. In both the public and private
spheres, women continue to be denied opportunities to influence decisions that
affect their lives. Gender-based violence contravenes women’s and girls’ rights,
undermines development and is an affront to our common humanity.
27. Despite significant progress globally and in many countries, a renewed
commitment is needed to improve the health and life prospects of mothers and
children. The mortality rate for children under 5 dropped by 41 per cent between
1990 and 2011 — a significant achievement, yet far short of the target of a
two-thirds reduction. The maternal mortality rate fell by 47 per cent over the past
13-40932
5
A/68/202
two decades — again, important progress, but still far from the target of 75 per cent.
Intensified efforts are needed to reach the most vulnerable women and children and
ensure their sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, including full
access to basic health services and sexual and reproductive education.
28. New HIV infections declined by 21 per cent globally over the past decade, and
close to 10 million people living with HIV are receiving lifesaving antiretroviral
treatment. Expanded treatment and prevention yielded a 25 per cent reduction in
AIDS-related deaths between 2005 and 2011. Yet 2.5 million new infections still
occur each year and in many parts of the globe, millions lack access to treatment.
The last decade saw a 25 per cent fall in mortality rates from malaria globally,
sparing the lives of an estimated 1.1 million people. Between 1995 and 2011,
51 million tuberculosis patients were treated successfully, saving 20 million lives.
29. Some of the targets for ensuring environmental sustainability have been
achieved: the target for improved water sources was met ahead of schedule, and
over the past decade over 200 million slum dwellers — double the target —
benefited from improved water and sanitation facilities, durable housing or
sufficient living space. Furthermore, from 1990 to 2011, 1.9 billion people gained
access to a latrine, flush toilet or other improved sanitation facility. With rapid
urbanization and population growth, however, the number of slum dwellers is on the
rise. Two and a half billion people lack access to improved sanitation, while a
billion practise open defecation, a continued source of illness.
30. In all countries, the achievement of Goal 7, on ensuring environmental
sustainability, remains at significant risk because of the profound and urgent
challenges posed by climate change. Carbon dioxide emissions are more than
46 per cent higher than in 1990. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide
has exceeded 400 parts per million, a level not seen in millions of years and
threatening the existence of the planet.
31. Biodiversity loss continues at a rapid pace. Freshwater resources are being
depleted and fish stocks are overexploited. Land degradation and desertification,
ocean acidification and the loss of species and forests continue at an alarming rate.
32. As shown in the forthcoming MDG Gap Task Force Report 2013, progress
towards a global partnership for development has fallen short of expectations.
Following an encouraging rise in official development assistance since 2000, over
the past two years aid flows have declined. Despite significant debt relief for many
countries, the debt-servicing burden of some low-income countries remains
intolerably high. Progress in improving market access for many developing
countries has been slow, and “aid for trade” has not escaped the impact of reduced
official development assistance. Despite welcome gains in connectivity, a
substantial digital divide remains between developed and developing regions.
B.
Which policies and programmes have best driven progress?
33. It is crucial to know what works and what does not. More than a decade of
experience has painted a revealing picture. Strong national ownership and
well-managed policies, supported coherently by partners at all levels, has
underpinned progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Policies that
foster robust and inclusive economic growth, accompanied by measures to improve
the access of poor and excluded people to quality basic services, have produced
6
13-40932
A/68/202
gains in many countries. Much has been learned by formulating and implementing
those policies. Applying these lessons will be important for making more rapid
progress in the time that remains.
Emphasizing inclusive growth, decent employment and social protection
34. Inclusive economic growth with decent employment and decent wages has
proven to be a prerequisite for achieving the Millennium Development Goals,
particularly Goal 1, on eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. Progress in East
Asia has been strong, and several countries in Latin America and Africa have
successfully combined economic growth and redistributive policies.
35. Targeted investments in public health systems, fighting disease, education,
infrastructure and agricultural productivity have all played important roles in
achieving the Goals and promoting economic growth. These interventions work in a
synergistic way and are therefore highly effective in integrated development
programmes. Cash transfers targeting poor and marginalized families have also
bolstered progress.
36. In East Asia, reforms in the agricultural sector have lifted hundreds of millions
of people out of extreme poverty. Many Governments in the region have also
adopted policies that increase social spending, expand social protection and raise the
minimum wage.
37. Policies promoting rural employment have proved to have positive results in
terms of poverty reduction, food consumption, household spending on education and
health, debt reduction and asset creation.
38. In addition, programmes in Latin America and South-East Asia that have
combined increased food production and distribution with skills training,
microfinance, land distribution and nutrition education programmes have had
positive impacts on child mortality and maternal health.
Allocating more resources for essential services and ensuring access for all
39. To accelerate progress on education, some countries have eliminated school
fees and reduced the indirect costs of schooling. In Africa and the Middle East,
policies have targeted orphans and other vulnerable children with vouchers for
uniforms and books. In Asia, countries have scaled up stipend programmes and
introduced financial support mechanisms for ethnic minority students.
40. In West Africa, complementing investments in infrastructure with female
literacy campaigns to overcome resistance to girls’ education in rural areas led to a
significant increase in the rate of enrolment of girls in primary schools.
41. Some countries have expanded access to primary education while tackling
gender disparities at the same time. Achieving the parity target by 2015 is within
reach if entrenched gender disadvantages can be overcome, particularly in countries
where early marriage remains pervasive.
42. Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have launched nationwide midwifery schemes
to train and deploy tens of thousands of front-line health workers to accelerate
progress in preventing maternal and child mortality.
43. Improved national strategies supported by additional financial resources have
contributed to faster progress on the Millennium Development Goals in the area of
13-40932
7
A/68/202
health in many countries. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and
Malaria, the GAVI Alliance and the United States President’s Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief have played a major role, complementing national efforts.
44. Investments in human and physical infrastructure for the public health-care
sector are paying off in South Asia, where services have been provided free of
charge in facilities close to patients.
45. Policies supporting free universal access to quality primary health care for
women and children have reduced child mortality in some countries in Sub-Saharan
Africa, especially when special attention is given to reducing deaths from malaria,
pneumonia, diarrhoea and measles and to rapidly scaling up the provision of
insecticide-treated bednets, measles vaccine and vitamin A supplements.
46. National initiatives have proven to be effective in achieving water and
sanitation targets. In South-East Asia, partnerships between local governments,
builders and community leaders have been launched to meet the need for drinking
water and sanitation. Access to latrines has increased significantly, driven by
community empowerment activities, strengthened institutions and a community
hygiene campaign.
Strengthening political will and improving the international
policy environment
47. The global nature of many current challenges requires coordinated global
action. I am very concerned by any developments or trends that threaten the global
partnership for development, a core part of the Millennium Development Goal
framework. There is an urgent need to stop and reverse the two-year contraction of
official development assistance and aid for trade, especially for the least developed
countries. Stakeholders should strengthen coordination and follow through on
commitments to and for effective aid delivery, as well as cracking down on illicit
capital flows, returning stolen assets and stemming tax avoidance and evasion.
48. I urge the members of the World Trade Organization to redouble their efforts
to reach a development-oriented conclusion of the Doha Round of trade negotiations
and improve duty-free, quota-free market access for products of least developed
countries. Further efforts are needed to ensure timely debt relief for critically
indebted developing countries, thus improving their chances of achieving the
Millennium Development Goals.
49. A stronger partnership is also needed among governments, pharmaceutical
companies, research facilities and philanthropic organizations to make essential
medicines more affordable and available in public health facilities, including using
the provisions available to developing countries in the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
50. Limiting and reversing the increase in the average global temperature to
2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in line with international agreements
demands bold, coordinated national and international action. The United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change contains commitments and guidance,
most notably the agreement of Governments to negotiate an ambitious, legally
binding global agreement by 2015 that will cover all countries of the world in a fair
way. The situation calls for full and urgent adherence to what was agreed.
8
13-40932
A/68/202
51. Bolder measures are equally urgent on other environmental sustainability
targets, including those related to biodiversity, water, land use and forests. Where
commitments already exist, we need faster implementation of the corresponding
multilateral environmental agreements.
52. With support from the international community, developing countries should
accelerate efforts to improve the transfer of and access to information and
communications technology, as well as to lower its cost, especially in key
service-delivery areas. In order for technology transfers to countries embracing deep
structural economic transformations to be successful, the institutional and human
capacity gaps will need to be addressed at the local level.
53. The multi-stakeholder partnership model has emerged as a promising way to
share burdens, catalyse action and bring all relevant actors to bear in addressing
specific problems. We need to mobilize more action to deliver on commitments and
exploit the full potential of the partnership approach.
C.
Accelerating progress towards the Goals to 2015
54. Fulfilling our existing commitments and promises on the Millennium
Development Goals must remain our foremost priority. Member States, with the
continued support of development agencies, civil society and the private sector,
should and can take bolder action to accelerate progress.
55. Together, we need to focus on those Goals that are most off-track and on
countries that face particular development challenges, including the least developed
countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing States and
countries affected by or recovering from conflicts or disasters. In so doing, we must
pay particular attention to the needs and rights of the most vulnerable and excluded,
such as women, children, the elderly, indigenous people, refugees and displaced
families, as well as people with disabilities and those living in poor rural areas and
urban slums.
56. The preceding section highlighted some successful strategies for achieving the
Millennium Development Goals. They show that accelerating progress requires
national ownership and international commitment, with the right policies backed by
reliable, timely financial resources and people-centred multi-stakeholder
partnerships. Countries should make every effort to mobilize domestic resources. At
the same time, these resources should be supplemented by external support where
necessary.
57. In April I launched the campaign “MDG Momentum — 1,000 Days of Action”
as a spur to achieve the gains we need by 2015. My appeal seeks to give additional
impetus to several key initiatives that were already under way in response to the call
for acceleration made at the 2010 high-level plenary meeting of the General
Assembly on the Millennium Development Goals.
58. The Millennium Development Goals Acceleration Framework, a coordinated
effort by the United Nations Development Group, is firmly rooted in national
ownership and supports the systematic identification of bottlenecks and local
solutions. Acceleration plans are being implemented in more than 46 countries
across all regions, covering a range of goals and targets and bringing together a full
spectrum of actors. Those efforts are assessed by the United Nations system in
13-40932
9
A/68/202
collaboration with the World Bank under the umbrella of the United Nations System
Chief Executives Board for Coordination.
59. In one sub-Saharan African country, an acceleration plan on maternal health is
being implemented through the revised national reproductive health policy and
protocol. This is backed by a multi-pronged strategy that includes the use of mobile
telephones for diagnosis and referrals and partnerships with local road transport
associations to facilitate the travel of women in labour.
60. When implemented at the subnational level, the Acceleration Framework can
also help to address disparity and inequality, as well as underlying causes such as
discrimination and sociocultural exclusion. In one South American country,
provinces and municipalities are implementing acceleration plans to address local
priorities, such as poverty reduction and the economic empowerment of women,
where progress lags behind the national level.
61. The €1 billion Millennium Development Goals initiative of the European
Union has been supporting countries in the African, Caribbean and Pacific regions
to accelerate progress on the Goals that are the most off-track: eradicating hunger,
improving maternal health, curbing child mortality and improving access to water
and sanitation. Nearly 50 have been supported to date.
62. Regional initiatives are an increasingly important part of the picture. In 2012,
the African Union Commission adopted a road map on shared responsibility and
global solidarity to accelerate progress in the response to HIV, tuberculosis and
malaria. The actions in the road map are organized around three strategic pillars:
diversified financing, access to medicines and enhanced health governance.
Similarly, in 2012, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations adopted a road map
for the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals focusing on five key areas:
advocacy and linkages, knowledge, resources, expertise, and regional cooperation
and public goods.
63. Every Woman Every Child, a multi-stakeholder partnership launched in 2010,
seeks to save the lives of 16 million women and children by 2015. The United
Nations secured commitments of $20 billion from more than 250 partners, including
governments, multilateral organizations, the private sector and civil society. A new
partnership between governments and United Nations agencies, “Committing to
child survival: a promise renewed”, was launched to reduce the under-5 mortality
rate to fewer than 20 deaths per 1,000 live births in all countries by 2035.
64. The Sustainable Energy for All initiative, launched in 2011, aims to provide
universal access to modern energy, double the global rate of improvement in energy
efficiency and double the share of renewables in the global energy mix, all by 2030.
Over $50 billion has been committed from all sectors to make this a reality, and
more than 70 countries have signed up.
65. The Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme mobilizes resources to
scale up agricultural assistance to low-income countries. The Zero Hunger
Challenge, launched at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development,
calls for universal access to adequate food year-round, steps to prevent childhood
stunting, a sustainable transformation of food systems, a doubling of productivity
and incomes among smallholder farmers and drastic reductions in food losses and
waste. Through the “Scaling Up Nutrition” movement, a partnership effort involving
governments, civil society, the United Nations system, business and researchers,
10
13-40932
A/68/202
more than 100 partners are supporting 40 countries in their efforts to reduce
malnutrition and child stunting.
66. The Global Education First Initiative, launched in September 2012, aims to
raise the political profile of education and seeks to ensure access, improve the
quality of learning and foster global citizenship.
67. The Call to Action on Sanitation, initiated in March, has provided new
momentum on an area that has received inadequate attention. The campaign for
universal access to bednets by the end of 2010 made important inroads in tackling
malaria. The One Million Community Health Workers campaign in Sub-Saharan
Africa is expected to be critical in generating gains across the health-related
Millennium Development Goals.
68. The replenishment of the Global Fund in the third quarter of 2013 will be of
decisive significance for continued progress against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
I call upon all donors, public and private, to do their part to support the Fund at this
moment of utmost urgency as well as opportunity.
69. Multi-stakeholder arrangements have proven successful because they expand
on traditional partnerships by significantly increasing available resources,
improving the effectiveness of their use and increasing policy and operational
coherence. To build on those advantages, I have put forward a proposal to Member
States for a new United Nations Partnership Facility, which would aim to enhance
the Organization’s ability to facilitate delivery at scale at both the global and
country levels.
D.
Making the transition to a new sustainable development agenda
that builds on the Goals
70. The adoption of the Millennium Development Goals represented a major shift
in galvanizing global political will for poverty eradication. The Goals focused the
world’s attention on halving extreme poverty and promoting human development by
setting priorities, goals and targets. Yet the Goals represent only the halfway mark
towards the aim of tackling poverty in all its forms. United Nations projections for
2015 indicate that almost 1.3 billion people will still live in extreme poverty,
mothers will continue to die needlessly in childbirth and children will suffer and die
from hunger, malnutrition, preventable diseases and a lack of clean water and
sanitation.
71. The job we started with the Millennium Development Goals therefore needs to
be finished. Careful attention will be needed as we make the transition to an agenda
that embraces the three dimensions of sustainable development yet ensures that
poverty eradication is its highest priority and that extreme poverty is ended within a
generation.
72. Since the Millennium Development Goals were devised, major new challenges
have emerged, while existing ones have been exacerbated. Inequality has deepened.
Environmental degradation has increased, threatening our common future. People
across the world are demanding more responsive governments and better
governance and rights at all levels. Migration challenges have grown, and young
people in many countries face poor prospects for decent jobs or livelihoods.
Conflicts and instability have halted or reversed progress in many countries,
13-40932
11
A/68/202
affecting primarily women and children. Organized crime, including trafficking in
people and drugs, violates human rights and undermines development. The
deepening ways in which the lives of people and countries are linked demand a
universal agenda addressing the world’s most pressing challenges and seizing the
opportunities of a new era.
III. Advancing the United Nations development agenda
beyond 2015
A.
Vision and transformative actions of the agenda
73. The articulation of a post-2015 development agenda provides an opportunity to
place sustainable development where it should be: at the core of humankind’s
pursuit of shared progress. With a new sustainable development agenda, the world
can make many historic achievements: eradicating extreme poverty by 2030,
protecting the environment and promoting social inclusion and economic
opportunities for all. Ultimately, the aspiration of the development agenda beyond
2015 is to create a just and prosperous world where all people realize their rights
and live with dignity and hope.
74. As agreed at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, the
framework for sustainable development reflects our commitment to three
interconnected objectives: economic development, social inclusion and
environmental sustainability. Each of these dimensions contributes to the others and
all are necessary for the well-being of individuals and societies. Together, they are
meant to enable people to fulfil their potential within the finite resources of our
planet.
75. For such a sustainable development agenda to take root, four building blocks
need to be agreed upon: (a) a far-reaching vision of the future firmly anchored in
human rights and universally accepted values and principles, including those
encapsulated in the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
Millennium Declaration; (b) a set of concise goals and targets aimed at realizing the
priorities of the agenda; (c) a global partnership for development to mobilize means
of implementation; and (d) a participatory monitoring framework for tracking
progress and mutual accountability mechanisms for all stakeholders.
76. Decisions on the shape of the next agenda rest with Member States. To support
their deliberations, I put in motion an inclusive and transparent process to hear from
all stakeholders. Through the efforts of the United Nations Development Group and
others, I sought the views of people around the world through consultations in
nearly 100 countries, global thematic consultations on 11 issue areas and a global
online conversation and “My World” survey. These efforts have reached more than a
million people. A large number of civil society organizations and academic
institutions worldwide have also actively participated in the discussions.
77. In addition, my High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015
Development Agenda provided critical proposals (see A/67/890, annex). I have
made the report available to all Member States and recommend it as an important
contribution to this process.
78. I also benefited from the expertise of the science and technology community
through the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The contributions of the
12
13-40932
A/68/202
private sector around the world were conveyed through the Global Compact. The
United Nations System Task Team, comprising more than 60 agencies and
international organizations, conveyed the knowledge and experience of the
Organization, while regional perspectives were provided by the regional
commissions.
79. Reflecting on many of these inputs, the Open Working Group on Sustainable
Development Goals is conducting a series of discussions aimed at formulating goals
for sustainable development to be proposed to the General Assembly at its sixtyeighth session.
80. The common ground in the findings of these processes is encouraging.
Discussions point to the importance of arriving at a single and coherent
development agenda centred on sustainable development, applicable to all countries
while taking into account regional, national and local circumstances and priorities.
81. The key elements of the emerging vision for the development agenda beyond
2015 include: (a) universality, to mobilize all developed and developing countries
and leave no one behind; (b) sustainable development, to tackle the interlinked
challenges facing the world, including a clear focus on ending extreme poverty in all
its forms; (c) inclusive economic transformations ensuring decent jobs, backed by
sustainable technologies, to shift to sustainable patterns of consumption and
production; (d) peace and governance, as key outcomes and enablers of
development; (e) a new global partnership, recognizing shared interests, different
needs and mutual responsibilities, to ensure commitment to and means of
implementing the new vision; and (f) being “fit for purpose”, to ensure that the
international community is equipped with the right institutions and tools for
addressing the challenges of implementing the sustainable development agenda at
the national level.
82. Bringing this vision to life will require a number of transformative and
mutually reinforcing actions that apply to all countries.
83. Eradicate poverty in all its forms. Poverty has many manifestations and is
aggravated by discrimination, insecurity, inequality and environmental and disaster
risks. Therefore, the eradication of poverty calls for a multifaceted approach,
encapsulated in the concept of sustainable development, focusing on both immediate
and underlying causes.
84. Tackle exclusion and inequality. In order to leave no one behind and bring
everyone forward, actions are needed to promote equality of opportunity. This
implies inclusive economies in which men and women have access to decent
employment, legal identification, financial services, infrastructure and social
protection, as well as societies where all people can contribute and participate in
national and local governance.
85. Empower women and girls. The new agenda must ensure the equal rights of
women and girls, their full participation in the political, economic and public
spheres and zero tolerance for violence against or exploitation of women and girls.
The practice of child marriage must be ended everywhere. Women and girls must
have equal access to financial services, infrastructure, the full range of health
services, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive
rights, and water and sanitation; the right to own land and other assets; a safe
environment in which to learn and apply their knowledge and skills; and an end to
13-40932
13
A/68/202
discrimination so they can receive equal pay for equal work and have an equal voice
in decision-making.
86. Provide quality education and lifelong learning. Young people should be
able to receive high-quality education and learning, from early childhood
development to post-primary schooling, including not only formal schooling but
also life skills and vocational education and training.
87. Improve health. Address universal health-care coverage, access and
affordability; end preventable maternal and child deaths; realize women’s
reproductive health and rights; increase immunization coverage; eradicate malaria
and realize the vision of a future free of AIDS and tuberculosis; reduce the burden
of non-communicable diseases, including mental illness, and road accidents; and
promote healthy behaviours, including those related to water, sanitation and
hygiene.
88. Address climate change. The international community must reconcile the
challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change while supporting the growth
of developing countries. While the worst effects of climate change can still be
averted by building the resilience of and investing in those communities and nations
most vulnerable to disasters risk, those efforts will require a greatly stepped-up
response, in keeping with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities
and respective capabilities. A successful outcome to the intergovernmental climate
change negotiations is critical. Every effort must be made to arrive at a legally
binding agreement by the end of 2015, as decided in Durban, South Africa, in 2011.
89. Address environmental challenges. Environmental change has compounded
problems worldwide, especially in vulnerable countries, reducing their capacity to
cope and limiting their options for addressing development challenges. Managing
the natural resources base — fisheries, forests, freshwater resources, oceans, soil —
is essential for sustainable development. So too is building the resilience of and
investing in those communities and nations most vulnerable to disasters, especially
in the least developed countries and small island developing States.
90. Promote inclusive and sustainable growth and decent employment. This
can be achieved by economic diversification, financial inclusion, efficient
infrastructure, productivity gains, trade, sustainable energy, relevant education and
skills training. Labour market policies should focus in particular on young people,
women and people with disabilities.
91. End hunger and malnutrition. Addressing hunger, malnutrition, stunting and
food insecurity in a world experiencing rapid population growth will require a
combination of stable and adequate incomes for all, improvements in agricultural
productivity and sustainability, child and maternal care and strengthened social
protection for vulnerable populations.
92. Address demographic challenges. While the population of developed
countries is projected to remain unchanged at around 1.3 billion, the population of
developing countries is projected to increase from 5.9 billion in 2013 to 8.2 billion
in 2050. Countries with a high rate of population growth are generally on a path of
falling fertility, especially as education for girls and sexual and reproductive health
services become more widely available. Progress in these areas would enable many
households to slow fertility rates, with consequent benefits for health, education,
sustainability and the demographic dividend for economic growth. Countries with a
14
13-40932
A/68/202
high proportion of young people need to offer education and opportunities for
decent work. Countries with an ageing population need policy responses to support
the elderly so as to remove barriers to their full participation in society while
protecting their rights and dignity.
93. Enhance the positive contribution of migrants. More than a billion people
rely on international and domestic migration to improve the income, health and
education of their families, escape poverty and conflict and adapt to environmental
and economic shocks. Countries receiving migrants can also benefit significantly.
Yet many barriers limit the positive effects of migration, including possible large
economic and social gains. Discrimination is widespread and the human rights of
migrants are often denied at different points in the migration process. The scourge
of human trafficking, an unacceptable dimension of migration, must be ended.
94. Meet the challenges of urbanization. Some 70 per cent of the world’s
population will live in cities by 2050. Urbanization poses the challenge of providing
city dwellers with employment, food, income, housing, transportation, clean water
and sanitation, social services and cultural amenities. At the same time, living in
cities creates opportunities for the more efficient delivery and use of physical
facilities and amenities. Rural prosperity, land management and secure ecosystem
services should form an integral part of sustainable urbanization and economic
transformation.
95. Build peace and effective governance based on the rule of law and sound
institutions. Peace and stability, human rights and effective governance based on
the rule of law and transparent institutions are outcomes and enablers of
development. There can be no peace without development and no development
without peace. Lasting peace and sustainable development cannot be fully realized
without respect for human rights and the rule of law. Transparency and
accountability are powerful tools for ensuring citizens’ involvement in policymaking
and their oversight of the use of public resources, including to prevent waste and
corruption. Legal empowerment, access to justice and an independent judiciary and
universal legal identification can also be critical for gaining access to public
services.
96. Foster a renewed global partnership. The Millennium Development Goals,
in particular Goal 8, on the global partnership for development, speak to the
importance of our common humanity and the values of equity, solidarity and human
rights. The post-2015 development agenda will need to be supported by a renewed
global partnership grounded on such values. As noted in the report of my High-level
Panel, “the partnership should capture, and will depend on, a spirit of mutual respect
and mutual benefit”.
97. The global partnership should finish the job started with Goal 8, including
meeting the assistance objective of 0.7 per cent of gross national income, as well as
other existing and future intergovernmental agreements, such as the Millennium
Declaration, the Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing
for Development, the Principles set out in the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and the Istanbul
Programme of Action, as well as the outcome of the Ad Hoc Working Group of the
Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. All partners should deliver on past
commitments, particularly those on official development assistance, climate finance
and domestic resource mobilization.
13-40932
15
A/68/202
98. The transformative actions of the post-2015 development agenda should be
supported by multi-stakeholder partnerships that respond to the sustainable
development agenda. These should include not only governments but also
businesses, private philanthropic foundations, international organizations, civil
society, volunteer groups, local authorities, parliaments, trade unions, research
institutes and academia. Such partnerships can channel commitments and actions
from a wider set of actors, and their success depends on assigning roles,
responsibilities and clear accountability.
99. Official development assistance will remain crucial, including for leveraging
other finance, particularly for the least developed countries, landlocked developing
countries and small island developing States, many countries in Africa and countries
emerging from conflict and disasters. In addition to delivering on past commitments,
it will be critical for donors to establish a timetable for meeting official
development assistance targets and enhancing development effectiveness, including
through the principles and actions set out in the Busan Partnership for Effective
Development Cooperation. The impact of official development assistance can be
magnified by other sources of finance, including innovative sources.
100. A universal development agenda beyond 2015 will require a robust framework
for sustainable development finance including both private and public funding.
International efforts are needed to create an environment conducive to business and
thus channel capital flows and portfolio investments to the sustainable development
agenda, to eliminate illicit financial flows, to enhance the regulation of secrecy
jurisdictions and to promote asset recovery. Multilateral development banks have an
important role to play in identifying novel sources of sustainable development
financing.
101. At the same time, the financing framework for the post-2015 period will
require the mobilization of domestic resources, including by broadening the tax base
and improving tax administration, including in developing countries, and improving
corporate and public governance of extractive industries in resource-rich countries.
In addition, the financing framework will require commitment by the public and
private scientific and research communities to develop new and transformative
technologies. Harnessing science, technology and innovative methods will be
central in areas ranging from information and communications technology to
transportation, the environment and life-saving medicines.
102. South-South and triangular cooperation will also play a key role. This has
increased significantly in recent years and has taken various forms, including
infrastructure investment, technical cooperation, joint research and investment and
information-sharing.
103. I welcome the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable
Development Financing, which will propose options on a strategy to facilitate the
mobilization of resources and their effective use. The biennial high-level
Development Cooperation Forum and the follow-up to the International Conference
on Financing for Development also provide important opportunities for charting a
way forward.
104. Strengthen the international development cooperation framework. In order
to respond to the challenges of funding and implementing a sustainable development
agenda, both national and international institutions need to be strengthened to
overcome the institutional and operational separation between economic, social and
16
13-40932
A/68/202
environmental responsibilities. I particularly welcome, in that regard, General
Assembly resolution 67/290, in which the mandate, organizational structure and the
working methods of the high-level political forum on sustainable development were
defined. There is broad agreement that the forum should bring political support at
the highest level to the coordination, coherence, implementation and monitoring of
the commitments in a universal sustainable development agenda.
B.
Comprehensive monitoring framework and robust
accountability mechanisms
105. Strong monitoring and accountability will be crucial for the implementation of
the post-2015 development agenda. Governments, especially parliaments, will play
a central role. The monitoring and accountability framework can be strengthened
through the direct engagement of citizens and responsible businesses making use of
new technologies to expand coverage, to disaggregate data and to reduce costs.
106. The availability of information has improved during the implementation of the
Millennium Development Goals. Still, there is an urgent need to further improve
data collection, dissemination and analysis. Better baseline data and statistics are
needed, especially because the post-2015 development agenda will involve
measuring a broader range of indicators, requiring new and disaggregated data to
capture gaps within and between population groups. Assessing the quality of
outcomes should also feature more prominently in a results-based framework. As
suggested by my High-level Panel, targets will be considered to have been achieved
only if they are met for all relevant income and social groups.
107. In this context, the advances in information technology over the past decade
provide an opportunity for a “data revolution”, which should enable countries to
strengthen existing data sources and develop new and participatory sources of
information. Many developing countries will require technical and financial support
to build solid statistical systems and capacity so as to take advantage of these new
opportunities.
C.
Setting goals for the agenda
108. Experience with the Millennium Development Goals shows us that goals can
be a powerful way of mobilizing common action. To be effective, they need to be
limited in number, measurable, easy to communicate and adaptable to both global
and local settings.
109. At the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Member
States agreed that the sustainable development goals “should be coherent with and
integrated into the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015”. The many
consultations and reports suggest that a single, balanced and comprehensive set of
goals, universal to all nations, which aims to eradicate all forms of poverty and
integrate sustainable development in all its dimensions, should form the core of the
agenda.
110. The framing of the set of goals for sustainable development will inevitably
need to be broader than that of the Millennium Development Goals in order to
reflect new challenges. Illustrative goals and targets have been proposed in a range
13-40932
17
A/68/202
of reports, including those of the High-level Panel, the Sustainable Development
Solutions Network and the Global Compact, and in several initiatives from the
research community.
111. Goals and targets should take into account cross-cutting issues such as gender,
disability, age and other factors leading to inequality, human rights, demographics,
migration and partnerships. The new goals should embrace the emphasis on human
well-being and include the use of metrics that go beyond standard income measures,
such as surveys of subjective well-being and happiness, as introduced by many
countries and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
D.
Towards the formulation and launch of the agenda
112. The special event of the President of the General Assembly to be convened on
25 September will review current efforts to achieve the Millennium Development
Goals and provide a timely opportunity for rallying political support for their
acceleration. The event will also serve as an occasion to reflect on the broad
contours of the development agenda beyond 2015.
113. Member States should therefore use the special event to generate clarity and a
solid momentum for the important discussions and decisions that will follow. In the
outcome of the event they could issue a call for convening a United Nations summit
in 2015 to adopt the new development agenda. To that end, the Assembly could
request its President to hold consultations on a procedural resolution for initiating
preparations for the summit, in which it could request the Secretary-General to
prepare a report on modalities, format and organization for submission to the
Assembly by March 2014. That report could serve as the basis for the Assembly’s
consultations on a comprehensive resolution on the timing, scope, format,
participation and expected outcome of a summit in 2015.
114. The General Assembly could launch the final phase of the intergovernmental
consultations on a post-2015 development agenda at its sixty-ninth session. Those
consultations could draw on the outcomes of several intergovernmental events,
including the high-level meeting on disability and development, to be held in
September, the high-level dialogue on international migration and development, to
be held in October, the third International Conference on Small Island Developing
States, the climate change summit in 2014 as well as the next conference on
financing for development. Our goal must be to make 2015 a defining moment for
people and the planet and to show what the United Nations and Member States,
working together, can achieve.
IV. Recommendations
115. I call upon all Member States and the entire international community to
take every step possible to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. This will
require political courage and enlightened leadership on the part of all countries,
regardless of their level of development. But we must, as stated in the Millennium
Declaration, spare no effort to deliver on our policy and financial commitments.
This is our duty — our responsibility to humanity today and in the future. With
political will and adequate resources, much can be accomplished before the 2015
deadline. Even then, some goals may not be met. Others, even if met, were designed
18
13-40932
A/68/202
to address only part of the challenge. The post-2015 development agenda will
therefore need to complete the Millennium Development Goals, scale up their
success, expand their scope and address new challenges.
116. I call upon Member States to adopt a universal post-2015 development
agenda, with sustainable development at its core. Poverty eradication, inclusive
growth targeting inequality, protecting and managing the natural resource base of
our planet within a rights-based framework and cognizant of the nexus between
peace and development — these are the overarching objectives of sustainable
development. To realize this agenda, all countries need to recognize the profound
transformations required to address the emerging challenges of sustainable
development. These include economic shifts to sustainable patterns of production
and consumption, effective governance and a renewed global partnership and means
of implementation.
117. I call upon the international system, including the United Nations, to
embrace a more coherent and effective response to support this agenda. I
welcome the leadership of Member States as they establish the high-level political
forum, tasked with providing coordination and coherence at the highest political
level to foster sustainable development in every country. The United Nations system
will continue to reform and make itself “fit for purpose” so as to respond to the
challenges of this new path to sustainable development.
118. I encourage Member States to provide clarity on the road map to 2015. As
Member States consider the processes leading up to 2015, they could be supported
by a report of the Secretary-General during the main part of the sixty-ninth session
of the General Assembly. This would draw upon the outcomes of the Open Working
Group on Sustainable Development Goals, the Intergovernmental Committee of
Experts on Sustainable Development Financing and other bodies. The
intergovernmental process could lead to an agreement on the vision, principles,
goals and targets of the post-2015 development agenda, as well as on the renewed
global partnership for development.
V. Conclusion
119. Acting upon our common challenges demands a renewed commitment to
international cooperation. Multilateralism is being tested. The United Nations, as a
global beacon of solidarity, must do its part to strengthen collaboration and show
that it can be effective in building the just, prosperous and sustainable world that
people want and have a right to expect. Defining the post-2015 development agenda
is thus a daunting yet inspiring and historic task for the United Nations and its
Member States.
120. In so doing we must continue to listen to and involve the peoples of the world.
We have heard their calls for peace and justice, eradicating poverty, realizing rights,
eliminating inequality, enhancing accountability and preserving our planet. The
world’s nations must unite behind a common programme to act on those aspirations.
No one must be left behind. We must continue to build a future of justice and hope,
a life of dignity for all.
13-40932
19
A NEW GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP:
ERADICATE POVERTY AND TRANSFORM
ECONOMIES THROUGH SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
The Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on
the Post-2015 Development Agenda
A NEW GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP:
ERADICATE POVERTY AND TRANSFORM ECONOMIES THROUGH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Copyright ©2013 United Nations
All rights reserved.
All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to:
United Nations Publications, 300 E 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017
email: publications@un.org
web: un.org/publications
Disclaimer: The members of the Panel may not be in full agreement with every specific point and detail of the
report, but they all endorse the report.
Produced by
bocoup
Post-2015
Letter from the Co-Chairs of the High-Level Panel of Eminent
Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
30 May 2013
Secretary-General,
In July 2012 you tasked us with jointly chairing a twenty-seven person panel to make recommendations
to you on the development agenda beyond 2015. We hope that you will find our resultant report both
bold and practical. We have consulted extensively, in every region and across many sectors, including
listening to the voices and priorities of people living in poverty themselves. We are very grateful for the
valuable support provided to us by the Panel’s secretariat led by Dr Homi Kharas and have benefited
greatly from the regional, national and thematic consultations organised by the UN System and member
states.
Our panel conducted its work in a very positive spirit of cooperation. Through passionate and vigorous
debate we have learnt much from each other. We transmit our recommendations to you with a feeling of
great optimism that a transformation to end poverty through sustainable development is possible within
our generation. We outline five transformational shifts, applicable to both developed and developing
countries alike, including a new Global Partnership as the basis for a single, universal post-2015 agenda
that will deliver this vision for the sake of humanity.
Our report provides an example of how new goals and measurable targets could be framed in the
wake of these transformative shifts. This list is illustrative rather than prescriptive. While views naturally
differed within the panel on the exact wording of particular illustrative goals or targets we agreed that our
report would be found wanting without a collective attempt to demonstrate how a simple clear agenda
building on the MDGs and the Rio+20 process might be elaborated. We hope it will stimulate debate
over the prioritisation that will be needed if the international community is to agree a new development
framework before the expiry of the Millennium Development Goals.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf
David Cameron
Post-2015
Acknowledgements
The members of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel Of Eminent Persons On The
Post-2015 Development Agenda wish to extend their deepest appreciation to the
governments, organisations, institutions, United Nations entities and individuals who
provided valuable perspectives, ideas and support throughout the course of the Panel’s
work.
The Panel extends its sincere gratitude for financial and in-kind contributions received
from the governments of Colombia, Denmark, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Liberia,
Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States of America,
and from the Ford Foundation, Havas, and the Hewlett Foundation.
The deliberations of the Panel were informed by the broad consultative process
conducted by the United Nations, as directed by the Secretary-General in our terms
of reference. This includes national and global thematic consultations under the aegis
of the United Nations Development Group (UNDG), regional consultations undertaken
by the Regional Commissions, consultations with businesses around the world under
the guidance of the UN Global Compact, and the views of the scientific and academic
community as conveyed through the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. We
are grateful for the perspective these extensive consultations provided.
The Panel also wishes to thank people from more than 5000 civil society organisations
and 250 chief executive officers of major corporations who shared their valuable ideas
and views during a series of consultations, both in person and online.
We are grateful to all those who submitted policy briefs, research and inputs to the
process, the full list of which appears at www.post2015hlp.org.
Panel members wish to express their sincere appreciation for the dedication and
intellectual rigour of the Panel secretariat (listed in Annex VI), led by Dr. Homi Kharas, and
to the institutions which have released them to undertake the work of supporting the
Panel. They extend their appreciation to their advisers for their support and dedication
throughout the report’s development.
All of these contributions and support are gratefully acknowledged and warmly
appreciated.
Post-2015
Executive Summary
“Our vision and our responsibility are to end extreme poverty in all its forms in the context
of sustainable development and to have in place the building blocks of sustained prosperity
for all.” 1
The Panel came together with a sense of optimism and a deep respect for the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). The 13 years since the millennium have seen the fastest
reduction in poverty in human history: there are half a billion fewer people living below
an international poverty line of $1.25 a day. Child death rates have fallen by more than
30%, with about three million children’s lives saved each year compared to 2000. Deaths
from malaria have fallen by one quarter. This unprecedented progress has been driven
by a combination of economic growth, better policies, and the global commitment to
the MDGs, which set out an inspirational rallying cry for the whole world.
Given this remarkable success, it would be a mistake to simply tear up the MDGs and
start from scratch. As world leaders agreed at Rio in 2012, new goals and targets need
to be grounded in respect for universal human rights, and finish the job that the MDGs
started. Central to this is eradicating extreme poverty from the face of the earth by
2030. This is something that leaders have promised time and again throughout history.
Today, it can actually be done.
So a new development agenda should carry forward the spirit of the Millennium
Declaration and the best of the MDGs, with a practical focus on things like poverty,
hunger, water, sanitation, education and healthcare. But to fulfil our vision of promoting
sustainable development, we must go beyond the MDGs. They did not focus enough on
reaching the very poorest and most excluded people. They were silent on the devastating
effects of conflict and violence on development. The importance to development of
good governance and institutions that guarantee the rule of law, free speech and open
and accountable government was not included, nor the need for inclusive growth to
provide jobs. Most seriously, the MDGs fell short by not integrating the economic, social,
and environmental aspects of sustainable development as envisaged in the Millennium
Declaration, and by not addressing the need to promote sustainable patterns of
consumption and production. The result was that environment and development were
never properly brought together. People were working hard – but often separately – on
interlinked problems.
So the Panel asked some simple questions: starting with the current MDGs, what to keep,
what to amend, and what to add. In trying to answer these questions, we listened to the
views of women and men, young people, parliamentarians, civil society organisations,
indigenous people and local communities, migrants, experts, business, trade unions
and governments. Most important, we listened directly to the voices of hundreds of
thousands of people from all over the world, in face-to-face meetings as well as through
surveys, community interviews, and polling over mobile phones and the internet.
We considered the massive changes in the world since the year 2000 and the changes
that are likely to unfold by 2030. There are a billion more people today, with world
population at seven billion, and another billion expected by 2030. More than half of
us now live in cities. Private investment in developing countries now dwarfs aid flows.
The number of mobile phone subscriptions has risen from fewer than one billion to
more than six billion. Thanks to the internet, seeking business or information on the
other side of the world is now routine for many. Yet inequality remains and opportunity
is not open to all. The 1.2 billion poorest people account for only 1 per cent of world
consumption while the billion richest consume 72 per cent.
Above all, there is one trend – climate change – which will determine whether or not
we can deliver on our ambitions. Scientific evidence of the direct threat from climate
change has mounted. The stresses of unsustainable production and consumption
Executive Summary
patterns have become clear, in areas like deforestation,
water scarcity, food waste, and high carbon emissions.
Losses from natural disasters–including drought, floods,
and storms – have increased at an alarming rate. People
living in poverty will suffer first and worst from climate
change. The cost of taking action now will be much less
than the cost of dealing with the consequences later.
Thinking about and debating these trends and issues
together, the Panellists have been on a journey.
At our first meeting in New York, the Secretary General
charged us with producing a bold yet practical vision for
development beyond 2015.
In London, we discussed household poverty: the daily
reality of life on the margins of survival. We considered
the many dimensions of poverty, including health,
education and livelihoods, as well as the demands
for more justice, better accountability, and an end to
violence against women. We also heard inspiring stories
of how individuals and communities have worked their
way to prosperity.
In Monrovia, we talked about economic transformation
and the building blocks needed for growth that delivers
social inclusion and respects the environment: how to
harness the ingenuity and dynamism of business for
sustainable development. And we saw with our own
eyes the extraordinary progress that can be made when
a country once ravaged by conflict is able to build peace
and security.
In Bali, we agreed on the central importance of a new
spirit to guide a global partnership for a people-centred
and planet-sensitive agenda, based on the principle of
our common humanity. We agreed to push developed
countries to fulfil their side of the bargain – by honouring
their aid commitments, but also reforming their trade,
tax and transparency policies, by paying more attention
to better regulating global financial and commodity
markets and by leading the way towards sustainable
development. We agreed that developing countries
have done much to finance their own development, and
will be able to do more as incomes rise. We also agreed
on the need to manage the world’s consumption and
production patterns in more sustainable and equitable
ways. Above all, we agreed that a new vision must be
universal: offering hope – but also responsibilities – to
everyone in the world.
These meetings and consultations left us energised,
inspired and convinced of the need for a new
paradigm. In our view, business-as-usual is not an
option. We concluded that the post-2015 agenda is a
universal agenda. It needs to be driven by five big,
transformative shifts:
1. Leave no one behind. We must keep faith with the
original promise of the MDGs, and now finish the job.
After 2015 we should move from reducing to ending
extreme poverty, in all its forms. We should ensure that
no person – regardless of ethnicity, gender, geography,
disability, race or other status – is denied universal
human rights and basic economic opportunities. We
should design goals that focus on reaching excluded
groups, for example by making sure we track progress at
all levels of income, and by providing social protection
to help people build resilience to life’s uncertainties.
We can be the first generation in human history to end
hunger and ensure that every person achieves a basic
standard of wellbeing. There can be no excuses. This is a
universal agenda, for which everyone must accept their
proper share of responsibility.
2. Put sustainable development at the core. For
twenty years, the international community has aspired
to integrate the social, economic, and environmental
dimensions of sustainability, but no country has yet
achieved this. We must act now to halt the alarming
pace of climate change and environmental degradation,
which pose unprecedented threats to humanity.
We must bring about more social inclusion. This is
a universal challenge, for every country and every
person on earth. This will require structural change,
with new solutions, and will offer new opportunities.
Developed countries have a special role to play,
fostering new technologies and making the fastest
progress in reducing unsustainable consumption. Many
of the world’s largest companies are already leading
this transformation to a green economy in the context
of sustainable development and poverty eradication.
Only by mobilising social, economic and environmental
action together can we eradicate poverty irreversibly
and meet the aspirations of eight billion people in 2030.
3. Transform economies for jobs and inclusive
growth. We call for a quantum leap forward in economic
opportunities and a profound economic transformation
to end extreme poverty and improve livelihoods.
This means a rapid shift to sustainable patterns of
consumption and production--harnessing innovation,
technology, and the potential of private business to
create more value and drive sustainable and inclusive
growth. Diversified economies, with equal opportunities
for all, can unleash the dynamism that creates jobs and
livelihoods, especially for young people and women.
This is a challenge for every country on earth: to ensure
good job possibilities while moving to the sustainable
patterns of work and life that will be necessary in a
world of limited natural resources. We should ensure
that everyone has what they need to grow and prosper,
including access to quality education and skills,
healthcare, clean water, electricity, telecommunications
and transport. We should make it easier for people to
Post-2015
invest, start-up a business and to trade. And we can do
more to take advantage of rapid urbanisation: cities are
the world’s engines for business and innovation. With
good management they can provide jobs, hope and
growth, while building sustainability.
4. Build peace and effective, open and accountable
institutions for all. Freedom from fear, conflict and
violence is the most fundamental human right, and
the essential foundation for building peaceful and
prosperous societies. At the same time, people the
world over expect their governments to be honest,
accountable, and responsive to their needs. We are
calling for a fundamental shift – to recognise peace
and good governance as core elements of wellbeing,
not optional extras. This is a universal agenda, for all
countries. Responsive and legitimate institutions should
encourage the rule of law, property rights, freedom of
speech and the media, open political choice, access
to justice, and accountable government and public
institutions. We need a transparency revolution, so
citizens can see exactly where and how taxes, aid and
revenues from extractive industries are spent. These are
ends as well as means.
5. Forge a new global partnership. Perhaps the most
important transformative shift is towards a new spirit
of solidarity, cooperation, and mutual accountability
that must underpin the post-2015 agenda. A
new partnership should be based on a common
understanding of our shared humanity, underpinning
mutual respect and mutual benefit in a shrinking
world. This partnership should involve governments
but also include others: people living in poverty, those
with disabilities, women, civil society and indigenous
and local communities, traditionally marginalised
groups, multilateral institutions, local and national
government, the business community, academia and
private philanthropy. Each priority area identified in the
post-2015 agenda should be supported by dynamic
partnerships. It is time for the international community
to use new ways of working, to go beyond an aid
agenda and put its own house in order: to implement
a swift reduction in corruption, illicit financial flows,
money-laundering, tax evasion, and hidden ownership
of assets. We must fight climate change, champion
free and fair trade, technology innovation, transfer and
diffusion, and promote financial stability. And since this
partnership is built on principles of common humanity
and mutual respect, it must also have a new spirit and
be completely transparent. Everyone involved must be
fully accountable.
From vision to action. We believe that these five
changes are the right, smart, and necessary thing to do.
But their impact will depend on how they are translated
into specific priorities and actions. We realised that
the vision would be incomplete unless we offered a
set of illustrative goals and targets to show how these
transformative changes could be expressed in precise
and measurable terms. This illustrative framework is set
out in Annex I, with more detailed explanation in Annex
II. We hope these examples will help focus attention and
stimulate debate.
The suggested targets are bold, yet practical. Like
the MDGs, they would not be binding, but should be
monitored closely. The indicators that track them should
be disaggregated to ensure no one is left behind and
targets should only be considered ‘achieved’ if they
are met for all relevant income and social groups. We
recommend that any new goals should be accompanied
by an independent and rigorous monitoring system,
with regular opportunities to report on progress and
shortcomings at a high political level. We also call for
a data revolution for sustainable development, with
a new international initiative to improve the quality
of statistics and information available to citizens. We
should actively take advantage of new technology,
crowd sourcing, and improved connectivity to empower
people with information on the progress towards the
targets.
Taken together, the Panel believes that these five
fundamental shifts can remove the barriers that hold
people back, and end the inequality of opportunity
that blights the lives of so many people on our planet.
They can, at long last, bring together social, economic
and environmental issues in a coherent, effective, and
sustainable way. Above all, we hope they can inspire a
new generation to believe that a better world is within
its reach, and act accordingly.
1.Monrovia Communiqué of the High Level Panel, February 1, 2013, http://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/
Monrovia-Communique-1-February-2013.pdf.
Post-2015
Contents
Chapter 1: A Vision and Framework for the post-2015 Development Agenda������������������������ 1
Setting a New Course�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Remarkable Achievements Since 2000�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Consulting People, Gaining Perspective�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
The Panel’s Journey�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Opportunities and Challenges in a Changing World���������������������������������������������������������������������������
One World: One Sustainable Development Agenda����������������������������������������������������������������������������
1
1
1
2
3
4
Chapter 2: From Vision to Action—Priority Transformations for a post-2015 Agenda��������� 7
Five Transformative Shifts���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
1. Leave No One Behind������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
2. Put Sustainable Development at the Core����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
3. Transform Economies for Jobs and Inclusive Growth������������������������������������������������������������������������
4. Build Peace and Effective, Open and Accountable Public Institutions����������������������������������������������
5. Forge a new Global Partnership��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Ensure More and Better Long-term Finance�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
7
7
8
8
9
9
12
Chapter 3: Illustrative Goals and Global Impact����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 13
The Shape of the Post-2015 Agenda�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Risks to be Managed in a Single Agenda����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Learning the Lessons of MDG 8 (Global Partnership for Development)������������������������������������������������
Illustrative Goals�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Addressing Cross-cutting Issues�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
The Global Impact by 2030��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
13
14
15
15
16
18
Chapter 4: Implementation, Accountability and Building Consensus��������������������������������������� 21
Implementing the post-2015 framework���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Unifying Global Goals with National Plans for Development����������������������������������������������������������������
Global Monitoring and Peer Review�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Stakeholders Partnering by Theme�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Holding Partners to Account�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Wanted: a New Data Revolution�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Working in Cooperation with Others����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Building Political Consensus�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
21
21
21
22
23
23
24
24
Chapter 5: Concluding Remarks���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27
Annex I Illustrative Goals and Targets������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 29
Annex II Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals��������������������������������������������� 32
Annex III Goals, Targets and Indicators: Using a Common Terminology������������������������������������ 57
Annex IV Summary of Outreach Efforts��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 59
Annex V Terms of Reference and List of Panel Members��������������������������������������������������������������� 65
Annex VI High-level Panel Secretariat������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 69
Post-2015 | 1
Chapter 1: A Vision and Framework for the
post-2015 Development Agenda
Setting a New Course
We, the High-Level Panel on the post-2015 Development Agenda, were asked for
recommendations that would “help respond to the global challenges of the 21st
century, building on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and with a view to
ending poverty”.2
We discussed two of the world’s biggest challenges – how to end poverty and how to
promote sustainable development. We have not come up with all the answers, but we
do believe the lives of billions of people can be improved, in a way that preserves the
planet’s natural resource assets for future generations.
Progress on this scale is possible, but only if governments (at all levels), multilateral
institutions, businesses, and civil society organisations are willing to change course
and reject business-as-usual. They have a chance to develop and put in place a new
agenda: one that confronts the challenges of the modern world head-on. They have an
opportunity to transform their thinking, and their practice, to solve current problems
with new ways of working. They can join forces, tackle poverty, the economy and the
environment together, and bring about a paradigm shift.
Remarkable Achievements Since 2000
After the MDGs were adopted, dozens of developing-country planning ministries,
hundreds of international agencies and thousands of civil society organisations (CSOs)
rallied behind them. Together, they have contributed to remarkable achievements; half
a billion fewer people in extreme poverty; about three million children’s lives saved
each year. Four out of five children now get vaccinated for a range of diseases. Maternal
mortality gets the focused attention it deserves. Deaths from malaria have fallen by
one-quarter. Contracting HIV is no longer an automatic death sentence. In 2011, 590
million children in developing countries – a record number – attended primary school.
This unprecedented progress was driven by a combination of economic growth,
government policies, civil society engagement and the global commitment to the
MDGs.
Given this success, it would be a mistake to start a new development agenda from
scratch. There is much unfinished business from the MDGs. Some countries achieved
a great deal, but others, especially low-income, conflict affected countries, achieved
much less. In the course of our discussions, we became aware of a gap between reality
on the ground and the statistical targets that are tracked. We realised that the next
development agenda must build on the real experiences, stories, ideas and solutions
of people at the grassroots, and that we, as a Panel, must do our best to understand
the world through their eyes and reflect on the issues that would make a difference to
their lives.
Consulting People, Gaining Perspective
Over the last nine months, the Panel has spoken with people from all walks of life. We
have reviewed almost one thousand written submissions from civil society and business
groups working around the world. We have consulted experts from multilateral
organisations, national governments and local authorities. We have debated vigorously
and passionately among ourselves.
We agreed that the post-2015 agenda should reflect the concerns of people living in
2
| Chapter 1: A Vision and Framework for the post-2015 Development Agenda
poverty, whose voices often go unheard or unheeded.
To gather these perspectives, Panel members spoke to
farmers, indigenous and local communities, workers in
the informal sector, migrants, people with disabilities,
small business owners, traders, young people and
children, women’s groups, older people, faith-based
groups, trade unions and many others. We also
heard from academics and experts, politicians and
philosophers.
of speech and association and to monitor where their
government’s money is going.
In all, we heard voices and reviewed recommendations
for goals and targets from over 5000 civil society
organisations – ranging from grassroots organisations
to global alliances – working in about 120 countries
across every major region of the world. We also
consulted the chief executive officers of 250 companies
in 30 countries, with annual revenues exceeding $8
trillion, academics from developed and developing
countries, international and local NGOs and civil society
movements, and parliamentarians.
People with disabilities also asked for an end to
discrimination and for equal opportunity. They are
looking for guarantees of minimum basic living
standards. Representatives of indigenous groups and
local communities wanted recognition of their need
to live more balanced lives in harmony with nature.
They want restitution, non-discrimination and respect
for their ancestral ways. Those working in the informal
sector also called for social protection and for reducing
inequalities, as well as for opportunities to secure good
and decent jobs and livelihoods.
In these meetings, people living in poverty told us how
powerless they felt because their jobs and livelihoods
were precarious. They said they fear getting sick, and
lack safety. They talked about insecurity, corruption, and
violence in the home. They spoke of being excluded and
abused by society’s institutions and of the importance
of transparent, open and responsive government that
recognises their dignity and human rights.
The Panel heard some similar priorities voiced by
mayors and local elected officials. These leaders deal
daily with marginalised groups asking for help getting
food, shelter, health care, meals at school, education and
school supplies. They strive to supply their constituents
with safe water, sanitation, and street lighting. They told
us that the urban poor want jobs that are better than
selling small items on the street or picking through
rubbish dumps. And, like people everywhere, they want
security so their families can safely go about their lives.
Young people asked for education beyond primary
schooling, not just formal learning but life skills
and vocational training to prepare them for jobs. In
countries where they have acquired good education
and skills, they want access to decent jobs. They want
opportunities to lift themselves out of poverty. They
crave mentoring, career development, and programmes
led by youth, serving youth. Young people said they
want to be able to make informed decisions about
their health and bodies, to fully realise their sexual and
reproductive health and rights (SRHR). They want access
to information and technology so they can participate
in their nation’s public life, especially charting its path
to economic development. They want to be able to hold
those in charge to account, to have the right to freedom
Women and girls asked in particular for protection of
their property rights, their access to land, and to have
a voice and to participate in economic and political life.
They also asked the Panel to focus on ending violence
against women and discrimination at work, at school
and in the law.
Businesses spoke of their potential contribution to a
post-2015 development agenda. Not just providing
good and decent jobs and growth, but delivering
essential services and helping billions of people
access clean and sustainable energy and adapt to
climate change. They spoke of being willing to share
accountability for the next agenda, and about what they
need from governments if they are to do more – sound
macroeconomic policies, good infrastructure, skilled
workers, open markets, a level playing field, and efficient
and accountable public administration.
All these groups asked that when the post-2015 agenda
is put into place, it includes a plan for measuring progress
that compares how people with different income levels,
gender, disability and age, and those living in different
localities, are faring – and that this information be easily
available to all.
The Panel’s Journey
These views and perspectives helped us to understand
better how to think about the post-2015 agenda and
how to put flesh on the idea of a bold yet practical vision
for development that the Secretary-General challenged
us to produce at our first meeting in New York.
In London, we discussed household poverty: the daily
reality of life on the margins of survival. We agreed to
seek to end extreme poverty by 2030. We learned how
important it is to tackle poverty in all its dimensions,
including basic human needs like health, education,
safe water and shelter as well as fundamental human
rights: personal security, dignity, justice, voice and
Post-2015 | 3
empowerment, equality of opportunity, and access to
SRHR. Several of these issues were not covered in the
MDGs and we agreed they must be added in a new
agenda. We recognised the need to focus on the quality
of public services, as well as on access to their delivery.
We realised that providing access to nutritious food and
drinking water would not endure unless food and water
systems are also addressed.
In Monrovia, we talked about economic transformation
and the building blocks needed for growth that delivers
social inclusion and respects the environment – how
to harness the ingenuity and dynamism of business for
sustainable development. We saw with our own eyes the
extraordinary progress that can be made when a country
once ravaged by conflict is able to build peace and
security, but also the enormous challenge of providing
basic services, like power, roads and telecommunications
to connect people and firms to a modern economy. We
heard about the business opportunities in pursuing
green growth to promote sustainable development,
and about the potential for individual entrepreneurs to
fulfil their dreams, and for large businesses to connect
to smallholder farmers. We learned that there are critical
shortages of the skilled professionals who are needed to
make governments and firms more efficient. We saw the
need for the agenda to include jobs, institutions, and
modern, reliable and sustainable energy.
In Bali, we discussed common global challenges,
including the dangers posed by climate change and
the need for development strategies to include making
households and countries more resilient. We focused
on the elements of a new global partnership. We
agreed that developed countries had to do more to
put their own house in order. They must honour their
aid commitments but go beyond aid to lead global
efforts to reform trade, crack down on illicit capital flows,
return stolen assets, and promote sustainable patterns
of consumption and production. We asked where
the money would come from to finance the massive
investments that will be needed for infrastructure in
developing countries, and concluded that we need to
find new ways of using aid and other public funds to
mobilise private capital.
Opportunities and Challenges in a
Changing World
Our conversations with people added to our own
experiences about how significantly the world has
changed since the Millennium Declaration was adopted
in 2000. We are also aware of how much more the world
will change by 2030. It will be more urban, more middle
class, older, more connected, more interdependent,
more vulnerable and more constrained in its resources
– and still working to ensure that globalisation brings
maximum benefits to all.
For many, the world today feels more uncertain than it
did in 2000. In developed countries, the financial crisis
has shaken belief that every generation will be better
off than the last. Developing countries, for their part, are
full of optimism and confidence as a result of a decadelong growth spurt, but many also fear that slow progress
in reforming global trade and stabilising the world
financial system may harm their prospects. Half the
world’s extreme poor live in conflict-affected countries,
while many others are suffering the effects of natural
disasters that have cost $2.5 trillion so far this century.3 In
today’s world, we see that no country, however powerful
or rich, can sustain its prosperity without working in
partnership to find integrated solutions.
This is a world of challenges, but these challenges can
also present opportunities, if they kindle a new spirit
of solidarity, mutual respect and mutual benefit, based
on our common humanity and the Rio principles. Such
a spirit could inspire us to address global challenges
through a new global partnership, bringing together
the many groups in the world concerned with economic,
social and environmental progress: people living in
poverty, women, young people, people with disabilities,
indigenous and local communities, marginalised
groups, multilateral institutions, local and national
governments, businesses, civil society and private
philanthropists, scientists and other academics. These
groups are more organised than before, better able to
communicate with each other, willing to learn about
real experiences and real challenges in policymaking,
committed to solving problems together.
Envisioning a new Global Partnership
“We agreed on the need for a renewed Global Partnership that enables a transformative, people-centred and
planet-sensitive development agenda which is realised through the equal partnership of all stakeholders.
Such partnership should be based on the principles of equity, sustainability, solidarity, respect for humanity,
and shared responsibilities in accordance with respective capabilities.”
Bali Communiqué of the High-Level Panel, March 28, 20134
4
| Chapter 1: A Vision and Framework for the post-2015 Development Agenda
We are deeply aware of the hunger, vulnerability, and
deprivation that still shape the daily lives of more than
a billion people in the world today. At the same time we
are struck by the level of inequality in the world, both
among and within countries. Of all the goods and services
consumed in the world each year, the 1.2 billion people
living in extreme poverty only account for one per cent,
while the richest 1 billion people consume 72 per cent.5
Every year, one billion women are subject to sexual or
physical violence because they lack equal protection under
the law;6 and 200 million young people despair because
they lack equal opportunities to acquire the skills they
need to get decent jobs and livelihoods.7
At the same time there is unprecedented prosperity and
dynamism in many countries. Two billion people already
enjoy middle class lifestyles, and another three billion are
set to join them by 2030. Low- and middle-income countries
are now growing faster than high-income ones – which
helps to reduce global inequality. And many countries are
using public social protection programmes and social and
environmental regulations to bring down high levels of
domestic inequality by improving the lives of the worst-off,
while also transforming their economies so that growth
is sustained over the long term and provides more good
jobs and secure livelihoods. This means it is now possible
to leave no one behind – to give every child a fair chance
in life, and to achieve a pattern of development where
dignity and human rights become a reality for all, where an
agenda can be built around human security.
While we were writing this report, the world passed
an alarming threshold: atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration was measured at over 400 parts per million,
probably the highest level in at least 800,000 years.8 There is
no evidence yet that the upward trend has been slowed or
reversed, as it must be if potentially catastrophic changes
in climate are to be avoided. Despite all the rhetoric about
alternative energy sources, fossil fuels still make up 81 per
cent of global energy production--unchanged since 1990.9
To continue on this business-as-usual path would be very
dangerous. Changes in consumption and production
patterns are essential, and they must be led by the
developed countries.
Recent food and energy crises, and high prices for many
commodities, point to a world where increasing resource
scarcity is the norm. In environmental “hot spots,” the
harm that is coming if we don’t halt current trends will
be irreversible. Of the 24 most important ways the poor
depend on natural resources, 15 are in serious decline,
including: more than 40 per cent of global fisheries that
have crashed or are overfished; loss of 130 million hectares
of forests in the last decade; loss of 20 percent of mangrove
forests since 1980; threats to 75 per cent of the world’s
coral reefs, mostly in small island developing states where
dependence on reefs is high.10
Yet the Panel is impressed by the extraordinary innovations
that have occurred, especially the rate at which new
technologies are adopted and diffused, and by the
opportunities these technologies offer for sustainable
development. The number of mobile phone subscriptions
has risen from fewer than a billion to more than 6 billion,
and with it many mobile (m-) applications – m-banking,
m-health, m-learning, m-taxes – that can radically change
economies and service delivery in sustainable ways.
The powerful in today’s world can no longer expect to set
the rules and go unchallenged. People everywhere expect
businesses and governments to be open, accountable,
and responsive to their needs. There is an opportunity
now to give people the power to influence and control
things in their everyday lives, and to give all countries more
say in how the world is governed. Without sound domestic
and global institutions there can be no chance of making
poverty reduction permanent.
There are 21 countries that have experienced armed
conflict since 2000 and many others where criminal
violence is common. Between them, these claim 7.9 million
lives each year.11 In order to develop peacefully, countries
afflicted by or emerging from conflict need institutions
that are capable and responsive, and able to meet people’s
core demands for security, justice and well-being. A
minimally functional state machinery is a pre-requisite and
a foundation for lasting development that breaks the cycle
of conflict and distrust.
People care no less about sound institutions than they do
about preventing illness or ensuring that their children can
read and write – if only because they understand that the
former play an essential role in achieving the latter. Good
institutions are, in fact, the essential building blocks of a
prosperous and sustainable future. The rule of law, freedom
of speech and the media, open political choice and active
citizen participation, access to justice, non-discriminatory
and accountable governments and public institutions help
drive development and have their own intrinsic value. They
are both means to an end and an end in themselves.
One World: One Sustainable
Development Agenda
The Panel believes there is a chance now to do something
that has never before been done – to eradicate extreme
poverty, once and for all, and to end hunger, illiteracy,
and preventable deaths. This would be a truly historic
achievement.
But we wanted to do more and we thought: ending
extreme poverty is just the beginning, not the end. It is
vital, but our vision must be broader: to start countries on
the path of sustainable development – building on the
Post-2015 | 5
foundations established by the 2012 UN Conference on
Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro12, and meeting
a challenge that no country, developed or developing, has
met so far.
We recommend to the Secretary-General that deliberations
on a new development agenda must be guided by the
vision of eradicating extreme poverty once and for all, in
the context of sustainable development.
We came to the conclusion that the moment is right
to merge the social, economic and environmental
dimensions of sustainability guiding international
development. Why now? Because 2015 is the target
date set in the year 2000 for the achievement of the
MDGs and the logical date to begin a second phase
that will finish the job they started and build on their
achievements. Member states of the General Assembly
of the United Nations have also agreed at Rio+20 to
develop a set of sustainable development goals that
are coherent with and integrated into the development
agenda beyond 2015. 2015 also marks the deadline for
countries to negotiate a new treaty to limit greenhouse
gas emissions.
Developing a single, sustainable development agenda
is critical. Without ending poverty, we cannot build
prosperity; too many people get left behind. Without
building prosperity, we cannot tackle environmental
challenges; we need to mobilise massive investments
in new technologies to reduce the footprint of
unsustainable production and consumption patterns.
Without environmental sustainability, we cannot end
poverty; the poor are too deeply affected by natural
disasters and too dependent on deteriorating oceans,
forests and soils.
The need for a single agenda is glaring, as soon as one
starts thinking practically about what needs to be done.
Right now, development, sustainable development and
climate change are often seen as separate. They have
separate mandates, separate financing streams, and
separate processes for tracking progress and holding
people accountable. This creates overlap and confusion
when it comes to developing specific programs and
projects on the ground. It is time to streamline the
agenda.
It is also unrealistic to think we can help another one
billion people to lift themselves out of poverty by
growing their national economies without making
structural changes in the world economy. There is an
urgent need for developed countries to re-imagine
their growth models. They must lead the world towards
solutions to climate change by creating and adopting
low-carbon and other sustainable development
technologies and passing them on to others. Otherwise,
further strains on food, water and energy supplies and
increases in global carbon emissions will be inevitable
– with added pressures from billions more people
expected to join the middle class in the next two
decades. People still living in poverty, or those in nearpoverty, who have been the most vulnerable to recent
food, fuel and financial crises, would then be at grave
risk of slipping back into poverty once more.
This is why we need to think differently. Ending poverty
is not a matter for aid or international cooperation alone.
It is an essential part of sustainable development, in
developed and developing countries alike. Developed
countries have a great responsibility to keep the
promises they have made to help the less fortunate.
The billions of dollars of aid that they give each year
are vital to many low-income countries. But it is not
enough: they can also co-operate more effectively to
stem aggressive tax avoidance and evasion, and illicit
capital flows. Governments can work with business
to create a more coherent, transparent and equitable
system for collecting corporate tax in a globalised world.
They can tighten the enforcement of rules that prohibit
companies from bribing foreign officials. They can
prompt their large multinational corporations to report
on the social, environmental, and economic impact of
their activities.
Developing countries, too, have a vital part to play in
the transformative shifts that are needed. Most of them
are growing rapidly and raising their own resources to
Our Vision and Our Responsibility
“Our vision and our responsibility is to end extreme poverty in all its forms in the context of sustainable
development and to have in place the building blocks of sustained prosperity for all. The gains in poverty
eradication should be irreversible. This is a global, people-centred and planet-sensitive agenda to address
the universal challenges of the 21st century: promoting sustainable development, supporting job-creating
growth, protecting the environment and providing peace, security, justice, freedom and equity at all levels.”
Monrovia Communiqué of the High-Level Panel February 1, 2013
6
| Chapter 1: A Vision and Framework for the post-2015 Development Agenda
fund their own development. They already contribute
the most to global growth and expansion of global
trade. They have young, dynamic populations. They
are urbanising, modernising and absorbing new
technologies faster than ever before. But they face
critical choices. The infrastructure investments they
make today will lock-in energy use and pollution levels
tomorrow. The way they manage natural resource
revenues today will determine the options available
to their young people tomorrow. They must make
smart choices to turn cities into vibrant places full of
opportunities, services and different lifestyles, where
people want to work and live.
There is a global ethic for a globalised world, based
on our common humanity, the Rio principles and the
shared ethos of all traditions: “do as you would be done
by.” Moreover, the benefits of investing in sustainable
development are high. Every dollar invested in stopping
chronic malnutrition returns $30 in higher lifetime
productivity.13 Expanded childhood immunisation
improves health in later life, with benefits worth 20 times
the cost.14 The value of the productive time gained when
households have access to safe drinking water in the
home is worth 3 times the cost of providing it.15 And we
cannot wait before moving to sustainable development.
Scientists warn us that we must aggressively move
beyond current voluntary pledges and commitments to
reduce carbon emissions or else we will be on a path to
at least a 4-degree Celsius warming over pre-industrial
levels by this century’s end. According to the World
Bank, such “4°C scenarios” would be devastating.16
Pursuing a single, sustainable development agenda is
the right thing, the smart thing and the necessary thing
to do.
2. See Terms of Reference, Annex V.
3. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, 15 May, 2013, http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=6821.
4. Bali Communiqué of the High Level Panel, March 27, 2013, http://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FinalCommunique-Bali.pdf.
5. HLP Secretariat calculations.
6. UNiTE to end violence against women. Fact Sheet. http://www.un.org/en/women/endviolence/pdf/VAW.pdf.
7. Education For All (EFA) monitoring report (2012). Youth and Skills: Putting Education to Work. (p. 16).
8. Luthi et al., 2008, Nature 453, 379-382.
9. World Energy Outlook Factsheet, 2011, International Energy Agency, http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/
factsheets/factsheets.pdf.
10. UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). This was a four-year, multi-volume scientific appraisal by more than 1,000
experts.
11. The World Development Report, 2011: Conflict, Security and Development, World Bank.
12. The Future We Want, United Nations, A/RES/66/288*, 11 September 2012.
13. Copenhagen Consensus (2012). Expert Panel Findings, (p. 4) and Hoddinott et al. (2012). Hunger and Malnutrition. Challenge
Paper Copenhagen Consensus 2012 (p. 68).
14. Jamison, D., Jha, P., Bloom, D. (2008). The Challenge of Diseases. Challenge Paper Copenhagen Consensus 2008 (p. 51).
15. Whittington, D. et al. (2008). The Challenge of Water and Sanitation. Challenge Paper Copenhagen Consensus 2008 (p. 126).
16. Turn Down the Heat, The World Bank, November 2012, http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_
the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf .
Post-2015 | 7
Chapter 2: From Vision to Action—Priority
Transformations for a post-2015 Agenda
Five Transformative Shifts
The Panel views five big, transformative shifts as the priorities for a forward-looking,
compelling and integrated sustainable development agenda based on the Rio principles.
The first four shifts are where the focus for action is mostly at the country level, while the
fifth transformative shift, forging a new global partnership, is an overarching change in
international cooperation that provides the policy space for domestic transformations.
We believe there is a need for a paradigm shift, a profound structural transformation that will
overcome the obstacles to sustained prosperity.
The transformations described below apply to all countries. They are universally relevant
and actionable. The details may vary, and responsibilities and accountabilities will inevitably
differ, in line with the circumstances and capabilities of each country. We recognise that
there are enormous differences among countries in resources and capabilities, differences
rooted in long-ago history and often beyond their individual control. But every country has
something to contribute. Countries are not being told what to do: each country is being
asked what it wants to do, on a voluntary basis, both at home and to help others in meeting
jointly identified challenges.
1. Leave No One Behind
The next development agenda must ensure that in the future neither income nor gender,
nor ethnicity, nor disability, nor geography, will determine whether people live or die,
whether a mother can give birth safely, or whether her child has a fair chance in life. We must
keep faith with the promise of the MDGs and now finish the job. The MDGs aspired to halve
poverty. After 2015 we should aspire to put an end to hunger and extreme poverty as well
as addressing poverty in all its other forms. This is a major new commitment to everyone
on the planet who feels marginalised or excluded, and to the neediest and most vulnerable
people, to make sure their concerns are addressed and that they can enjoy their human
rights.
The new agenda must tackle the causes of poverty, exclusion and inequality. It must connect
people in rural and urban areas to the modern economy through quality infrastructure –
electricity, irrigation, roads, ports, and telecommunications. It must provide quality health
care and education for all. It must establish and enforce clear rules, without discrimination,
so that women can inherit and own property and run a business, communities can control
local environmental resources, and farmers and urban slum-dwellers have secure property
rights. It must give people the assurance of personal safety. It must make it easy for them to
follow their dreams and start a business. It must give them a say in what their government
does for them, and how it spends their tax money. It must end discrimination and promote
equality between men and women, girls and boys.
These are issues of basic social justice. Many people living in poverty have not had a fair
chance in life because they are victims of illness or poor healthcare, unemployment, a natural
disaster, climate change, local conflict, instability, poor local leadership, or low-quality
education – or have been given no schooling at all. Others face discrimination. Remedying
these fundamental inequalities and injustices is a matter of respect for people’s universal
human rights. A focus on the poorest and most marginalised, a disproportionate number
of whom are women, follows directly from the principles agreed to in the Millennium
Declaration and at Rio.17 These principles should remain the foundation of the post-2015
agenda.
To be sure that our actions are helping not just the largest number of people, but the
neediest and most vulnerable, we will need new ways of measuring success. Strategies
8
| Chapter 2: From Vision to Action—Priority Transformations for a post-2015 Agenda
and plans will have to be developed to reach those not
adequately covered by existing programmes. The cost of
delivering services in remote areas may be only 15 to 20 per
cent higher than average, to judge by practical experience
in many countries. This seems reasonable and affordable,
given higher tax revenues expected in most countries, and
sustained aid to the lowest income countries. Above all it is
the right thing to do.
2. Put Sustainable Development at the Core
For twenty years, the international community has aspired
to integrate the social, economic, and environmental
dimensions of sustainability, but no country has yet
achieved patterns of consumption and production that
could sustain global prosperity in the coming decades.
A new agenda will need to set out the core elements of
sustainable lifestyles that can work for all.
The Panel is convinced that national and local governments,
businesses and individuals must transform the way they
generate and consume energy, travel and transport
goods, use water and grow food. Especially in developed
countries, incentives and new mind-sets can spark
massive investment in moving towards a green economy
in the context of sustainable development and poverty
eradication, while promoting more sustainable and
more efficient consumption and production. Developing
countries, when they get access to new technologies,
can leapfrog straight to new, more sustainable and more
efficient consumption and production. Both approaches
are simply smart public policy.
It is sometimes argued that global limits on carbon
emissions will force developing countries to sacrifice
growth to accommodate the lifestyles of the rich, or that
developed countries will have to stop growing so that
developing countries can develop – substituting one
source of pollution for another. We do not believe that such
trade-offs are necessary. Mankind’s capacity for innovation,
and the many alternatives that already exist, mean that
sustainable development can, and must, allow people in
all countries to achieve their aspirations.
At least one-third of the activities needed to lower global
carbon emissions to reasonable levels, such as switching
to LED lighting to conserve electricity, more than pay for
themselves under current market conditions. Consumers
will pay more up front if they can see future savings
clearly and if the right incentives are in place to make the
switch. Examples abound of smart, feasible, cost-effective,
green economy policies: improved vehicle aerodynamics,
constructing buildings for energy efficiency, recycling
waste, generating electricity from landfill gas—and
new technologies are constantly coming on-stream. But
concerted efforts are needed to develop and adopt them.
There are other ways to reduce carbon emissions at very
little cost; for example restoring soil, managing grasslands
and forests in a sustainable way.18 Healthcare costs can
fall significantly with a switch to clean transport or power
generation, helping offset the costs. But incentives – taxes,
subsidies and regulations – must be in place to encourage
this – incentives that are largely not in place now. With the
right incentives, and some certainty about the rules, many
of the world’s largest companies are prepared to commit
themselves to moving to sustainable modes of production
on a large scale.
In developing countries too, the benefits of investing in
sustainable development are high, especially if they get
access to new technologies. Small investments to allow
cross-border trading in electricity could save sub-Saharan
Africa $2.7 billion every year, by substituting hydro for
thermal power plants.19 Sustainable production is far
cheaper than “Grow now, clean later.”
Already, some industries have developed global standards
to guide foreign investment in sustainable development.
Examples can be found in mining, palm oil, forestry,
agricultural land purchases, and banking. Certification and
compliance programmes put all companies on the same
footing.
As more industries develop sustainability certification, it
will be easier for civil society and shareholders to become
watchdogs, holding firms accountable for adhering to
industry standards and worker safety issues, and being
ready to disinvest if they do not. Today, however, only
25 per cent of large companies report to shareholders
on sustainability practices; by 2030, this should be
commonplace.
3. Transform Economies for Jobs and Inclusive
Growth
The Panel calls for a quantum leap forward in economic
opportunities and a profound economic transformation
to end extreme poverty and improve livelihoods. There
must be a commitment to rapid, equitable growth – not
growth at any cost or just short-term spurts in growth, but
sustained, long-term, inclusive growth that can overcome
the challenges of unemployment (especially youth
unemployment), resource scarcity and – perhaps the
biggest challenge of all – adaptation to climate change. This
kind of inclusive growth has to be supported by a global
economy that ensures financial stability, promotes stable,
long-term private financial investment, and encourages
open, fair and development-friendly trade.
The first priority must be to create opportunities for good
and decent jobs and secure livelihoods, so as to make
growth inclusive and ensure that it reduces poverty and
inequality. When people escape from poverty, it is most
often by joining the middle class, but to do so they will need
Post-2015 | 9
the education, training and skills to be successful in the job
market and respond to demands by business for more
workers. Billions more people could become middle-class
by 2030, most of them in cities, and this would strengthen
economic growth the world over. Better government
policies, fair and accountable public institutions, and
inclusive and sustainable business practices will support
this and are essential parts of a post-2015 agenda.
A second priority is to constantly strive to add value and
raise productivity, so that growth begets more growth.
Some fundamentals will accelerate growth everywhere –
infrastructure and other investments, skills development,
supportive policies towards micro, small and medium sized
enterprises, and the capacity to innovate and absorb new
technologies, and produce higher quality and a greater
range of products. In some countries, this can be achieved
through industrialisation, in others through expanding a
modern service sector or intensifying agriculture. Some
specialise, others diversify. There is no single recipe. But it is
clear that some growth patterns – essentially those that are
supported by open and fair trade, globally and regionally
– offer more opportunities than others for future growth.
Third, countries must put in place a stable environment
that enables business to flourish. Business wants, above
all, a level playing field and to be connected to major
markets. For small firms, this often means finding the
right business linkages, through supply chains or cooperatives, for example. Business also wants a simple
regulatory framework which makes it easy to start,
operate and close a business. Small and medium firms,
that employ the most people, are especially hamstrung
at present by unnecessarily complicated regulations
that can also breed corruption. This is not a call for total
deregulation: social and environmental standards are of
great importance. But it is a call for regulation to be smart,
stable and implemented in a transparent way. Of course,
businesses themselves also have a role to play: adopting
good practices and paying fair taxes in the countries where
they operate, and being transparent about the financial,
social and environmental impact of their activities.
Fourth, in order to bring new prosperity and new
opportunities, growth will also need to usher in new ways
to support sustainable consumption and production, and
enable sustainable development. Governments should
develop and implement detailed approaches to encourage
sustainable activities and properly cost environmentally
and socially hazardous behaviour. Business should indicate
how it can invest to reduce environmental stresses and
improve working conditions for employees.
4. Build Peace and Effective, Open and
Accountable Public Institutions
Freedom from conflict and violence is the most fundamental
human entitlement, and the essential foundation for
building peaceful and prosperous societies. At the same
time, people the world over want their governments
to be transparent, accountable and responsive to their
needs. Personal security, access to justice, freedom from
discrimination and persecution, and a voice in the decisions
that affect their lives are development outcomes as well
as enablers. So we are calling for a fundamental shift—to
recognise peace and good governance as core elements of
well-being, not an optional extra.
Capable and responsive states need to build effective and
accountable public institutions that support the rule of law,
freedom of speech and the media, open political choice,
and access to justice. We need a transparency revolution so
citizens can see exactly where their taxes, aid and revenues
from extractive industries are spent. We need governments
that tackle the causes of poverty, empower people, are
transparent, and permit scrutiny of their affairs.
Transparency and accountability are also powerful tools for
preventing the theft and waste of scarce natural resources.
Without sound institutions, there can be no chance of
sustainable development. The Panel believes that creating
them is a central part of the transformation needed
to eradicate poverty irreversibly and enable countries
across the world, especially those prone to or emerging
from conflict, to develop sustainably – and that therefore
institutions must be addressed in the new development
agenda.
Societies organise their dialogues through institutions.
In order to play a substantive role, citizens need a legal
environment which enables them to form and join CSOs,
to protest and express opinions peacefully, and which
protects their right to due process.
Internationally, too, institutions are important channels
of dialogue and cooperation. Working together, in
and through domestic and international institutions,
governments could bring about a swift reduction in
corruption, money laundering, tax evasion and aggressive
avoidance, hidden ownership of assets, and the illicit trade
in drugs and arms. They must commit themselves to doing
so.
5. Forge a new Global Partnership
A fifth, but perhaps most important, transformative shift
for the post-2015 agenda is to bring a new sense of global
partnership into national and international politics. This
must provide a fresh vision and framework, based on
our common humanity and the principles established
at Rio. Included among those principles: universality,
equity, sustainability, solidarity, human rights, the right to
development and responsibilities shared in accordance
with capabilities. The partnership should capture, and will
depend on, a spirit of mutual respect and mutual benefit.
One simple idea lies behind the principle of global
10 | Chapter 2: From Vision to Action—Priority Transformations for a post-2015 Agenda
partnership. People and countries understand that their
fates are linked together. What happens in one part of the
world can affect us all. Some issues can only be tackled
by acting together. Countries have resources, expertise
or technology that, if shared, can result in mutual benefit
Working together is not just a moral obligation to help
those less fortunate but is an investment in the long-term
prosperity of all.
A renewed global partnership will require a new spirit
from national leaders, but also – no less important – it
will require many others to adopt new mind-sets and
change their behaviour. These changes will not happen
overnight. But we must move beyond business-as-usual
– and we must start today. The new global partnership
should encourage everyone to alter their worldview,
profoundly and dramatically. It should lead all countries to
move willingly towards merging the environmental and
development agendas, and tackling poverty’s symptoms
and causes in a unified and universal way.
What are the components of a new global partnership?
It starts with a shared, common vision, one that allows
different solutions for different contexts but is uniformly
ambitious. From vision comes a plan for action, at the level
of the individual country and of smaller regions, cities or
localities. Each needs to contribute and cooperate to
secure a better future.
A new global partnership should engage national
governments of all countries, local authorities, international
organisations, businesses, civil society, foundations and
other philanthropists, and people – all sitting at the table
to go beyond aid to discuss a truly international framework
of policies to achieve sustainable development. It should
move beyond the MDGs’ orientation of state-to-state
partnerships between high-income and low-income
governments to be inclusive of more players.
A new global partnership should have new ways of working
– a clear process through which to measure progress
towards goals and targets and to hold people accountable
for meeting their commitments. The United Nations can
take the lead on monitoring at the global level, drawing on
information from national and local governments, as well
as from regional dialogues. Partnerships in each thematic
area, at global, national and local levels, can assign
responsibilities and accountabilities for putting policies
and programmes in place.
Each participant in the global partnership has a specific
role to play:
National governments have the central role and
responsibility for their own development and for ensuring
universal human rights. They decide on national targets,
taxes, policies, plans and regulations that will translate the
vision and goals of the post-2015 agenda into practical
reality. They have a role in every sector and at many levels
– from negotiating international trade or environmental
agreements to creating an enabling environment for
business and setting environmental standards at home.
Developed countries must keep their promises to
developing countries. North-South aid is still vital for many
countries: it must be maintained, and increased wherever
possible. But more than aid is needed to implement
sustainable development worldwide. Developed countries
are important markets and exporters. Their trade and
agriculture practices have huge potential to assist, or
hinder, other countries’ development. They can encourage
innovation, diffusion and transfer of technology. With other
major economies, they have a central role in ensuring the
stability of the international financial system. They have
special responsibilities in ensuring that there can be no
safe haven for illicit capital and the proceeds of corruption,
and that multinational companies pay taxes fairly in the
countries in which they operate. And, as the world’s largest
per-capita consumers, developed countries must show
leadership on sustainable consumption and production
and adopting and sharing green technologies.
Developing countries are much more diverse than when
the MDGs were agreed – they include large emerging
economies as well as countries struggling to tackle high
levels of deprivation and facing severe capacity constraints.
These changing circumstances are reflected in changing
roles. Developing country links in trade, investment, and
finance are growing fast. They can share experiences
of how best to reform policy and institutions to foster
development. Developing countries, including ones
with major pockets of poverty, are cooperating among
themselves, and jointly with developed countries and
international institutions, in South-South and Triangular
cooperation activities that have become highly valued.
These could be an even stronger force with development
of a repository of good practices, networks of knowledge
exchange, and more regional cooperation.20
Local authorities form a vital bridge between national
governments, communities and citizens and will have a
critical role in a new global partnership. The Panel believes
that one way to support this is by recognising that targets
might be pursued differently at the sub-national level – so
that urban poverty is not treated the same as rural poverty,
for example.
Local authorities have a critical role in setting priorities,
executing plans, monitoring results and engaging with
local firms and communities. In many cases, it is local
authorities that deliver essential public services in health,
education, policing, water and sanitation. And, even if not
directly delivering services, local government often has a
role in establishing the planning, regulatory and enabling
environment—for business, for energy supply, mass
transit and building standards. They have a central role in
disaster risk reduction – identifying risks, early warning and
Post-2015 | 11
building resilience. Local authorities have a role in helping
slum-dwellers access better housing and jobs and are the
source of most successful programmes to support the
informal sector and micro-enterprises.
International institutions will play a key role. The United
Nations, of course, has a central normative and convening
role, and can join partnerships through its development
funds, programmes and specialised agencies. International
financial institutions can compensate for the market’s
failures to supply long-term finance for sustainable
projects in low- and middle-income countries, but they
need to be more innovative, flexible and nimble in the way
they operate. The Panel noted the huge potential to use
public money to catalyse and scale up private financing
for sustainable development. For example, only 2 per cent
of the $5 trillion in sovereign wealth fund assets has so far
been invested in sustainable development projects.21
Business is an essential partner that can drive economic
growth. Small- and medium-sized firms will create most of
the jobs that will be needed to help today’s poor escape
poverty and for the 470 million who will enter the labour
market by 2030. Large firms have the money and expertise
to build the infrastructure that will allow all people to
connect to the modern economy. Big businesses can also
link microenterprises and small entrepreneurs with larger
markets. When they find a business model that works for
sustainable development, they can scale it up fast, using
their geographic spread to reach hundreds of millions of
people.
A growing number of business leaders with whom we
discussed these issues are already integrating sustainable
development into their corporate strategies. They spoke
of a business case with three components that goes well
beyond corporate social responsibility. First, use innovation
to open up new growth markets, and address the needs of
poor consumers. Second, promote sustainable practices
and stay cost-competitive by conserving land, water,
energy and minerals and eliminating waste. Third, attract
the highest calibre employees and promote labour rights.
Many companies recognise, however, that if they are to be
trusted partners of governments and CSOs, they need to
strengthen their own governance mechanisms and adopt
“integrated reporting”, on their social and environmental
impact as well as financial performance. Many businesses
today are committed to doing this; the new global
partnership should encourage others to follow suit.
Civil society organisations can play a vital role in
giving a voice to people living in poverty, who include
disproportionate numbers of women, children, people
with disabilities, indigenous and local communities
and members of other marginalised groups. They have
important parts to play in designing, realising, and
monitoring this new agenda. They are also important
providers of basic services, often able to reach the neediest
and most vulnerable, for example in slums and remote
areas.
In a new partnership, CSOs will have a crucial role in
making sure that government at all levels and businesses
act responsibly and create genuine opportunities and
sustainable livelihoods in an open-market economy. Their
ability to perform this role depends on an enabling legal
environment and access to due process under the law,
but they should also commit to full transparency and
accountability to those whom they represent.
Foundations, other philanthropists and social impact
investors can innovate and be nimble and opportunistic,
forming bridges between government bureaucracies,
international institutions and the business and CSO sectors.
Foundations and philanthropists can take risks, show
that an idea works, and create new markets where none
existed before. This can give governments and business
the confidence to take the initiative and scale up successes.
Social impact investors show that there can be a “third
way” for sustainable development – a hybrid between a
fully for-profit private sector and a pure grant or charity aid
programmes. Because they make money, their efforts can
be sustainable over time. But because they are new, neither
business nor charity, they do not fall neatly into traditional
legal frames. Some countries may need to consider how to
modify their laws to take better advantage of this sector.
Scientists and academics can make scientific and
technological breakthroughs that will be essential to the
post-2015 agenda. Every country that has experienced
sustained high growth has done so through absorbing
knowledge, technology and ideas from the rest of the
world, and adapting them to local conditions.22 What
matters is not just having technology, but understanding
how to use it well and locally. This requires universities,
technical colleges, public administration schools and welltrained, skilled workers in all countries. This is one example
of the need for the post-2015 agenda to go well beyond
the MDG’s focus on primary education.
Energy is a good example of where a global technology
breakthrough is needed. When governments cooperate
with academia and the private sector, new ways of
producing clean and sustainable energy can be found
and put into practice.23 This needs to happen quickly: the
infrastructure decisions of today will affect the energy use
of tomorrow.
Science in many fields, like drought-resistant crops, can
be advanced by using open platforms where scientists
everywhere have access to each other’s findings and can
build on them freely and collaborate broadly, adding
useful features without limit. Open platform science can
speed the development of new ideas for sustainable
12 | Chapter 2: From Vision to Action—Priority Transformations for a post-2015 Agenda
development and rapidly bring them to scale. It can
support innovation, diffusion and transfer of technology
throughout the world.
People must be central to a new global partnership.
To do this they need the freedom to voice their views
and participate in the decisions that affect their lives
without fear. They need access to information and to
an independent media. And new forms of participation
such as social media and crowd-sourcing can enable
governments, businesses, CSOs and academia to interact
with, understand and respond to citizens’ needs in new
ways.
Ensure More and Better Long-term
Finance
The Panel believes that most of the money to finance
sustainable development will come from domestic sources,
and the Panel urges countries to continue efforts to invest
in stronger tax systems, broaden their domestic tax base
and build local financial markets. Low- and middle-income
country governments have made great strides in raising
domestic revenues, and this has helped expand public
services and investments, vital for sustainable growth, as
well as creating ownership and accountability for public
spending.
But developing countries will also need substantial
external funding. The main part of this will not be aid
from developed countries, although aid remains vital
for low-income countries and the promises made on aid
must be kept. The most important source of long-term
finance will be private capital, coming from major pension
funds, mutual funds, sovereign wealth funds, private
corporations, development banks, and other investors,
including those in middle-income countries where most
new savings will come from by 2030. These private capital
flows will grow and become less prone to sudden surges
and stops, if the global financial system is stable and well
regulated, and if they finance projects backstopped by
international financial institutions.
The money is there – world savings this year will likely be
over $18 trillion – and sponsors of sustainable projects are
searching for capital, but new channels and innovative
financial instruments are needed to link the two. Support
systems (know-how, financial institutions, policies, laws)
must be built and, where they exist, must be strengthened.
A broad vision of how to fund development has already
been agreed by governments at a conference held in
Monterrey, Mexico in 2002. The Monterrey Consensus
agreed that “each country has primary responsibility for
its own economic and social development, and the role
of national policies and development strategies cannot be
overemphasised. At the same time, domestic economies
are now interwoven with the global economic system…”24
So these efforts should be supported by commitments
made on aid, trade and investment patterns, as well as
technical cooperation for development.
The Panel believes the principles and agreements
established at Monterrey remain valid for the post-2015
agenda. It recommends that an international conference
should take up in more detail the question of finance
for sustainable development. This could be convened
by the UN in the first half of 2015 to address in practical
terms how to finance the post-2015 agenda. The Panel
suggests that this conference should discuss how to
integrate development, sustainable development and
environmental financing streams. A single agenda should
have a coherent overall financing structure.
17. The Millennium Declaration urged “efforts to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all
internationally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development.” It also supported the
“freedom of the media to perform their essential role and the right of the public to have access to information.”
18. Towards a Global Climate Change Agreement, McKinsey (2009).
19. Rosnes et al. (2009), Powering Up: Costing Power Infrastructure Spending Needs in sub-Saharan Africa, Africa Infrastructure
Country Diagnostic, Paper 5 (Phase II).
20. South-South Cooperation is guided by the “principles of respect for national sovereignty, national ownership and independence,
equality, non-conditionality, non-interference in domestic affairs and mutual benefit.” High-level United Nations Conference on
South-South Cooperation, Nairobi, Kenya (2009).
21. UNCTAD (2012) World Investment Report. Towards a New Generation of Investment Policies. http://www.unctad-docs.org/files/
UNCTAD-WIR2012-Full-en.pdf.
22. Commission on Growth and Development (2008) The Growth Report. Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive
Development. World Bank: Washington DC.
23. For example, the US-India Partnership to Advance Clean Energy has already generated $1.7 billion in public and private resources
for clean energy.
24. United Nations, Monterrey Consensus on the International Conference on Financing for Development, in Monterrey, Mexico. United
Nations, 2002.
Post-2015 | 13
Chapter 3: Illustrative Goals and Global Impact
The Shape of the Post-2015 Agenda
Bold commitments in these five areas – leave no one behind, put sustainable development
at the core, transform economies, build peace and effective and accountable institutions,
and forge a new global partnership – would allow the international community to keep the
promises made under the MDGs, raise the bar where experience shows we can do more,
and add key issues that are missing. Together, these would be significant steps towards
poverty eradication as an essential part of sustainable development.
Precisely because the scope of the post-2015 agenda is so broad – blending social progress,
equitable growth and environmental management – it must have clear priorities, and
include shared global metrics as well as national targets. It is around these that the global
community can organise itself.
We believe that the combination of goals, targets, and indicators under the MDGs was a
powerful instrument for mobilising resources and motivating action. For this reason, we
recommend that the post-2015 agenda should also feature a limited number of highpriority goals and targets, with a clear time horizon and supported by measurable indicators.
With this in mind, the Panel recommends that targets in the post-2015 agenda should be
set for 2030.25 Longer time frames would lack urgency and might seem implausible, given
the volatility of today’s world, while shorter ones would not allow the truly transformative
changes that are needed to take effect.
Goals can be a powerful force for change. But a goal framework is not the best solution
to every social, economic and environmental challenge. They are most effective where a
clear and compelling ambition can be described in clearly measurable terms. Goals cannot
substitute for detailed regulations or multilateral treaties that codify delicately-balanced
international bargains. And unlike treaties, goals similar to the MDGs are not binding in
international law. They stand or fall as tools of communication, inspiration, policy formulation
and resource mobilisation.
The agenda should also include monitoring and accountability mechanisms involving states,
civil society, the private sector, foundations, and the international development community.
It should recognise each party’s contribution to development finance, recognising common
challenges but also different capabilities and needs. It will need to be informed by evidence
of what works, and focus on areas where, by acting together, the global community can
achieve the transformations needed for sustainable development.
A goal framework that drives transformations is valuable in focusing global efforts, building
momentum and developing a sense of global urgency. It can be instrumental in crystallising
consensus and defining international norms. It can provide a rallying cry for a global
campaign to generate international support, as has been the case with the MDGs.
The Panel recommends that a limited number of goals and targets be adopted in the
post-2015 development agenda, and that each should be SMART: specific, measurable,
attainable, relevant and time-bound. A set of clear and easily applicable criteria, to guide the
shape of the post-2015 agenda in line with the Rio+20 Outcome, is that each goal should:
• Solve a critical issue, and have a strong impact on sustainable development, based on
existing research;
• Encapsulate a compelling message on issues that energise people, companies and
governments;
• Be easy to understand and communicate without jargon;
• Be measurable, using credible and internationally comparable indicators, metrics and
data, and subject to monitoring;
14 | Chapter 3: Illustrative Goals and Global Impact
• Be widely applicable in countries with different levels
of income, and in those emerging from conflict or
recovering from natural disaster;
• Be grounded in the voice of people, and the priorities
identified during consultations, especially children,
youth, women and marginalised and excluded groups;
• Be consensus-based, whenever possible built on UN
member states’ existing agreements, while also striving
to go beyond previous agreements to make people’s
lives better.
Whenever possible, goals and targets should reflect what
people want, without dictating how they should get there.
For example, all countries might subscribe to a target of
reducing food waste by a given percentage. But a lowincome country might achieve this by investing in better
storage and transport facilities, to keep food from spoiling
before it gets to market, while a high-income country
might do it by changing how food is packaged, sold, and
consumed to reduce the amount of food thrown away by
households.
The Panel recommends that the post-2015 goals, while
keeping those living in extreme poverty, and the promises
made to them, at the heart of the agenda, should raise
the level of ambition for 2030 to reach all the neediest
and most vulnerable. They should call for improving the
quality of services. They should capture the priorities for
sustainable development. And they should connect to one
another in an integrated way.
Of course, given vastly different capabilities, histories,
starting points and circumstances, every country cannot
be asked to reach the same absolute target. All countries
would be expected to contribute to achieving all targets,
but how much, and at what speed, will differ. Ideally,
nations would use inclusive processes to make these
decisions and then develop strategies, plans, policies, laws,
or budgets to implement them.26
A few examples that came up during Panel discussions
illustrate how priorities might vary, depending on country
circumstances. The Panel agreed that some high-income
countries might be expected to move further and faster on
clean energy targets, because most start from a low base
and all have responsibilities to do more to move towards
sustainable consumption and production patterns. Many
can also do more to provide equitable access to health
and education services for isolated, poor or immigrant
communities at home. And youth unemployment is a
serious problem everywhere. The priorities expressed
in consultations in middle-income countries focused
more on reducing inequality, a good education, better
quality healthcare, reliable infrastructure, a transparent
and responsible government, especially at local levels
for improved city management, creating more and
better jobs and livelihoods and freedom from violence.
Similar priorities are expressed in low-income countries,
as well as the need to transform economies and reduce
extreme poverty. Landlocked countries often call for
better connections to the global economy; small island
developing states for economic diversification, and a
stronger response to climate change.
All countries have an interest in a better managed global
economy, one that is more stable, more fair, more attentive
to common resources, and more willing to cooperate in
scientific and technical exchange. All would benefit from
shared early-warning systems to identify and prevent
natural disasters and pandemics.
Risks to be Managed in a Single Agenda
If the new development agenda is to be truly
transformational, there are several major risks to be
managed. The international community will need to
ensure that a single, sustainable development agenda is
not:
• over-loaded with too many priorities, a product of
compromises rather than decisions – lacklustre and
bland instead of transformative and focused;
• Focused on the agenda of the past – and not oriented
towards future challenges;
• insufficiently stretching – business as usual;
• unworkably utopian;
• intellectually coherent, but not compelling;
• narrowly focused on one set of issues, failing to
recognise that poverty, good governance, social
inclusion, environment and growth are connected and
cannot be addressed in silos.
The best way of managing these risks is to make sure
that the post-2015 development agenda includes clear
priorities for action that the international community can
rally behind. These should be in areas where there are
genuinely shared global aspirations, and which will make a
transformative difference to sustainable development and
poverty reduction.
The MDGs show how a goal framework can be used. One
reason why they are successful is that they are inspirational,
limited in number – eight goals and 21 targets – and
easy to understand. The more successful targets are also
measurable with clear deadlines. With eyes on the goals,
money has been raised, partnerships built and strategies
designed. When new technologies were needed, partners
designed them. Good practices were shared. Field workers
on the ground and policymakers in capitals learned and
adapted. Of course, much progress would have happened
even without the MDGs, but there is little doubt in our
minds that they made a dramatic impact in some key areas.
The same should apply to the development agenda after
2015. Those priorities that can be addressed through
a goal framework should be. Goals have shown their
Post-2015 | 15
value in focusing global efforts, building momentum
and developing a sense of global jeopardy. They can
be instrumental in crystallising consensus and defining
international norms.
Making sure that countries stretch themselves is a risk in
a universal agenda. Setting the same targets for everyone,
as happened with the MDGs in practice (though not
by design), will not work because countries have such
different starting points. But in a few cases the ambition
for the whole world should be the same: to establish
minimum standards for every citizen. No one should live in
extreme poverty, or tolerate violence against women and
girls. No one should be denied freedom of speech or access
to information. No child should go hungry or be unable to
read, write or do simple sums. All should be vaccinated
against major diseases. Everyone should have access
to modern infrastructure – drinking water, sanitation,
roads, transport and information and communications
technologies (ICT). All countries should have access to
cost-effective clean and sustainable energy. Everyone
should have a legal identity.
It is tempting to apply universal targets at a high level
everywhere, but for some countries that risks becoming
utopian. The Panel would like every child not to suffer from
stunting or anaemia, but that can probably not be achieved
in all countries by 2030. We would like everyone to be
covered by social protection systems, but not if that means
reducing the quality of such systems to a meaningless
level. We would like everyone to have a decent job, but that
too is probably unachievable in a mere 15 years, even in
the most developed countries.
We found it useful to balance ambition and realism using
some guidelines. In most cases, national targets should
be set to be as ambitious as practical, and in some cases
global minimum standards that apply to every individual
or country should be set. We would suggest that in all
cases where a target applies to outcomes for individuals, it
should only be deemed to be met if every group – defined
by income quintile, gender, location or otherwise – has met
the target. In this way, countries would only be able to meet
their commitments if they focus on the most vulnerable.
Where data for indicators are not yet available, investments
in data gathering will be needed. When indicators are not
already agreed or are unclear (for example in defining
quality), we suggest inviting technical experts to discuss
and refine their models and methods.
Learning the Lessons of MDG 8 (Global
Partnership for Development)
The Panel saw some progress in the areas which are
covered in MDG8, but was disappointed with the pace of
progress in several areas. Many countries lowered tariffs,
but the Doha Development Round was not concluded.
Official agencies wrote down tens of billions of dollars of
debts, but still left many countries financially exposed.
There has been substantial progress in improving the
affordability of medicines, but many people still lack access
to affordable essential drugs. A technology revolution has
occurred in information and communications, but with
little contribution from MDG8.
Despite the shortcomings of MDG8, aggravated by the lack
of quantitative and time-bound targets, the Panel views a
stronger global partnership for development, the objective
of MDG8, as central to a new development agenda. The
Panel puts this new global partnership at the heart of
all its recommendations, and we believe a goal must be
included in the post-2015 agenda as a tangible way to
express key elements of the new global partnership. The
most important changes to MDG8 that we recommend are
to:
• Develop targets that are universal;
• Quantify targets, wherever feasible;
• Pay more attention to raising stable, long-term finance
for development;
• Signal priorities in areas that go beyond aid, so these can
be monitored;
• Infuse global partnerships and cooperation into all the
goals.
The Panel believes that the international community must
come together and agree on ways to create a more open,
more fair global trading system. An intergovernmental
committee of experts, mandated by Rio+20, will propose
options for an effective sustainable development financing
strategy. Reforms in the international financial architecture
are needed to ensure stability of the global financial
system and allow it to contribute to real economic growth.
The international agreement to hold the increase in global
average temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels must be kept. This would help countries
adapt to and mitigate the dangerous effects of climate
change. The world has the opportunity to work together
in new ways to reduce illicit flows, increase the recovery of
stolen assets, promote access to technology and science
and develop a global partnership on development data.
Illustrative Goals
The Panel has concluded that its agreed vision and
recommended priorities for the shape of the post2015 development agenda cannot be communicated
effectively without offering an example of how goals
might be framed. For this reason, a set of illustrative goals is
set out in Annex I, with supporting detail in Annex II. These
illustrative goals show how priorities can be translated
into compelling and measurable targets. To be completely
clear, the Annex material is not offered as a prescriptive
blueprint, but as examples that can be used to promote
continued deliberation and debate. But we hope that they
inspire, and that UN member states, and the many outside
constituencies from whom we have already heard, will find
them a useful contribution to their deliberations on the
post-2015 agenda.
16 | Chapter 3: Illustrative Goals and Global Impact
A key issue is the balance among any proposed goals, and
the connections between them. A true transformation to
sustainable development will only happen when countries
move forward on several fronts at the same time. For
example, to reduce child deaths we may typically look
to the medical community and health solutions such as
vaccinations or insecticide-treated bed-nets. These are
indeed crucial. But empowering women and educating
girls is also very important in saving children’s lives; so for
the best results, work on all these fronts must be combined.
Equally, doubling the share of renewable energy in the
global energy mix will reduce carbon intensity, but so
will increasing consideration of sustainability in public
procurement, led by developed countries.
To take another example, smallholder farmers’ incomes
might be rapidly raised by giving them land security
and access to credit, but even more so if they are able to
transport their produce to market and have mobile phones
and electronic banking, so that they know how prices are
moving and can get paid straight away. And if global food
markets work better – are more transparent and stable –
smallholder farmers will have better information on what
to plant to get the most value from their farms. Similarly,
education can help reach many goals, by raising awareness
and thus leading to mass movements for recycling and
renewable energy, or to a demand for better governance
and an end to corruption. The goals chosen should be ones
that amplify each other’s impact and generate sustainable
growth and poverty reduction together.
The Panel wanted to test if there were indeed a few goals
and targets that would satisfy the criteria laid out above
and achieve its vision to end extreme poverty in all its
forms in the context of sustainable development – and
we considered many options. This led us to settle on a set
of goals and targets that we think would fulfil the vision
we expressed. Without being prescriptive, we believe it
is important to show, through specific examples, that it is
possible to express our ambition in a simple and concrete
way, despite the complexities of sustainable development
and countries’ vastly different circumstances and priorities.
The evidence leaves much room for judgment on what
goals would be most transformative, and relevant to the
most countries. But based on the criteria above, we have
narrowed down the illustrative list to 12 goals and 54
targets, the achievement of which would dramatically
improve the condition of people and the planet by 2030.
We have deliberately not divided the goals into categories
corresponding to the specific transformative shifts
described earlier. Our strong belief is that all the goals must
interact to provide results. In our illustration, we decided to
suggest the following goals: (i) end poverty; (ii) empower
girls and women and achieve gender equality; (iii) provide
quality education and lifelong learning; (iv) ensure healthy
lives; (v) ensure food security and good nutrition; (vi)
achieve universal access to water and sanitation; (vii)
secure sustainable energy; (viii) create jobs, sustainable
livelihoods and equitable growth; (ix) manage natural
resource assets sustainably; (x) ensure good governance
and effective institutions; (xi) ensure stable and peaceful
societies; and (xii) create a global enabling environment
and catalyse long-term finance.
We believe that if these goals and their accompanying
targets were pursued, they would drive the five key
transformations – leave no one behind, transform
economies, implement sustainable development, build
effective institutions and forge a new global partnership.
Addressing Cross-cutting Issues
Several issues are not directly addressed through a single
goal, but are treated in many of them. These include
peace, inequality, climate change, cities, concerns of young
people, girls, and women, and sustainable consumption
and production patterns.
Peace. The Panel strongly believes that conflict – a
condition that has been called development in reverse –
must be tackled head-on, even within a universal agenda.
We included in our illustrative list a goal on ensuring stable
and peaceful societies, with targets that cover violent
deaths, access to justice, stemming the external causes
of conflict, such as organised crime, and enhancing the
legitimacy and accountability of security forces, police and
the judiciary. But these targets alone would not guarantee
peace or development in countries emerging from
conflict. Other issues, like jobs, participation in political
processes and local civic engagement, and the transparent
management of public resources are also important.
These countries should also benefit from a strengthened
financing framework that allows resources to be allocated
to those countries most in need.
Inequality. Likewise, our illustrative framework tackles
inequality of opportunity head on, across all goals. When
everyone, irrespective of household income, gender,
location, ethnicity, age, or disability, has access to health,
nutrition, education, and other vital services, many of
the worst effects of inequality will be over. Other aspects
of inequality more relevant to social inclusion, such as
security of tenure and access to justice, are also addressed
as explicit targets. We recognised that every country is
wrestling with how to address income inequality, but
felt that national policy in each country, not global goalsetting, must provide the answer. History also shows that
countries tend to have cycles in their income inequality
as conventionally measured; and countries differ widely
both in their view of what levels of income inequality are
acceptable and in the strategies they adopt to reduce
it. However, the Panel believes that truly inclusive,
broad-based growth, which benefits the very poorest, is
essential to end extreme poverty. We propose targets that
deliberately build in efforts to tackle inequality and which
can only be met with a specific focus on the most excluded
and vulnerable groups. For example, we believe that many
targets should be monitored using data broken down by
Post-2015 | 17
income quintiles and other groups. Targets will only be
considered achieved if they are met for all relevant income
and social groups.
Climate change. In our illustrative targets, we address the
most important contributors to a low-carbon trajectory:
more sustainable transport infrastructure; improved
energy efficiency and use of renewable energy; the
spread of more sustainable agricultural practices; tackling
deforestation and increasing reforestation in the context
of improving peoples’ livelihoods, and food security,
taking into account the value of natural resources, and
bio-diversity. We also encourage incorporation of social
and environmental metrics into accounting practices.
These should be part of any sustainable development
agenda, even if there were no concern over rising global
temperatures, and are deservedly part of a universal
framework. We also strongly endorse the call to hold the
increase in global average temperature to 2⁰ C above preindustrial levels, in line with international agreements.
But we also recognise that already there is a need to build
climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction into
regional and national strategies, and encourage countries
to focus on these plans.
Cities. The Panel recognised that city governments have
great responsibilities for urban management. They have
specific problems of poverty, slum up-grading, solid waste
management, service delivery, resource use, and planning
that will become even more important in the decades
ahead. The post-2015 agenda must be relevant for urban
dwellers. Cities are where the battle for sustainable
development will be won or lost. Yet the Panel also believes
that it is critical to pay attention to rural areas, where three
billion near-poor will still be living in 2030. The most
pressing issue is not urban versus rural, but how to foster
a local, geographic approach to the post-2015 agenda.
The Panel believes this can be done by disaggregating
data by place, and giving local authorities a bigger role in
setting priorities, executing plans, monitoring results and
engaging with local firms and communities.
Young people. Today’s adolescents and youth are 1.8 billion
strong and one quarter of the world’s population. They are
shaping social and economic development, challenging
social norms and values, and building the foundation of the
world’s future. They have high expectations for themselves
and their societies, and are imagining how the world
can be better. Connected to each other as never before
through new media, they are driving social progress and
directly influencing the sustainability and the resilience
of their communities and of their countries. These young
people face many obstacles, ranging from discrimination,
marginalisation, and poverty, to violence. They find it hard
to find a first job, so we believe a jobs target with a specific
indicator for youth employment, should be included in the
next goal framework.27 Young people must be subjects,
not objects, of the post-2015 development agenda. They
need access to the right kind of health (including access
to SRHR) and education to improve their job prospects
and life skills, but they must also be active participants
in decision-making, and be treated as the vital asset for
society that they are.
Girls and Women. The majority of those living in extreme
poverty are female. A people-centred agenda must work to
ensure the equal rights of women and girls, and empower
them to participate and take on leadership roles in public
life. Women across the world have to work hard to overcome
significant barriers to opportunity. These barriers can only
be removed when there is zero tolerance of violence
against and exploitation of women and girls, and when
they have full and equal rights in political, economic and
public spheres. Women and girls must have equal access
to financial services, infrastructure, the full range of health
services including SRHR, water and sanitation, the equal
right to own land and other assets, a safe environment in
which to learn and apply their knowledge and skills, and
an end to discrimination so they can receive equal pay for
equal work, and have an equal voice in decision-making.
Gender equality is integrated across all of the goals, both
in specific targets and by making sure that targets are
measured separately for women and men, or girls and
boys, where appropriate. But gender equality is also an
important issue in its own right, and a stand-alone goal can
catalyse progress.
Sustainable consumption and production patterns.
Our main focus has been on food, water and energy
systems—the basics of life. But we also strongly believe
that a wider change towards sustainable consumption and
production patterns is vital. The most important changes
will be driven by technology, by innovations in product
design, by detailed policy guidelines, by education and
changed behavior, and by social innovations embedded
in communities. But change is already happening fast, and
today’s aspiration may be tomorrow’s discarded idea. For
this reason, we have framed illustrative targets that set a
high ambition but allow for details to evolve over time.
Much of the new technology and most of the new
products will come from business. We embrace the
positive contribution to sustainable development that
business must make. But this contribution must include a
willingness, on the part of all large corporations as well as
governments, to report on their social and environmental
impact, in addition to releasing financial accounts. Already
about one quarter of all large corporations do so. We
suggest that a mandatory ‘comply or explain’ regime be
phased in for all companies with a market capitalisation
above $100 million equivalent.28
The same principle should apply to governments. National
accounting for social and environmental effects should
be mainstreamed by 2030. Governments, especially in
developed countries, should explore policy options for
green growth as one of the important tools available to
promote sustainable development. Besides protecting
natural resources, these measures will support a movement
towards sustainable consumption and production. And, if
sustainable consumption is to be a part of everyday life,
as it must, tomorrow’s consumers will need to be socially
18 | Chapter 3: Illustrative Goals and Global Impact
aware and environmentally conscious. Awareness-raising
in schools, and public information campaigns more
broadly, could play a big part in changing mind-sets by
showing the advantages of moving towards sustainable
consumption and production.
The Global Impact by 2030
What would happen if developed and developing
countries, and other partners too, committed themselves
to implementing the goals and targets we describe?
We can imagine a world in 2030 that is more equal,
more prosperous, more peaceful and more just than
that of today. A world where extreme poverty has been
eradicated and where the building blocks for sustained
prosperity are in place. A world where no one has been
left behind, where economies are transformed, and where
transparent and representative governments are in charge.
A world of peace where sustainable development is the
overarching goal. A world with a new spirit of cooperation
and partnership.
This is not wishful thinking. The resources, know-how and
technology that are needed already exist, and are growing
every year. Using these, much has already been achieved.
Twenty-five years ago, few would have imagined that by
2015, one billion people would have lifted themselves
out of extreme poverty. If a messenger from the future
had told us that polio would be gone from all but three
countries; that four out of five of the world’s children would
be vaccinated, or that 590 million children would attend
school, we would not have believed it. Yet it has happened.
In shaping the scenario for what the world can achieve
by 2030, the Panel considered several factors and made
several assumptions.
Growth: Global output is set to double by 2030. On current
trajectories, although the per capita income gap between
developed and developing countries will remain large, it
will have narrowed. By 2030, most developing countries
should have experienced fast enough economic growth,
averaging 5 per cent per year, to bring extreme poverty
down below five per cent. Specific policy measures must
do the rest of the job to ensure that no one is left behind.
We cannot take growth for granted, however, and must
redouble our efforts to ensure that it can continue at
these levels, and be made more inclusive and sustainable,
through structural transformations in every economy.
We believe that with the right policy measures, strong
political leadership and strengthened institutions, growth
can accelerate further – even, and perhaps especially, in
low-income countries where the potential for catch-up is
greatest.
Finance: As more countries graduate into middle-income
status and are able to access private capital markets, official
development assistance (ODA) can be concentrated on the
remaining low-income countries and grow proportionately
to match their needs. With large mineral projects about to
come on stream in many low-income countries, there is
great potential for raising domestic revenues. But these
new revenues will often be only temporary, and must be
managed wisely.
Demographic change: Global population growth is
expected to slow to just one per cent per year between
now and 2030, when the global population will likely reach
8 billion, on its way to more than 9 billion by 2050.29 There
will be more people and older people. The impact of both
trends must be taken into account. The world’s labour
force will grow by about 470 million. For many developing
countries, this surge is a demographic dividend in waiting, if
the extra people are given the right opportunities, services
and skills. Creating so many jobs sounds daunting, but it is
less than what nations achieved between 1995 and 2010,
when the global labour force grew by almost 700 million.
International Migration: The universal human rights and
fundamental freedoms of migrants must be respected.
These migrants make a positive economic contribution
to their host countries, by building up their labour force.
Sending countries benefit from getting foreign exchange
in the form of remittances and from greater trade and
financial flows with countries where they have a large
diaspora. By 2030, as global population rises, there could
be 30 million more international migrants, remitting an
additional $60 billion to their home countries through lowcost channels.
Urbanisation: The world is now more urban than rural,
thanks to internal migration. By 2030 there will be over
one billion more urban residents and, for the first time ever,
the number of rural residents will be starting to shrink. This
matters because inclusive growth emanates from vibrant
and sustainable cities, the only locale where it is possible
to generate the number of good jobs that young people
are seeking. Good local governance, management and
planning are the keys to making sure that migration to
cities does not replace one form of poverty by another,
where even if incomes are slightly above $1.25 a day, the
cost of meeting basic needs is higher.
Technology: Many efficient and affordable products are
already being engineered and adapted to meet the needs
of sustainable development.30 Examples include energyefficient buildings and turning waste into energy—proving
that it is possible to generate revenues while reducing
pollution. Among other proven new technologies are
smart grids, low-carbon cities, mass transit, efficient
transport and zoning policies, integrated storm-water
management, mini-grids for rural electrification, and solar
cookers and lanterns. New vaccines, mobile banking and
improved safety-nets are also potential game-changers.
Other technologies need to be developed: for that, we see
huge potential from international research collaborations
and voluntary open innovation platforms.
By 2030, if the transformative shifts we have described are
made, the barriers that hold people back would be broken
down, poverty and the inequality of opportunity that
blights the lives of so many on our planet would end. This
is the world that today’s young people can create.
Post-2015 | 19
Examples of Potential Impact31
By 2030 the world would have:
1.2 billion fewer people hungry and in extreme poverty32
100 million more children who would otherwise have died before they were five33
4.4 million more women who would otherwise have died during pregnancy or childbirth34
1.3 billion tons of food per year saved from going to waste35
470 million more workers with good jobs and livelihoods36
200 million more young people employed with the skills they need to get good work37
1.2 billion more people connected to electricity38
190 to 240 million hectares more of forest cover39
$30 trillion spent by governments worldwide transparently accounted for40
People everywhere participating in decision-making and holding officials accountable
Average global temperatures on a path to stabilise at less than 2° C above pre-industrial levels
220 million fewer people who suffer crippling effects of natural disasters41
25. Local and regional authorities are already working with a horizon of 2030 (Manifesto for the City of 2030) balancing a long-term
vision with the fast changing nature of the world today.
26. Similar national target setting was used after the Jomtien Summit on Education (1990) and the World Summit on Children in New
York (1990).
27. Young people are defined here as those aged 15 to 24.
28. This recommendation was previously made by the United Nations Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability
(2012). Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing, New York.
29. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011). World Population Prospects: The 2010
Revision, Highlights and Advance Tables. ESA/P/WP.220.
30. World Bank (2012) World Bank Inclusive Green Growth: The Pathway to Sustainable Development. World Bank: Washington DC.
31. All figures assume a baseline of 2015, unless otherwise noted (figures are approximate).
32 World Bank, PovcalNet (as of 2010): http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1.
33. WHO Factsheet 2012: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs290/en/.
34. WHO Factsheet 2012: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs348/en/.
35. FAO, Global Food Losses and Food Waste (2011).
36. International Labour Organisation, Global Employment Trends 2013.
37. International Labour Organisation, World Employment Report, 2012.
38. World Bank, Energy – The Facts, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTENERGY2/0,,contentMDK:22855502~pa
gePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:4114200,00.html.
39. Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, 2010, http://www.fao.org/news/story/pt/item/40893/icode/.
40. General government total expenditure in Purchasing Power Parity, based on IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, April, 2013.
41. UN Development Programme, http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/fast-facts/english/FF_
DRR_05102012(fv).pdf.
20
Post-2015 | 21
Chapter 4: Implementation, Accountability and
Building Consensus
Implementing the Post-2015 Agenda
The illustrative goals and targets we have set out are bold, yet practical. Like the MDGs,
they would not be legally binding, but must be monitored closely. The indicators that track
them should be broken down in many different ways to ensure no one is left behind. We
recommend that any new goals should be accompanied by an independent and rigorous
monitoring system, with regular opportunities to discuss results at a high political level. We
also call for a data revolution for sustainable development, with a new international initiative
to improve the quality of statistics and information available to people and governments.
We should actively take advantage of new technology, crowd sourcing, and improved
connectivity to empower people with information on the progress towards the targets. We
see an opportunity in the post-2015 agenda to include new players in partnerships at all
levels, to introduce new ways of working across an agenda that goes beyond aid, and to
introduce a new spirit of multilateralism and international cooperation. Implementing an
agenda of this breadth and scope, holding people accountable for progress and keeping
the agenda high on the political radar of world leaders cannot be taken for granted. But
this time, unlike with the MDGs, we do not have to start from scratch. There are established
processes to move from an agreement in New York to a programme in a remote village,
agencies that are collaborating with statistical offices around the world, a willingness of
global leaders to pay more attention to sustainable development, and local initiatives that
can be scaled up.
Unifying Global Goals with National Plans for Development
The post-2015 agenda must enable every nation to realise its own hopes and plans. We
learned from the MDGs that global targets are only effectively executed when they are
locally-owned – embedded in national plans as national targets – and this is an important
lesson for the new agenda. Through their national planning processes each government
could choose an appropriate level of ambition for each target, taking account of its starting
point, its capacity and the resources it can expect to command. They could receive input
on what is realistic and achievable in each target area from citizens, officials, businesses and
civil society in villages, towns, cities, provinces and communities. This is an opportunity for
governments to ensure access of citizens to public information that can be used as the basis
of national strategies and plans.
In many circumstances international partners and agencies will be invited to assist in
helping countries implement their plans and achieve their targets—on average 30 official
development partners, many with more than one development agency, are operating in
each developing country. These agencies have a responsibility to harmonise their efforts
with national plans, operate through the government budget where practicable, and
collaborate with each other to ensure the maximum impact for the least effort.
Global Monitoring and Peer Review
The post-2015 development agenda must signal a new era for multilateralism and
international cooperation. The United Nations can lead in setting the agenda because
of its unique and universal legitimacy and its ability to coordinate and monitor globally.
But the UN system has yet to fully realise the vision of “working as one’”. It is beyond the
scope of this report to propose options for reform at the UN, but the Panel calls for every
step to be taken to improve coordination and deliver on a single, integrated sustainable
development agenda, including building on positive recent steps to improve collaboration
between the UN’s agencies, funds and programmes, and with the international financial
institutions.
22 | Chapter 4: Implementation, Accountability and Building Consensus
The Panel has three suggestions that could assist with
a coordinated and cooperative international approach
to monitoring and peer review. The monitoring must be
seen by everyone as a way of motivating progress and
enhancing cooperation, not as a tool for conditionality.
First, the Panel suggests that the UN identifies a single locus
of accountability for the post-2015 agenda that would
be responsible for consolidating its multiple reports on
development into one review of how well the post-2015
agenda is being implemented. Starting in 2015, the UN
could produce a single Global Sustainable Development
Outlook, jointly written every one or two years by a
consortium of UN agencies and other international
organisations.42 This would monitor trends and results,
as well as risks that threaten to derail achievement of the
targets. It would also recommend ways of implementing
programmes more effectively.
Second, the Panel suggests that the UN should periodically
convene a global forum at a high political level to review
progress and challenges ahead. An independent advisory
committee should give advice and recommendations as
background for this forum. Such a body should be invited
to comment in a blunt and unvarnished way, and include
business, civil society and other voices.
Third, reporting and peer-review at the regional level
could complement global monitoring. It is often easier
to review policies in-depth with friendly and constructive
neighbours than with the whole world. The UN’s five
regional commissions, with regional development banks,
member governments and regional organisations, could
form part of an improved coordinating mechanism in each
region of the world, which would discuss and report on
the sustainable development agenda in advance of each
global forum.43
Stakeholders Partnering by Theme
We live in an age when global problems can best be solved
by thousands, even millions, of people working together.
These partnerships can guide the way to meeting targets
and ensuring that programmes are effective on the ground.
Such groups are sometimes called ‘multi-stakeholder
partnerships’. They bring together governments (local,
city, national), experts, CSOs, businesses, philanthropists,
universities and others, to work on a single theme. These
partnerships are powerful because each partner comes
to the table with direct knowledge and strong evidence,
based on thorough research. This enables them to
innovate, to advocate convincingly for good policies,
and thus to secure funding. They have the skills to apply
knowledge of what has worked before to new operations,
and to scale up promising ideas to reach large populations
in many countries – ‘implementation and scaling up.’ There
are already a number of such global multi-stakeholder
partnerships delivering promising results, at scale: in
health, nutrition, education, agriculture, water, energy,
information and communications technology, financial
services, cities and open government.
An Example of a Multistakeholder Partnership in Practice: Delivering Quality
Education
The Global Partnership for Education is getting quality education to marginalised children, coordinating
education’s many players, offering aid without wasteful replication, and following local leadership.
It directs funds to a single local group in a country. 70 low-income countries are eligible. A typical group
includes educators, development agencies, corporations (domestic and global), regional development banks,
state education ministries, civil society and philanthropic organisations, sometimes UNESCO and UNICEF
representatives, and other experts—with the ministry of education leading.
GPE’s funds come with technical support to strengthen the national (or provincial) education plan. GPE helps
create capacity to monitor progress. Its work is whatever the country deems necessary: building latrines or
early-childhood centres; training teachers or writing curricula in mother tongues; distributing textbooks,
adding vocational programmes or digital learning systems with corporate partners (Microsoft, Nokia and
publisher Pearson now offer digital, mobile educational tools around Africa).
GPE’s board of directors is global, with a tilt toward developing-country representation. Funding is long-term,
phasing out when national income rises. Its budget today exceeds $2 billion.
GPE is single-sector (education) but shows how collaboration can bring better results. Similar models might
prove useful in other areas.
Post-2015 | 23
A decade or more ago, when the first global partnerships
started in earnest, they mostly shared the costs, benefits
and risks of financing large projects. Today they do much
more. They can bring know-how and training, and in
other ways tackle obstacles that no single government
ministry, private business or CSO could surmount alone.
They are especially good at scaling up, because they
are global and experienced. Bringing evidence from
business, civil society and experts worldwide to bear on
a single topic, they can be persuasive about fixing weak
policies and institutions. And when they see that their
task cannot be accomplished by business-as-usual, they
innovate to develop new solutions, always in line with
national policies and priorities.
One of their most exciting features is that they can bring
about a change in mind-sets, altering the thinking of
millions of people worldwide. It may be a simple issue:
the campaign to encourage hand-washing or to use
insecticide-treated bed nets against malaria. It may
be complex, like a campaign to recognise and address
human contributions to climate change, or the need to
change to sustainable consumption patterns. But always
it involves reaching people in every country and in every
walk of life.
The Panel suggests that the concept of goal- or sectorspecific global partnerships should be a central part
of the new development agenda. These should aspire
to a high standard of transparency, evaluation and
monitoring, and involving business, civil society,
philanthropic organisations, international organisations
and governments.
Holding Partners to Account
Accountability must be exercised at the right level:
governments to their own citizens, local governments
to their communities, corporations to their shareholders,
civil society to the constituencies they represent.
Accountability is central to the global partnership and, in
line with that spirit, all parties should respect these lines
of accountability and trust their partners to fulfil their
commitments.
But accountability only works when people have the right
information, easily available and easy to use. New types
of transparent accounting make this possible. We need
data to be available, and we need the accountability that
follows. Without them, the global partnership will not
work.
The MDGs brought together an inspirational vision
with a set of concrete and time-bound goals and
targets that could be monitored by robust statistical
indicators. This was a great strength of the MDGs and,
as time progressed, data coverage and availability have
increased. However, much more needs to be done. Even
now, over 40 developing countries lack sufficient data
to track performance against MDG1 (eradicate extreme
poverty and hunger), and time lags for reporting MDG
outcomes remain unsatisfactorily high.
Wanted: a New Data Revolution
The revolution in information technology over the last
decade provides an opportunity to strengthen data
and statistics for accountability and decision-making
purposes. There have been innovative initiatives to
use mobile technology and other advances to enable
real-time monitoring of development results. But this
movement remains largely disconnected from the
traditional statistics community at both global and
national levels. The post-2015 process needs to bring
them together and start now to improve development
data.
Data must also enable us to reach the neediest, and find
out whether they are receiving essential services. This
means that data gathered will need to be disaggregated
by gender, geography, income, disability, and other
categories, to make sure that no group is being left
behind.
A New Data Revolution
“Too often, development efforts have been hampered by a lack of the most basic data about the social and
economic circumstances in which people live... Stronger monitoring and evaluation at all levels, and in all
processes of development (from planning to implementation) will help guide decision making, update priorities
and ensure accountability. This will require substantial investments in building capacity in advance of 2015. A
regularly updated registry of commitments is one idea to ensure accountability and monitor delivery gaps. We
must also take advantage of new technologies and access to open data for all people.”
Bali Communiqué of the High-Level Panel, March 28, 2013
24 | Chapter 4: Implementation, Accountability and Building Consensus
Better data and statistics will help governments track
progress and make sure their decisions are evidencebased; they can also strengthen accountability. This is
not just about governments. International agencies,
CSOs and the private sector should be involved. A true
data revolution would draw on existing and new sources
of data to fully integrate statistics into decision making,
promote open access to, and use of, data and ensure
increased support for statistical systems.
To support this, the Panel recommends establishing
a Global Partnership on Development Data that
brings together diverse but interested stakeholders
– government statistical offices, international
organisations, CSOs, foundations and the private sector.
This partnership would, as a first step, develop a global
strategy to fill critical gaps, expand data accessibility,
and galvanise international efforts to ensure a baseline
for post-2015 targets is in place by January 2016.
A further aspect of accountability and information is
how governments and businesses account for their
impact on sustainable development. Only a few
progressive, large businesses try to account for their
social and environmental footprint. The Panel proposes
that, in future – at latest by 2030 – all large businesses
should be reporting on their environmental and social
impact – or explain why if they are not doing so.
Similarly, governments should adopt the UN’s System
of Environmental-Economic Accounting, along with
the Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem
Services (WAVES) introduced by the World Bank, with
help provided to those who need help to do this.
These metrics can then be used to monitor national
development strategies and results in a universally
consistent way.
This will help sustainable development evolve, because
new and better accounting will give governments, and
firms clear information on their bottom line, keeping
them accountable for their actions, and will give
consumers the chance to make informed choices.
Working in Cooperation with Others
Countries already come together informally in many
settings to discuss what they can do to achieve more,
and more sustainable, development. These global
cooperation forums, such as the g7+, G-20, the BRICS
(Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), the Global
Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation,
and regional forums, are playing important roles. None
tackle the whole agenda, but each one tackles important
parts. These groups may be informal, but they can be
of enormous help in providing political leadership and
practical suggestions to sustain the post-2015 agenda
and bring to life the spirit of global partnership in their
respective forums.
• The g7+, for instance, has drawn attention to the special
challenges faced by fragile states in defining countryowned and country-led plans to move from conflict to
peaceful and sustainably developing societies.
• The G-20 has worked to address global bottlenecks
in food and energy security, financial stability and
inclusion, and infrastructure.
• The BRICS are working to develop a large new bank for
financing sustainable infrastructure projects.
• The Global Partnership for Effective Development
Cooperation established in Busan in 2011, is working to
help countries and thematic groups establish effective
partnerships involving many different stakeholders.
• Regional platforms in Asia, Latin America, Africa, the
Middle East and Europe are stepping in to cooperate
successfully in areas of specific concern to the region
and to form unified approaches towards trade, climate
adaptation and mitigation, finance, infrastructure and
other cross-border issues.
In each of these cases an existing international forum
is already actively promoting an aspect of sustainable
development. They, and others, can make an important
contribution to the post-2015 development agenda.
Building Political Consensus
International agreement on a single, universal agenda
to succeed the MDGs is vital, but not assured. One
challenge is to agree on clear, compelling, and ambitious
goals, through a transparent and inclusive process in
the UN. And to do so within a timescale that enables a
smooth transition from the MDGs to a new development
agenda from January 2016.
Success will drive forward efforts to help hundreds of
millions of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable
people as well as efforts to achieve sustainable
development. Furthermore, the Panel believes that
international trust and belief in the credibility of the
UN would be at stake if the MDG targets were to expire
without agreement on what will succeed them.
Already several important milestones are in view on the
path to 2015. A special event convened by the President
of the General Assembly on the MDGs is planned for 25
September 2013. This presents an opportunity for the UN
to set a clear path towards final agreement on the post2015 development agenda and we encourage member
Post-2015 | 25
states to seize that opportunity. During 2014, an Open
Working Group, established at Rio+20, will report to the
UN General Assembly with recommendations on a set of
sustainable development goals.
Another UN working group is expected to begin work
soon on financing for sustainable development. And the
UN Secretary-General will again report to the General
Assembly on the MDGs and the post-2015 development
agenda during 2014. The Panel believes that these
discussions and processes could culminate in a summit
meeting in 2015 for member states to agree the new
goals and to mobilise global action so that the new
agenda can become a reality from January 2016.
The Panel calls for the continued constructive
engagement of UN Member States and their affiliated
groupings, such as the G77 and other country groupings,
to reach such an agreement within a timescale that
enables a smooth transition from the MDGs to a new
development agenda. Only UN member states can
define the post-2015 agenda. However, we believe
that the participation of civil society representatives in
the UN processes will bring important perspectives to
the discussions and help raise public awareness and
interest. And we suggest that private sector experience
and the insights of academic experts from every region
of the world would also support a strong and credible
process.
A transparent and inclusive process will help build
the conditions for political agreement, but it alone is
insufficient. The courage and personal commitment
of political leaders will be needed to reconcile myriad
national views, and to embrace useful insights from
others. We must develop trust through dialogue,
and learn lessons on reaching consensus from other
multilateral processes. There will be difficult decisions
to be made and not everyone will get everything they
want. But global agreement is essential and we believe
strongly that the global community and member states
of the United Nations can and will rise to the occasion.
At the Millennium Summit in 2000, the world’s leaders
renewed their commitment to the ideals of the United
Nations, paving the way for the MDGs. The significance
and value of such global goals has steadily grown since
the Millennium Declaration was universally agreed.
Today’s leaders – whether from government, business
or civil society – must be as ambitious and practical
about a new development agenda. They must embrace
a dynamic, innovative approach to partnership, if we are
to fulfil the hopes and expectations of humanity.
42. This reiterates the recommendation made by the High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability (2012).
43. The joint Asian Development Bank, UNESCAP and UNDP, for example, recently reported jointly on the achievements of the MDGs
and the post-2015 development agenda in South-East Asia.
26
Post-2015 | 27
Chapter 5: Concluding Remarks
We envision a world in 2030 where extreme poverty and hunger have been ended. We
envision a world where no person has been left behind, and where there are schools,
clinics, and clean water for all. It is a world where there are jobs for young people,
where businesses thrive, and where we have brought patterns of consumption and
production into balance. Where everyone has equal opportunity and a say over the
government decisions that affect their lives. We envision a world where the principles
of equity, sustainability, solidarity, respect for human rights and shared responsibilities
in accordance with respective capabilities, has been brought to life by our common
action.
We envision a world in 2030 where a renewed global partnership, building on the
solid foundations of the Millennium Declaration and the Rio principles and outcomes,
has transformed the world through a universal, people-centred and planet-sensitive
development agenda achieved with the shared commitment and accountability of all.
We have a historic opportunity to do what no other generation has ever done before:
to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030 and end poverty in many of its other forms.
But we will not be able to do this if we neglect other imperatives of the sustainable
development agenda today – the desire to build prosperity in all countries, the need
to slow or reverse environmental degradation and man-made contributions to global
warming, the urgent need to end conflict and violence while building effective and
accountable institutions for all. Tackling these social, economic and environmental
issues at the same time, while bringing to bear the energy and resources of everyone
concerned with development – governments at all levels, international organisations,
civil society, businesses, foundations, academics and people in all walks of life – is our
singular challenge.
We recognise that the world has changed significantly since the Millennium Declaration
in 2000, and are aware how much it will change by 2030. There will be more people in
the middle class, and more retired people. People will be more connected to each other,
using modern communication technologies, but perhaps more uncertain about what
the future may bring. We are convinced that the next 15 years can be some of the most
transformative in human history and that the world possesses the tools and resources it
needs to achieve a bold and ambitious vision.
We envision a new global partnership as the basic framework for a single, universal
post-2015 agenda that will deliver this vision for the sake of humanity. We have a choice
to make: to muddle through as we have done, making progress on some fronts but
suffering setbacks elsewhere. Or we can be bold and set our eyes on a higher target,
where the end of many aspects of poverty is in sight in all countries and where we have
transformed our economies and societies to blend social progress, equitable growth
and environmental management.
The illustrative goals and targets annexed to this report are offered as a basis for further
discussion. We do not know all the answers to how to reach these objectives, but it is
our fervent hope that by coming together we can inspire a new generation to act in a
common interest.
28
Post-2015 | 29
Annex I: Illustrative Goals and Targets
The world faces a historic opportunity. Not only to end poverty – but also to tackle the challenges to people and
planet so that we can end extreme poverty in all its forms irreversibly in the context of sustainable development.
The destination is clear: a world in 2030 that is more equal, more prosperous, more peaceful, and more just. A world
where development is sustainable. Making this vision a reality must be a universal endeavor. There is much work
to be done, but ending extreme poverty – and creating lasting prosperity – is within our reach. We do not need to
wait for others to act to start moving. We can, each one of us, begin taking steps towards a more prosperous and
sustainable 2030. Here’s how:
Commit. Commit to changing the way we think and the way we act. In the new global partnership, each of us has a
role and a responsibility.
Prioritise. We believe five transformative shifts can create the conditions – and build the momentum – to meet
our ambitions.
• Leave No One Behind. We must ensure that no person – regardless of ethnicity, gender, geography, disability, race
or other status – is denied basic economic opportunities and human rights.
• Put Sustainable Development at the Core. We must make a rapid shift to sustainable patterns of production and
consumption, with developed countries in the lead. We must act now to slow the alarming pace of climate change
and environmental degradation, which pose unprecedented threats to humanity.
• Transform Economies for Jobs and Inclusive Growth. A profound economic transformation can end extreme poverty
and promote sustainable development, improving livelihoods, by harnessing innovation, technology, and the
potential of business. More diversified economies, with equal opportunities for all, can drive social inclusion,
especially for young people, and foster respect for the environment.
• Build Peace and Effective, Open and Accountable Institutions for All. Freedom from violence, conflict, and oppression
is essential to human existence, and the foundation for building peaceful and prosperous societies. We are calling
for a fundamental shift – to recognise peace and good governance as a core element of wellbeing, not an optional
extra.
• Forge a New Global Partnership. A new spirit of solidarity, cooperation, and mutual accountability must underpin
the post-2015 agenda. This new partnership should be built on our shared humanity, and based on mutual respect
and mutual benefit. Make a Roadmap. We believe that a goal framework that drives transformations is valuable in focusing global efforts,
mobilising action and resources, and developing a sense of global jeopardy. It can be instrumental in crystallising
consensus and defining international norms. It can provide a rallying cry for a global campaign to generate
international support, as has been the case with the MDGs. Goals are the crucial first steps to get us, as a global
community, moving in the same direction. They must, therefore, be few, focused and with quantitative targets. Here
we set out an example of what such a set of goals might look like. Over the next year and a half, we expect goals to
be debated, discussed, and improved. But every journey must start somewhere.
The Panel recommends that all these goals should be universal, in that they present a common aspiration for all
countries. Almost all targets should be set at the national level or even local level, to account for different starting
points and contexts (e.g. 8a increase the number of good and decent jobs and livelihoods by x). A few targets are
global, setting a common and measurable standard to be monitored in all countries (e.g. 7a doubling the share
of renewable energy in the global energy mix). Some targets will require further technical work to agree robust,
measurable indicators (e.g. 11d on external stressors). And some targets could represent a global minimum standard
if a common numerical target could be agreed internationally (e.g. 4c if a global standard for maternal mortality was
set at 40 per 100,000). To ensure equality of opportunity, relevant indicators should be disaggregated with respect
to income (especially for the bottom 20%), gender, location, age, people living with disabilities, and relevant social
group. Targets will only be considered ‘achieved’ if they are met for all relevant income and social groups.
30 | Annex I: Illustrative Goals and Targets
Universal Goals, National Targets
1
2
3
Candidates for global minimum standards, including ‘zero’ goals.
Indicators to be disaggregated.
Targets require further technical work to find appropriate indicators.
1. End
Poverty
1a. Bring the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day to zero and reduce by x% the share of
people living below their country’s 2015 national poverty line 1, 2
1b. Increase by x% the share of women and men, communities, and businesses with secure rights to land,
property, and other assets 2, 3
1c. Cover x% of people who are poor and vulnerable with social protection systems 2, 3
1d. Build resilience and reduce deaths from natural disasters by x% 2
2. Empower
+
2a. Prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against girls and women 1, 2, 3
Girls and
Women and
Achieve
Gender
Equality
2b. End child marriage 1, 2
3. Provide
3a. Increase by x% the proportion of children able to access and complete pre-primary education 2
Quality
Education
and Lifelong
Learning
2c. Ensure equal right of women to own and inherit property, sign a contract, register a business and
open a bank account 1, 2
2d. Eliminate discrimination against women in political, economic, and public life 1, 2, 3
3b. Ensure every child, regardless of circumstance, completes primary education able to read, write and
count well enough to meet minimum learning standards 1, 2
3c. Ensure every child, regardless of circumstance, has access to lower secondary education and increase
the proportion of adolescents who achieve recognised and measurable learning outcomes to x% 1, 2
3d. Increase the number of young and adult women and men with the skills, including technical and
vocational, needed for work by x% 2, 3
4. Ensure
Healthy
Lives
4a. End preventable infant and under-5 deaths 1, 2
4b. Increase by x% the proportion of children, adolescents, at-risk adults and older people that are
fully vaccinated 1, 2
4c. Decrease the maternal mortality ratio to no more than x per 100,000 1, 2
4d. Ensure universal sexual and reproductive health and rights 1, 2
4e. Reduce the burden of disease from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, neglected tropical diseases
and priority non-communicable diseases 2
5. Ensure
Food
Security
and Good
Nutrition
5a. End hunger and protect the right of everyone to have access to sufficient, safe, affordable, and
nutritious food 1, 2
5b. Reduce stunting by x%, wasting by y%, and anemia by z% for all children under five 1, 2
5c. Increase agricultural productivity by x%, with a focus on sustainably increasing smallholder yields
and access to irrigation 3
5d. Adopt sustainable agricultural, ocean and freshwater fishery practices and rebuild designated fish
stocks to sustainable levels 1
5e. Reduce postharvest loss and food waste by x% 3
6. Achieve
Universal
Access to
Water and
Sanitation
6a. Provide universal access to safe drinking water at home, and in schools, health centres, and
refugee camps 1, 2
6b. End open defecation and ensure universal access to sanitation at school and work, and increase
access to sanitation at home by x% 1, 2
6c. Bring freshwater withdrawals in line with supply and increase water efficiency in agriculture by x%,
industry by y% and urban areas by z%
6d. Recycle or treat all municipal and industrial wastewater prior to discharge 1, 3
Post-2015 | 31
7. Secure
Sustainable
Energy
7a. Double the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix
7b. Ensure universal access to modern energy services 1, 2
7c. Double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency in buildings, industry, agriculture and
transport
7d. Phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption 1,3
8. Create Jobs, 8a. Increase the number of good and decent jobs and livelihoods by x 2
Sustainable
8b. Decrease the number of young people not in education, employment or training by x% 2
Livelihoods,
8c. Strengthen productive capacity by providing universal access to financial services and infrastructure
and Equitable
such as transportation and ICT 1, 2, 3
Growth
8d. Increase new start-ups by x and value added from new products by y through creating an enabling
business environment and boosting entrepreneurship 2, 3
9. Manage
Natural
Resource
Assets
Sustainably
9a. Publish and use economic, social and environmental accounts in all governments and major companies 1
9b. Increase consideration of sustainability in x% of government procurements 3
9c. Safeguard ecosystems, species and genetic diversity
9d. Reduce deforestation by x% and increase reforestation by y%
9e. Improve soil quality, reduce soil erosion by x tonnes and combat desertification
10. Ensure
Good
Governance
and Effective
Institutions
10a. Provide free and universal legal identity, such as birth registrations 1,2
10b. Ensure people enjoy freedom of speech, association, peaceful protest and access to independent
media and information 1, 3
10c. Increase public participation in political processes and civic engagement at all levels 2,3
10d. Guarantee the public’s right to information and access to government data 1
10e. Reduce bribery and corruption and ensure officials can be held accountable 3
11. Ensure
11a. Reduce violent deaths per 100,000 by x and eliminate all forms of violence against children 1, 2, 3
Stable and
Peaceful
Societies
11b. Ensure justice institutions are accessible, independent, well-resourced and respect due-process rights 1, 2 , 3
12. Create
12a. Support an open, fair and development-friendly trading system, substantially reducing trade-distorting
measures, including agricultural subsidies, while improving market access of developing country products 3
a Global
Enabling
Environment
and Catalyse
Long-Term
Finance
11c. Stem the external stressors that lead to conflict, including those related to organised crime 3
11d. Enhance the capacity, professionalism and accountability of the security forces, police and judiciary 3
12b. Implement reforms to ensure stability of the global financial system and encourage stable, long-term
private foreign investment 3
12c. Hold the increase in global average temperature below 2⁰ C above pre-industrial levels, in line with
international agreements
12d. Developed countries that have not done so to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7% of gross
national product (GNP) as official development assistance to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20% of GNP
of developed countries to least developed countries; other countries should move toward voluntary targets
for complementary financial assistance
12e Reduce illicit flows and tax evasion and increase stolen-asset recovery by $x 3
12f. Promote collaboration on and access to science, technology, innovation, and development data 3
32
Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of
Illustrative Goals
Goal 1
End Poverty
a) Bring the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day to zero and
reduce by x% the share of people living below their country’s 2015 national
poverty line
b) Increase by x% the share of women and men, communities and businesses
with secure rights to land, property, and other assets
c) Cover x% of people who are poor and vulnerable with social protection
systems
d) Build resilience and reduce deaths from natural disasters by x%
Every day, poverty condemns 1 out of 7 people on the planet to a struggle to survive. Many
of those living in extreme poverty are ignored, excluded from opportunities, sometimes
for generations. Today, 1.2 billion people suffer under the hardship of living on less than
the equivalent of $1.25 per person per day.1 This means that they can only buy the same
amount of goods and services as $1.25 would buy in the United States. For more than a
billion people, $1.25 a day is all there is to feed and clothe, to heal and educate, to build
a future. We can be the first generation to eradicate this extreme poverty. This is a global
minimum standard and must apply to everyone, regardless of gender, location, disability
or social group.
Continuing on current growth trends, about 5% of people will be in extreme poverty by
2030, compared with 43.1% in 1990 and a forecast 16.1% in 2015. With slightly faster growth
and attention to ensuring that no one is left behind we can eradicate extreme poverty
altogether.
Poverty is not, of course, just about income. People who live in poverty in whatever country
are always on the edge, chronically vulnerable to falling sick, losing a job, forced eviction,
climate change or natural disaster. Their earnings vary by day, by season and by year. When
shocks hit, it is catastrophic. Since 2000, deaths related to natural hazards have exceeded 1.1
million and over 2.7 billion people have been affected. Poor people often lack the resources
or support to recover.
Global leaders have agreed that “poverty has various manifestations, including lack of
income and productive resources sufficient to ensure sustainable livelihoods, hunger and
malnutrition, ill-health, limited or lack of access to education and other basic services,
increased morbidity and mortality from illness, homelessness and inadequate housing,
unsafe environments, and social discrimination and exclusion. It is also characterised by a
lack of participation in decision-making and in civil, social, and cultural life.” 2
The post-2015 agenda should tackle all of these aspects of poverty and confront inequality
to make sure no one is left behind. People want the chance to lift themselves out of poverty
and they aspire for prosperity. We considered suggesting a higher target – perhaps $2 a
day – to reflect that escaping extreme poverty is only a start. However, we noted that each
country, and places within countries, often have their own threshold for what constitutes
poverty. Many such poverty lines are well above $1.25 or $2 a day. It is our hope and
1. Based on World Bank’s PovcalNet data from 2010 (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/
index.htm?1). These figures may change considerably when updated purchasing power parity
figures become available later this year.
2. WSSD (1995): http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf166/aconf166-9.htm. Paragraph 193.
WSSD (1995): http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf166/aconf166-9.htm. Paragraph 19.
Post-2015 | 33
expectation that countries will continuously raise the bar
on the living standards they deem minimally acceptable
for their citizens and adjust their poverty line upwards over
time, and that the global poverty line will follow suit to at
least $2 by 2030. That is why we have included a target for
reducing the share of people below the national poverty
line as well as for extreme poverty.
People in poverty need the tools to cope with adverse and
potentially devastating shocks. They have a strong interest
in good management of their environment because on
average they get more than half their income from farming
marginal lands, fishing coastal waters and scouring forests
for wild foods, medicinal plants, fodder, building materials
and fuel. No one is more vulnerable than people in poverty
to desertification, deforestation and overfishing, or less
able to cope with floods, storms, and droughts. Natural
disasters can pull them into a cycle of debt and illness,
to further degradation of the land, and a fall deeper into
poverty.
To address these challenges, one target focuses on
resilience. Resilience means individuals being ready
to withstand, able to adapt–when it comes to health,
economic or climatic shocks—and able to recover quickly.
Resilience enables people to move from the fringes of
survival to making long-term investments in their own
future through education, better health, increased savings
and protection for their most valuable physical assets such
as home, property and means of livelihood. For society, the
by-product is greater economic productivity.
People are more likely to make long-term investments
when they feel secure on their property.3 Tenancy reform
in West Bengal led to a 20% increase in rice productivity.
Indigenous peoples and local communities often
have traditional rights over land.4 But when people or
communities lack legal property rights they face the risk
that they will be forced to leave their land. Business will also
invest less and be less able to contribute to the economy.
We know property rights are important, but also realise the
challenges of measurement. We urge further work on this
issue.
Social assistance programmes are another potential
game-changer that can directly improve equality. They
have been extraordinarily successful in Mexico, Brazil and
other countries. We can build on these successes and
adopt them more widely. We can aim to improve the
effectiveness of these programmes by ensuring greater
coherence, reducing overheads and overall costs. And
we can use modern technology and increasing evidence
of what works to more precisely target specific needs. But
social assistance programmes vary considerably in quality
and perverse incentives can be created if the focus is just
on access. We do not yet know how to measure all aspects
of quality, but encourage experts to think about the proper
standards.
Targets found under other goals address non-income
dimensions of poverty: basic needs like health, education,
water, sanitation, electricity and other infrastructure;
basic freedoms like legal registration, freedom from fear
and violence, peace, freedom to access information and
participate in civic life.
Number of Developing Countries with Social Protection Coverage5
60
50
Countries
40
30
School Feeding
Cash Transfer
20
10
0
Food Rations
Food for Work
Source: Nora Lustig, Author’s construction based
on information from the World Bank and Asian
Development Bank.
3.Tenure security was originally included in the MDGs, but a lack of globally comparable data at the time led to its replacement;
since then, UN Habitat and partners have made progress in developing a methodology consistent across countries and regions.
See MDG Report (2012), p. 57. Secure tenure is defined by UN Habitat as “evidence of documentation that can be used as proof of
sencure tenure status; or when there is either de facto or perceived protection against forced evictions.”
4. Karlan, D. et al. (2012). Agricultural decisions after relaxing credit and risk constraints. Yale University, Processed; Banerjee, A. et
al. (2002). Empowerment and efficiency: the economics of tenancy reform. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 110 (2): 239-280.
5. Estimate based on sample size of 144 countries.
34 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 2
Empower Girls and Women and
Achieve Gender Equality
a) Prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against girls and women
b) End child marriage
c) Ensure equal right of women to own and inherit property, sign a contract,
register a business and open a bank account
d) Eliminate discrimination against women in political, economic, and public life
Far too many women continue to face oppression and deeply embedded discrimination.
This affects everything from access to health and education to the right to own land and
earn a living, to equal pay and access to financial services, to participation in decisionmaking at local and national levels, to freedom from violence. Gender equality is integrated
across all of our illustrative goals, but the empowerment of women and girls and gender
equality is an important issue in its own right. Half of the world’s people are women – and a
people-centred agenda must work to realise their equal rights and full participation.
Gender-based violence is both persistent and widespread. This violence takes many
different forms: rape, domestic violence, acid attacks, so-called “honor” killings. It cuts across
the boundaries of age, race, culture, wealth and geography. It takes place in the home, on
the streets, in schools, the workplace, in farm fields, refugee camps, during conflicts and
crises. Our first target on preventing and eliminating all forms of violence against girls and
women is universal. But measurement is complex. When women feel more empowered and
believe justice will be done, reported incidents of violence may rise.
Child marriage is a global issue across, but sensitive to, culture, religions, ethnicity and
countries. When children marry young, their education can be cut short, their risk of
maternal mortality is higher and they can become trapped in poverty. Over the last decade,
15 million girls aged 10-14 have been married.6
Women should be able to live in safety and enjoy their basic human rights. This is a first
and very basic step. But we must go further. Women across the world strive to overcome
significant barriers keeping them from realising their potential. We must demolish these
barriers. Women with equal rights are an irreplaceable asset for every society and economy.
We know that gender equality transforms not only households but societies. When women
can decide how to spend their household’s money, they tend to invest more in their
children.7 A woman who receives more years of schooling is more likely to make decisions
about immunisation and nutrition that will improve her child’s chances in life; indeed, more
schooling for girls girls and women between 1970 and 2009 saved the lives of 4.2 million
children.8, 9
No society has become prosperous without a major contribution from its women.10 The
World Economic Forum finds that the countries with small gender gaps are the same
6. Who Speaks for Me? Ending Child Marriage (Washington DC); Population Reference Bureau 2011.
7. Source: World Bank, 2012. “World Development Report. Gender Equality and Development.” From:
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2012/0,,c
ontentMDK:22999750~menuPK:8154981~pagePK:64167689~piPK:64167673~theSitePK:7778063,00.
html. p 5.
8. Decreases in child mortality 1970-2009 meant that 8.2 million more children survived. The survival
of more than half of these children (4.2 million) can be attributed to increased years of schooling for
girls.
9. Gakidou, E, et al. 2010. “Increased Educational Attainment and its Effect on Child Mortality in 175
Countries between 1970 and 2009: a Systematic Analysis.” The Lancet 376(9745), p. 969.
10. With the potential exception of some natural resource-rich principalities.
Post-2015 | 35
countries with the highest ratings for “international
competitiveness”—and microeconomic studies suggest
that the economic participation of women drives
household income growth.11
Considerable progress has been made in bringing about
greater gender equality in access to health and education.
This momentum must be maintained by making sure that
targets in these areas are broken down by gender. Much
less progress has been made in narrowing social, economic
and political gaps, so our focus is on these two issues.
Half of the women in the labour force are in vulnerable
employment, with no job security and no protection
against economic shocks. Women are far more likely than
men to be in vulnerable employment in many places, with
rates from 32 per cent to 85 per cent in different regions,
versus 55 per cent to 70 per cent for men.12 All too often,
they receive less pay than their male counterparts for the
same work.
We must work to fulfill the promise of women’s equal
access to, and full participation in, decision-making, and
end discrimination on every front. This must happen in
governments, companies and in civil society. In countries
where women’s interests are strongly represented,
laws have been passed to secure land rights, tackle
violence against women and improve health care and
employment.13 Yet women currently occupy less than 20
percent of parliamentary seats worldwide.14
The message is simple. Women who are safe, healthy,
educated, and fully empowered to realise their potential
transform their families, their communities, their economies
and their societies. We must create the conditions so they
can do so.
Higher Gender Equality Associated with Higher Income 15
Human
Development
Index
Gender Inequality Index
0.2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
6
8
10
GDP per Capita in constant 2005 Dollars, log scale
11. Hausmann,R, L.Tyson,Y.Bekhouche & S.Zahidi (2012) The Global Gender Gap Report 2012. World Economic Forum: Geneva.
12. ILO, 2012. “Global Employment Trends: Preventing a deeper jobs crisis.” From: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/--dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_171571.pdf.p 11.
13. UN WOMEN, 2012. “In pursuit of justice” From: http://progress.unwomen.org/pdfs/EN-Report-Progress.pdf.
14. UN WOMEN, 2012. “In pursuit of justice” From: http://progress.unwomen.org/pdfs/EN-Report-Progress.pdf.
15. Based on UNDP Public Data Explorer: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/explorer/.
36 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 3
+
Provide Quality Education and Lifelong
Learning
a) Increase by x% the proportion of children able to access and complete preprimary education
b) Ensure every child, regardless of circumstance, completes primary
education able to read, write and count well enough to meet minimum
learning standards
c) Ensure every child, regardless of circumstance, has access to lower
secondary education and increase the proportion of adolescents who achieve
recognised and measurable learning outcomes to x%
d) Increase the number of young and adult women and men with the skills,
including technical and vocational, needed for work by x%
Education is a fundamental right. It is one of the most basic ways people can achieve wellbeing. It lifts lifetime earnings as well as how much a person can engage with and contribute
to society. Quality education positively effects health, and lowers family size and fertility
rates. Availability of workers with the right skills is one of the key determinants of success for
any business—and of capable and professional public bureaucracies and services. Investing
in education brings individuals and societies enormous benefits, socially, environmentally
and economically. But to realise these benefits, children and adolescents must have access
to education and learn from it.16
Across the world, investment in education clearly benefits individuals and societies. A
study of 98 countries found that each additional year of education results in, on average,
a 10 per cent increase in lifetime earnings – a huge impact on an individual’s opportunities
and livelihood. In countries emerging from conflict, giving children who couldn’t attend
school a second chance is one way to rebuild individual capabilities and move into national
recovery.17
However, globally, there is an education, learning and skills crisis. Some 60 million primary
school-age children and 71 million adolescents do not attend school. Even in countries
where overall enrolment is high, significant numbers of students leave school early. On
average, 14 per cent of young people in the European Union reach no further than lower
secondary education.18 Among the world’s 650 million children of primary school age, 130
million are not learning the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic.19 A recent study of 28
countries found that more than one out of every three students (23 million primary school
children) could not read or do basic maths after multiple years of schooling.20
We believe it important to target learning outcomes, to make sure every child performs
up to a global minimum standard upon completing primary education. To do this, many
countries have found that pre-primary education, getting children ready to learn, is also
needed, so we have added a target on that.21
All around the world, we are nearing universal primary school enrollment, although 28
million children in countries emerging from conflict are still not in school. In more than
16. Brookings Institution (2013) Toward Universal Learning: What Every Child Should Learn.
17. Psacharopoulos, G., Patrinos, H. Returns to Investment in Education: A Further Update. Education Economics 12(2). 2004.
18. EFA Global Monitoring Report (2012). Youth and skills: Putting education to work. (Page 21).
19. EFA Global Monitoring Report (2012). Youth and skills: Putting education to work. (Page 7).
20. Africa Learning Barometer.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/01/16-africa-learning-watkins.
21. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
(2010). Head Start Impact Study. Final Report. Washington, DC.
esco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/efareport/reports/2012skills/.
Post-2015 | 37
20 countries, at least one in five children has never even
been to school.22 There, the unfinished business of MDG
2, universal primary education, continues to be a priority.
We need to ensure all children, regardless of circumstance,
are able to enroll and complete a full course of primary
and lower secondary education and, in most cases, meet
minimum learning standards.
Of course, education is about far more than basic literacy
and numeracy. While the targets are about access to school
and learning, education’s aims are wider. As set out in the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, education enables
children to realise their talents and full potential, earn
respect for human rights and prepares them for their role as
adults.23 Education should also encourage creative thinking,
teamwork and problem solving. It can also lead people to
learn to appreciate natural resources, become aware of the
importance of sustainable consumption and production
and climate change, and gain an understanding of sexual
and reproductive health. Education supplies young people
with skills for life, work and earning a livelihood.
Teachers are often early mentors who inspire children to
advance. The quality of education in all countries depends
on having a sufficient number of motived teachers, well
trained and possessing strong subject-area knowledge.
Equity must be a core principle of education. Educational
disparities persist among and within countries. In many
countries where average enrolment rates have risen, the
gaps between, for example, rural girls from a minority
community and urban boys from the majority group are
vast. Some countries have made significant gains in the
last decade in reducing disparities based on disability,
ethnicity, language, being a religious minority and being
displaced.
As children move on to higher levels of education the
education gap still remains enormous. Many children who
finish primary school do not go on to secondary school.
They should, and we have included a target to reflect this.
Education Benefits Individuals and Societies24
Return on Investment (%)
Asia
Europe/ MENA
LAC
OECD
SSA
20%
10%
Skills learned in school must also help young people
to get a job. Some are non-cognitive skills—teamwork,
leadership, problem solving. Others come from
technical and vocational training. Wherever it takes
place, these skills are important components of inclusive
and equitable growth. They are needed to build capacity
Pr
im
Se ary
co
nd
ar
y
Hi
gh
er
Pr
im
Se ary
co
nd
ar
y
Hi
gh
er
Pr
im
Se ary
co
nd
ar
y
Hi
gh
er
Pr
im
Se ary
co
nd
ar
y
Hi
gh
er
Pr
im
Se ary
co
nd
ar
y
Hi
gh
er
0%
and professionalism in governments and business,
especially in fragile states.
The barriers to education, and the most effective
solutions, will vary by country. But the commitment to
learning must be constant and unwavering
22. EFA Monitoring Report October 2012 Youth & Skills: Putting Education to Workhttp://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/
themes/leading-the-international-agenda/efareport/reports/2012-skills/.
23. UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations.
24. Psacharopoulos, G., Patrinos, H. Returns to Investment in Education: A Further Update. Education Economics 12(2). 2004.
38 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 4
Ensure Healthy Lives
a) End preventable infant and under-5 deaths
b) Increase by x% the proportion of children, adolescents, at-risk adults and
older people that are fully vaccinated
c) Decrease the maternal mortality ratio to no more than x per 100,000
d) Ensure universal sexual and reproductive health and rights
e) Reduce the burden of disease from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria,
neglected tropical diseases and priority non-communicable diseases
Health enables people to reach their potential. Healthy children learn better. They
become healthy adults. Healthy adults work longer and more regularly, earning higher
and more regular wages. Though we focus on health outcomes in this goal, to achieve
these outcomes requires universal access to basic healthcare.
We must start with a basic commitment to ensure equity in all the interconnected areas
that contribute to health (social, economic and environmental). But in addition, we
must make steady progress in ensuring Universal Health Coverage and access to quality
essential health services. That means reaching more people, broadening the range of
integrated, essential services available to every person, and ensuring that services are
affordable for all. Countries at all income levels have work to do to reach this ideal.
The Panel chose to focus on health outcomes in this goal, recognising that to achieve
these outcomes requires universal access to basic healthcare. Health outcomes are
often determined by social, economic and environmental factors. Discrimination can
create barriers to health services for vulnerable groups and lack of protection leaves
many individual and families exposed to sudden illness and the catastrophic financial
effects this can bring. Investing more in health, especially in health promotion and
disease prevention, like vaccinations, is a smart strategy to empower people and build
stronger societies and economies.
Almost 7 million children die before their fifth birthday, every single year.25 For the
most part, these deaths are easily preventable. We know that the solutions are simple
and affordable: having skilled birth attendants present; keeping babies warm and
getting them safe water, nutritious food, proper sanitation, and basic vaccinations.26
Many children who die before they reach their fifth birthdays are born to mothers
living in poverty, or in rural communities, or who are still in adolescence27 or otherwise
vulnerable. By ending preventable child deaths, we are aiming for an upper threshold of
20 deaths per 1000 live births in all income quintiles of the population.28
Women continue to die unnecessarily in childbirth. The World Health Organization
estimates that every minute and a half, a woman dies from complications of pregnancy
or childbirth. Women living in poverty, in rural areas, and adolescents are especially
at risk.29 Timely access to well-equipped facilities and skilled birth attendants will
25. WHO (2012). Fact sheet No. 290. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs290/en/.
26. UNICEF/WHO (2012). Global Immunization Data. http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/Global_Immunization_Data.pdf.
27. WHO (2012). Adolescent pregnancy. Fact sheet N°364. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs364/en/.
28. Child Survival Call to Action, http://apromiserenewed.org/files/APR_Progress_Report_2012_final_web3.pdf.
29. WHO (2013): http://www.who.int/features/qa/12/en/.
Post-2015 | 39
drastically reduce this risk. Universal access to sexual
and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) is an
essential component of a healthy society. There are still
222 million women in the world who want to prevent
pregnancy but are not using effective, modern methods
of contraception. This results in 80 million unplanned
pregnancies, 30 million unplanned births and 20 million
unsafe abortions every year. About 340 million people
a year are infected by sexually-transmitted disease.30
Every $1 spent on modern contraception would save
$1.40 in maternal and newborn health care.31 But access
to SRHR, especially by adolescents, is low. The quality
of such services is generally poor. The public health
case is clear – ensuring these rights benefits not only
individuals, but broader communities.
In high-income countries, rising health costs are a
major threat to fiscal stability and long-term economic
growth. Obesity is a growing problem. When people
live longer, they face increased rates of cancer, heart
disease, arthritis, diabetes and other chronic illness. On
average, people lose 10 years of their lives to illness,
mostly to non-communicable diseases.32 These should
be addressed, but the priorities will vary by country.
The benefits of investing in health are immediate
and obvious, both for specific interventions and
for strengthening health systems more broadly.
Immunisations save 2 to 3 million lives each year.33 Bednets are a well-known and affordable way to ward off
malaria. Education that leads people to understand and
use quality health services is a useful complement.
The table below shows how the benefits of investing in
health outweigh the costs.34 Every $1 spent generates
up to $30 through improved health and increased
productivity.
Health Solutions are Affordable and Available
Tuberculosis:
case finding & treatment
Heart attacks:
acute low cost management
Expanded immunisation
Malaria:
prevention & treatment
HIV:
combination prevention
Local surgical capacity
0
10
20
30
Ratio
Affordable solutions are within reach. Modern medicine
and improved treatment can help, as can a range of other
factors, such as cleaner air, more nutritious food and
other parts of the interconnected post-2015 agenda.
Ensuring healthy lives will be an ongoing process in all
countries and communities.
30. Glasier, A. et al. (2006). Sexual and reproductive health: a matter of life and death. The Lancet Vol. 368: 1595–1607. Singh, S., Darroch,
J. (2012). Adding it up: Costs and benefits of contraceptive services. Estimates for 2012. Guttmacher Institute: p.16.
31. Singh, S., Darroch, J. (2012). Adding it up: Costs and benefits of contraceptive services.Estimates for 2012. Guttmacher Institute: p.16.
32. Salomon et al. (2012). Healthy life expectancy for 187 countries, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden Disease Study 2010.
The Lancet Vol. 380: 2144–2162.
33. UNICEF/WHO (2012). Global Immunization Data. http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/Global_Immunization_Data.pdf
34. Jamison, D., Jha, P., Bloom, D. (2008). The Challenge of Diseases. Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Challenge Paper.
40 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 5
Ensure Food Security and Good
Nutrition
a) End hunger and protect the right of everyone to have access to sufficient,
safe, affordable, and nutritious food
b) Reduce by x% stunting, wasting by y% and anemia by z% for all children
under 5
c) Increase agricultural productivity by x%, with a focus on sustainably
increasing smallholder yields and access to irrigation.
d) Adopt sustainable agricultural, ocean, and freshwater fishery practices and
rebuild designated fish stocks to sustainable levels
e) Reduce postharvest loss and food waste by x%
Food is essential to all living beings. Producing it takes energy, land, technology and
water. Food security is not just about getting everyone enough nutritious food. It is
also about access, ending waste, moving toward sustainable, efficient production and
consumption. The world will need about 50 percent more food by 203035; to produce
enough food sustainably is a global challenge. Irrigation and other investments in
agriculture and rural development can help millions of smallholder farmers earn a
better living, provide enough nutritious food for growing populations, and build
pathways to sustainable future growth.
Today, 870 million people in the world do not have enough to eat.36 Undernourished
women give birth to underweight babies, who are less likely to live to their fifth birthday
and more likely to develop chronic diseases and other limitations. The first 1,000 days of
a child’s life are crucial to giving a child a fair chance; 165 million children are ‘stunted’ or
smaller than they should be for their age; others are ‘wasted’ and anaemic. Inadequate
nutrition prevents their brains from developing fully and, ultimately, limits their ability
to make a living.37
Poverty is the main cause of hunger – most people are hungry or undernourished
because they cannot afford sufficient nutritious food, not because of supply failures.
Recent increases in food price volatility have shown how sharp rises in the price of food
can worsen poverty. Producing more food will be essential. But it will not alone ensure
food security and good nutrition.
In developed countries, the lack of a nutritious diet in childhood increases the risk
of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. In all countries, adequate nutrition
in childhood improves learning as well as lifelong physical, emotional and cognitive
development. It lifts the individual’s potential, and the country’s. Childhood nutrition programmes have proven successful. Reducing malnutrition,
especially among the youngest children, is one of the most cost-effective of all
development interventions. Every $1 spent to reduce stunting can yield up to $44.50
through increased future earnings.38
Moving to large-scale sustainable agriculture, while increasing the volume of food
produced, is the great challenge we face. It can be done, but this will require a dramatic
shift. Agriculture has for many years suffered from neglect. Too few policies are in place
to improve rural livelihoods. Too little investment has been made in research. This is
true even as the goods and services produced in rural areas are in high demand—
food as well as biofuels, eco-system services and carbon sequestration, to name a few.
35. http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/who-will-feed-the-world-rr-260411-en.pdf
36. FAO (2012). The state of food insecurity in the World.
37. UNICEF / WHO (2012). Information sheet. http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/jme_infosheet.pdf.
38. Hoddinott, J. et al. (2012). Hunger and malnutrition. Copenhagen Consensus 2012 Challenge
Paper.
Post-2015 | 41
In many places, food production tripled in the 20th
century, thanks in part to high-yield crop varieties. But
in many places, soils have eroded and been depleted
of nutrients, holding back food production, despite
incredible potential.39 Improved land management,
fertilisers, more efficient irrigation systems and crop
diversification can reverse land degradation.
Specific investments, interventions and policies can
deliver results. Agricultural investments reduce poverty
more than investments in any other sector. In developed
countries, agricultural research provides returns of 20
to 80 per cent – a great investment in any economy.40
Greater yields, sustainable agricultural intensification
and less postharvest loss can help smallholder farmers
produce enough to feed their families and earn a
living. At the same time, less food waste in developed
countries can help reduce demand for food. With these
changes towards sustainable agricultural consumption
and production, we can continue to feed this generation
and the 8 billion people on the planet in 2030.
We cannot forget the world’s oceans. Poor management
of the oceans can have particularly adverse impacts for
Small Island Developing States. Reducing wastewater in
coastal areas, as outlined the illustrative goal on water
and sanitation, will help. But overfishing is another
problem, reducing an important source of protein
for billions of people. Three-quarters of the world’s
fish stocks are being harvested faster than they can
reproduce and 8-25 per cent of global catch is discarded.
This degradation and waste creates a cycle which
depletes necessary fish stocks to unsustainable levels.
It also harms the ocean’s biosystems. We can and must
correct this misuse; properly managing fish stocks gives
fish enough time to reproduce and ensure sustainable
fisheries. Currently, 30 per cent of fish that are harvested
are overfished, while 12.7 per cent have greater capacity
and could be fished more before reaching their natural
limit.41
Sustainable food production will also require
infrastructure and access to markets and financing,
agricultural extension services to spread the benefits
of technology and innovation, more predictable global
markets and enhanced tenure security. Together, they
can overcome the constraints that limit agricultural
productivity.
Benefit-Cost Ratios of Investments Reducing Stunting
24
Bangladesh
15
Ethiopia
44.5
India
24.4
Kenya
0
10
20
30
40
Ratio
39. Sanchez, Pedro. Tripling crop yields in tropical Africa. Nature Geoscience 3, 299 - 300 (2010).
40. Alston, J. (2010). The benefits from agricultural research and development, innovation and productivity growth. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers. No. 31. OECD Publishing.
41. FAO: The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012.
42 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 6
Achieve Universal Access to Water and
Sanitation
a) Provide universal access to safe drinking water at home and in schools,
health centres and refugee camps
b) End open defecation and ensure universal access to sanitation at school
and work, and increase access to sanitation at home by x%
c) Bring freshwater withdrawals in line with supply and increase water
efficiency in agriculture by x%, industry by y% and urban areas by z%
d) Recycle or treat all municipal and industrial wastewater prior to discharge
Access to water is a basic human right. Safe drinking water is something everyone in
the world needs. Between 1990 and 2010, more than 2 billion people gained access to
basic drinking water, but 780 million people still remain without.42 Around two billion
people lack access to continuous, safe water.43 Improving access – as well as quality – is
becoming more urgent as the world faces increasing water scarcity. By 2025, 1.8 billion
people will live in places classified as water scarce.44 People living in poverty are likely
to be most at risk.
Even those who currently have access to basic drinking water do not have a guarantee
of continued access. Agriculture draws 70 per cent of all freshwater for irrigation and
may need even more as the demand for intensive food production rises. Already, rising
demand from farms is causing water tables to fall in some areas and, at the same time,
industry and energy are demanding more water as economies grow.
Better water resource management can ensure there will be enough water to meet
competing demands. Distribution of water among industry, energy, agriculture,
cities and households should be managed fairly and efficiently, with attention to
protecting the quality of drinking water. To accomplish this, we need to establish good
management practices, responsible regulation and proper pricing.
The MDG targets have focused on improving the sources of water collection and
reducing the amount of time it takes, especially for women, to collect water for basic
family needs. We must now act to ensure universal access to safe drinking water at
home, and in schools, health centres and refugee camps. This is a global minimum
standard that should be applied to everyone—regardless of income quintile, gender,
location, age or other grouping.
Investing in safe drinking water complements investments in sanitation and hygiene.
Water, sanitation and hygiene work together to make people healthier, and to reduce
the grief, and time and money spent, when family members fall ill and need to be cared
for. There is some evidence that private and adequate sanitation in schools allows
menstruating girls to continue to attend school and learn, and reduces the likelihood
that any child will get sick and have to leave school. Agriculture and tourism also benefit
when the physical environment is cleaner and more hygienic. On average, the benefits
of investing in water management, sanitation, and hygiene range from $2 to $3 per
dollar invested.45
42. UNICEF/ WHO (2012). Progress on drinking water and sanitation. 2012 update.
43. UNICEF/ WHO (2012). Progress on drinking water and sanitation. 2012 update.
44. UNDESA (2013). International decade for action ‘Water for Life’ 2005-2015. http://www.un.org/
waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml.
45. Whittington, D. et al. (2008). The Challenge of Water and Sanitation: Challenge Paper. Copenhagen Consensus 2008, p. 126.
Post-2015 | 43
Benefit-Cost Ratios of ICT Interventions
3.2
Rural water
Biosand filter
2.7
Community−led
total sanitation
2.7
1.8
Large dam
0
1
2
3
Ratio
The MDG target on increasing access to sanitation
is the one we are farthest from reaching. Around 1.1
billion people still defecate in the open and another 1.4
billion have no toilets, septic tanks, piped sewer systems
or other means of improved sanitation.46 Such poor
sanitation contributes to widespread chronic diarrhea
in many lower-income areas. Each year, 760,000 children
under 5 die because of diarrhea.47 Those who survive
diarrhea often don’t absorb enough essential nutrients,
hindering their physical and mental development.
Building sanitation infrastructure and public services
that work for everyone, including those living in poverty,
and keeping human waste out of the environment, is a
major challenge. Billions of people in cities capture and
store waste, but have nowhere to dispose of it once
their latrines or septic tanks fill. Innovations in toilet
design, emptying pits, treating sludge and reusing
waste can help local governments meet the enormous
challenge of providing quality public sanitation services
– particularly in densely populated urban areas.
While we aspire to a global goal to have sanitation in
the home for everyone by 2030, we do not believe this
would be attainable. So our target is more modest, but
we hope still achievable.
As cities grow and people consume more, solid waste
management is a growing problem. Wastewater
pollutes not only the natural environment, but also the
immediate living environment, and has an enormous
detrimental impact on the spread of disease. Establishing
or strengthening policies – at national, subnational and
local levels – to recycle or treat wastewater collection,
treatment and discharge can protect people from
contaminants and natural ecosystems from harmful
pollution.
46. UNICEF/ WHO (2012). Progress on drinking water and sanitation. 2012 update.
47. WHO (2013): http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs330/en/.
44 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 7
Secure Sustainable Energy
a) Double the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix
b) Ensure universal access to modern energy services
c) Double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency in buildings,
industry, agriculture and transport
d) Phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful
consumption
The stark contradictions of our modern global economy are evident in the energy
sector. We need reliable energy to reduce poverty and sustain prosperity, but must
increasingly get it from renewable sources to limit the impact on the environment.
Globally, 1.3 billion people do not have access to electricity.48 2.6 billion people
still burn wood, dung, coal and other traditional fuels inside their homes, resulting
in 1.5 million deaths per year.49 At the same time, extensive energy use, especially
in high-income countries, creates pollution, emits greenhouse gases and depletes
non-renewable fossil fuels. The scarcity of energy resources will grow ever greater.
Between now and 2030, high-income economies will continue to consume large
amounts. They will be increasingly joined by countries which are growing rapidly and
consuming more. And by 2030, when the planet reaches around 8 billion people,
there will be 2 billion more people using more energy. All this energy use will create
enormous strains on the planet.
Governments naturally seek growth, prosperity and well-being for their people. In
seeking sustainable energy for all, we must ensure that countries can continue to
grow, but use all the tools at our disposal to promote less carbon-intensive growth.
As high-income countries replace outdated infrastructure and technologies, they can
and should transition to less energy-intensive pathways.
These challenges are enormous. But so are the opportunities. Done right, growth
does not have to bring huge increases in carbon emissions. Investments in efficient
energy usage, renewable energy sources, reducing waste and less carbon-intensive
technologies can have financial benefits as well as environmental ones. Tools are
already available. We can reach large-scale, transformative solutions worldwide with
more investment, collaboration, implementation and political will.
There is considerable momentum already. The Sustainable Energy for All initiative
(SE4ALL) has signed up over 50 countries, mobilised $50 billion from the private
sector and investors and formed new public-private partnerships in transport, energy
efficiency, solar cooking and finance.50 The G20 committed to phasing out inefficient
fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption, while providing targeted
support for the poorest. This means that governments can have life-line energy
pricing for poor consumers—they are not the ones who are wasting consumption.
It also means that large energy consumers should pay full price—including for the
damages caused to health by pollution and the taxes that should be paid on energy.
We can build on and consolidate this momentum by explicitly drawing on SE4ALL
and G20 targets and focusing on access, efficiency, renewable energy and reducing
the waste of fossil-fuel subsidies. Up-front investment in new technologies – from
48. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTENERGY2/0,,contentMDK:22855502~pa
gePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:4114200,00.html.
49. World Health Organization, Fuel For Life: Household Energy and Health, http://www.who.int/
indoorair/publications/fuelforlife.pdf.
50. United Nations (2013). Sustainable Energy for All Commitments - Highlights for Rio +20. http://
wwwsustainableenergyforall.org/actions-commitments/high-impact-opportunities/item/109-rioplus-20.
Post-2015 | 45
simple solar LED lights to advanced hydropower –
can save lives, reduce expenses and foster growth. In
making this transition to sustainable energy, we must
pay particular attention to the poor and vulnerable.
Subsidies are one way that countries help people in
need get affordable energy, so phasing out inefficient
subsidies should not exclude targeted support for the
poorest.
Providing people with access to modern and reliable
energy to cook and light their homes has enormous
social, economic and environmental benefits. The use
of traditional fuels indoors is toxic, causing illness and
death. A lack of light prevents children from studying
and learning and women can spend too much time
gathering wood for fires. Just one kilogram of ‘carbon
black’ particles produced by kerosene lamps contribute
as much warming to the atmosphere in two weeks
as 700 kilograms of carbon dioxide circulating in the
atmosphere for 100 years.51
The solutions are available and affordable – all we must
do is act.
Rising energy use need not parallel faster growth – as
the figure shows. Between 1990 and 2006, increased
energy efficiency in manufacturing by 16 member
countries of the International Energy Agency resulted
in 14-15 per cent reduction of energy use per unit of
output and reduced CO2 emissions, saving at least
$180 billion.52
But we must pick up the pace. Globally, we must
double the rate of improvement in energy efficiency in
buildings, industry and transport and double the share
of renewables in the energy supply.53
Although new infrastructure requires an up-front
investment, the long-term financial, not to mention
environmental and social, payoffs are substantial.
Adopting cost-effective standards for a wider range of
technologies could, by 2030, reduce global projected
electricity consumption by buildings and industry by
14 per cent, avoiding roughly 1,300 mid-size power
plants.54
It is crucial that technologies and innovations be widely
shared. Low- and middle-income countries have the
chance to leapfrog the old model of development
and choose more sustainable growth. But they face
two significant constraints: technology and finance.
Cleaner and more efficient technologies are often
patented by private corporations. Finance is also a
problem: the benefits of more efficient technologies
come from future savings, while the costs are
concentrated at the beginning. If developed countries
take the lead in applying these technologies, costs will
fall and the technologies will become more accessible
to developing countries.
To overcome these constraints, governments can use
a mix of taxes, subsidies, regulations and partnerships
to encourage clean-energy innovation. Partnering
countries can use open-innovation forums to accelerate
the development of clean-energy technologies and
rapidly bring them to scale. These open-source forums
should be linked to real public-works projects that can
offer financing, and the chance for rapid adoption and
broad deployment.
We must also reduce waste by ensuring proper
pricing. About 1.9 trillion dollars, or 2.5% of the world’s
total GDP, is spent every year to subsidise fossil fuel
industries and protect low prices.55 If subsidies are
reduced, these revenues could be redirected to other
pressing priorities. Elimination could reduce as much
as 10 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions by
2050.56
51. UC Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana published by the Journal of Environmental Science & Technology. http://
news.illinois.edu/news/12/1210kerosene_TamiBond.html47. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Indicators_2008-1.pdf.
52. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Indicators_2008-1.pdf.
53. This implies a 2.4% annual efficiency gain by 2030 compared to 1.2% from 1970 to 2008, according to the Global Energy Assessment (GEA) from the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis.
54. United Nations (2012). Sustainable Energy For All: A Framework for Action.
http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/sustainableenergyforall/shared/Documents/SE%20for%20All%20-%20Framework%20for%20
Action%20FINAL.pdf.
55. International Monetary Fund, Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications (Washington: IMF, 2013) http://www.imf.org/
external/np/pp/eng/2013/012813.pdf.
56. Allaire, M and Brown (2009), S: Eliminating Subsidies For Fossil Fuel Production: Implications for U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Markets:
Washington DC: Resources for the Future.
http://rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-IB-09-10.pdf.
46 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 8
Create Jobs, Sustainable Livelihoods,
and Equitable Growth
a) Increase the number of good and decent jobs and livelihoods by x
b) Decrease the number of young people not in education, employment or
training by x%
c) Strengthen productive capacity by providing universal access to financial
services and infrastructure such as transportation and ICT
d) Increase new start-ups by x and value added from new products by y through
creating an enabling business environment and boosting entrepreneurship
Countries at different stages of development all need to undertake profound socioeconomic transformations to end extreme poverty, improve livelihoods, sustain
prosperity, promote social inclusion and ensure environmental sustainability.
The Panel’s discussions on “economic transformation” identified key aspects of
a transformative agenda: the necessity to pursue inclusive growth; to promote
economic diversification and higher value added; and to put in place a stable,
enabling environment for the private sector to flourish. Changing consumption and
production patterns to protect our ecosystems and societies, and putting in place
good governance and effective institutions are also important for the growth agenda,
but discussed under other goals.
There is no quick, easy way to create jobs for all. If there were, every politician in
every country would already be doing it. Every country struggles with this challenge.
Globally, the number of unemployed people has risen by about 28 million since the
onset of the financial crisis in 2008, with another 39 million who have likely given up in
frustration. Rising unemployment hits young people especially hard. More and more
young people are not in employment, education or training, with long-lasting effects
on their ability to lead a fulfilling and productive life.
We have separate targets for jobs and livelihoods, and for jobs for young people to
give specific emphasis to the latter. These targets should be broken down by income
quintile, gender, location and other groups. Through these targets, we want societies
to focus on how well the economy is performing, through a measure that goes
beyond GDP or its growth. Indicators for the jobs target could include the share of
paid employment by sector (services, manufacturing, agriculture); and the share of
informal and formal employment.
Between 2015 and 2030, 470 million more people will enter the global labour force,
mostly in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.57 This is potentially a huge boon that could
sustain growth that is already happening. Over the past decade, 6 of the 10 fastest
growing economies in the world were in Africa. As more young people enter the work
force and birth rates decline, Africa is set to experience the same kind of ‘demographic
dividend’ that boosted growth in Asia over the last three decades. But young people
in Africa, and around the world, will need jobs — jobs with security and fair pay — so
they can build their lives and prepare for the future.
The ILO’s concept of “decent work” recognises and respects the rights of workers,
ensures adequate social protection and social dialogue, and sets a high standard
toward which every country should strive. However, it has become clear that there can
be middle ground for some developing countries, where “good jobs” – those which are
57. Lam, D & M.Leibbrandt (2013) Global Demographic Trends: Key Issues and Concerns. Input
Paper to HLP Panel. Processed.
Post-2015 | 47
secure and fairly paid – are a significant step towards
inclusive and sustainable economic development. The
conditions of labour markets across countries differs
so much. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach – good
jobs and decent jobs will both be needed in the next
development agenda.
Sustained, broad-based, equitable growth requires
more than raising GDP. It takes deliberate action.
Businesses need reliable, adequate infrastructure.
That means roads, power, transport, irrigation and
telecommunications. It means customs, government
inspections, police and courts that function smoothly,
and cross border arrangements that facilitate the
movements of goods to new markets. Business also
adds the most lasting value when it embraces a
responsible corporate business code with clear norms
for transparency and accountability.
People and businesses need the security and stability
of a predictable environment to make good economic
decisions. The prospects for diversification and
moving towards higher value added—needed in
some countries to go beyond reliance on commodity
exports—can be measured by the number of new
start-ups that occur each year and the value added
from new products. As countries become richer and
their economies get more sophisticated, they usually
produce a larger array of goods and services.
There are some essential elements we know work across
countries and regions. Jobs and opportunities expand
when the market economy expands and people find
their own ways to participate. Every economy needs
dynamism to grow and adapt to consumer demand.
This means enabling new businesses to start up and
creating the conditions for them to develop and market
new products, to innovate and respond to emerging
opportunities. In some economies this is about
moving from primary extractive industries to value
added products and more diverse manufacturing and
services. In others it might be about specialisation.
Financial services are critical to the growth of business,
but also raise the income of individuals. When people
have the means to save and invest or get insurance,
they can raise their incomes by at least 20 per cent.
We know this works. Farmers in Ghana, for example,
put more money into their agricultural activities
after getting access to weather insurance, leading to
increased production and income.58 We need to ensure
that more people have access to financial services, to
make the most of their own resources.
Policies and institutions can help ensure that
governments establish promising conditions for job
creation. Clear and stable rules, such as uncomplicated
ways of starting a business, and fair and stable rules
on taxes and regulations, encourage businesses to hire
and keep workers. Flexibly regulated labour markets
and low-cost, efficient access to domestic and external
markets help the private sector thrive. Businesses and
individuals alike benefit from training and research
programmes that help adapt new, breakthrough
technologies to local conditions and foster a culture of
entrepreneurship.
58. Karlan et al (October 2012) Agricultural Decisions After Relaxing Credit and Risk Constraints. Yale University.
48 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 9
Manage natural resource assets
sustainably
a) Publish and use economic, social and environmental accounts in all
governments and major companies
b) Increase consideration of sustainability in x% of government procurements
c) Safeguard ecosystems, species and genetic diversity
d) Reduce deforestation by x% and increase reforestation by y%
e) Improve soil quality, reduce soil erosion by x tonnes and combat
desertification
Protecting and preserving the earth’s resources is not only the right thing to do, it is
fundamental to human life and well-being. Integrating environmental, social and
economic concerns is crucial to meeting the ambition of a 2030 which is more equal,
more just, more prosperous, more green and more peaceful. People living in poverty
suffer first and worst from environmental disasters like droughts, floods and harvest
failures, yet every person on earth suffers without clean air, soil and water. If we don’t
tackle the environmental challenges confronting the world, we can make gains towards
eradicating poverty, but those gains may not last.
Today, natural resources are often used as if they have no economic value, as if they do
not need to be managed for the benefit of future generations as well as our own. But
natural resources are scarce, and damage to them can be irreversible. Once they are
gone, they are gone for good.
Because we ‘treasure what we measure’, an important part of properly valuing the
earth’s natural abundance is to incorporate it into accounting systems. Our current
systems of accounting fail to integrate the enormous impact of environmental concerns;
they become ‘externalities’, effects which matter and have real social and economic
consequences, but which are not captured in calculations of profit, loss and growth.
Countries’ standard measure of progress is Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or, for
companies, profit. This leaves out the value of natural assets. It does not count the
exploitation of natural resources or the creation of pollution, though they clearly effect
growth and well-being. Some work is already being done to make sure governments
and companies do begin to account for this: the UN System of Environmental-Economic
Accounting, the Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services and corporate
sustainability accounting have been piloted and should be rolled out by 2030. More
rapid and concerted movement in this direction is encouraged.
Value for money assessments in public procurement can be a powerful tool for
governments to demonstrate their commitment to sustainable development. This
can enable governments to use their considerable purchasing power to significantly
accelerate the market for sustainable practices.
Ecosystems include forests, wetlands and oceans. Globally, over a billion people living
in rural areas depend on forest resources for survival and income.59 Yet the world loses
about 5.2 million hectares of forest per year to deforestation. Growing global demand
for food, animal feed, fuel and fiber is driving deforestation. Many of these forests have
been traditionally managed by indigenous peoples and local communities. When
forests are cleared, people and communities lose a traditional source of their livelihoods
while societies lose an important natural resource that could be managed for more
sustainable economic development. The destruction of forests also accelerates climate
change, which affects everyone.
59. Forest resources provide 30% or more of the cash and non-cash incomes of a significant number of households living in and near forests. Shepherd, G. 2012. IUCN; World Bank.
Post-2015 | 49
Emissions from deforestation
Billion tons of CO2e/yr
3
2
1
0
Without REDD
Africa
National
Historical
Asia
Higher than
Historical
for Low
Deforestation
Weighted
Global and
National
Rates
Flow
Withholding
and Stock
Payment
Annualised
Fraction of
Forest Carbon
at Risk of
Emission
Cap and
Trade for
REDD
Latin America
Maintaining forests with many different species and
planting a wide range of food crops benefits people’s
livelihoods and food security.60 Such measures would
keep forests providing essential services, such as
protecting the watershed, mitigating climate change,
increasing local and regional resilience to a changing
climate and hosting many species. With 60 per cent of
the world’s ecosystems degraded, tens of thousands of
species have already been lost.
New partnerships are needed to halt the loss of forests,
to capture the full value of forests to people and society,
and to tackle the drivers of deforestation. Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation
(REDD+) is an emerging global effort to give developing
countries economic incentives to conserve their forests
and increase reforestation in the context of improving
people’s livelihoods and food security, taking into
account the value of natural resources, and bio-diversity.
These major efforts in low-carbon development and
carbon sequestration need more financial support.
Every year, 12 million hectares of land become
degraded—half the size of the United Kingdom-losing opportunities to grow 20 million tons of food.
World leaders have already agreed to strive for a land
degradation-neutral world and to monitor, globally,
what is happening in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid
areas. It is time to do this systematically in the new post2015 framework.
60. Busch, Jonah, et. al. Environmental Research Letters, author calculations (October-December 2009). Available at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/044006/fulltext/.
50 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 10
Ensure Good Governance and Effective
Institutions
a) Provide free and universal legal identity, such as birth registrations
b) Ensure that people enjoy freedom of speech, association, peaceful protest
and access to independent media and information
c) Increase public participation in political processes and civic engagement at
all levels
d) Guarantee the public’s right to information and access to government data
e) Reduce bribery and corruption and ensure officials can be held
accountable
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed over 60 years ago, set out the
fundamental freedoms and human rights that form the foundations of human
development. It reiterated a simple and powerful truth – that every person is born free
and equal in dignity and rights. This truth is at the very heart of a people-centred agenda,
and reminds us how high we can reach, if we reaffirm the value of every person on this
planet. It is through people that we can transform our societies and our economies and
form a global partnership.
People the world over are calling for better governance. From their local authorities to
parliamentarians to national governments to the multilateral system, people want ethical
leadership. They want their universal human rights guaranteed and to be recognised in
the eyes of the law. They want their voices to be heard and they want institutions that
are transparent, responsive, capable and accountable. People everywhere want more
of a say in how they are governed. Every person can actively participate in realising the
vision for 2030 to in bring about transformational change. Civil society should play a
central, meaningful role but this requires space for people to participate in policy and
decision-making. This means ensuring people’s right to freedom of speech, association,
peaceful protest and access to independent media and information.
Strengthening the capacity of parliaments and all elected representatives, and
promoting a vibrant, diverse and independent media can further support governments
to translate commitments into action.
The word “institutions” covers rules, laws and government entities, but also the informal
rules of social interactions. Institutions enable people to work together, effectively and
peacefully. Fair institutions ensure that all people have equal rights and a fair chance at
improving their lives, that they have access to justice when they are wronged.
Government is responsible for maintaining many of society’s central institutions. One of
the most basic institutional responsibilities is providing legal identity. Every year, about
50 million births are not registered anywhere, so these children do not have a legal
identity. That condemns them to anonymity, and often to being marginalised, because
simple activities – from opening a bank account to attending a good school – often
require a legal identity.
Openness and accountability helps institutions work properly – and ensures that
those who hold power cannot use their position to favour themselves or their friends.
Good governance and the fight against corruption are universal issues. Everywhere,
Post-2015 | 51
institutions could be more fair and accountable. The
key is transparency. Transparency helps ensure that
resources are not wasted, but are well managed and put
to the best use.
Many central institutions are public. But not every one.
The need for transparency extends to all institutions,
government entities as well as businesses and civilsociety organisations. To fulfill the aims of the post2015 agenda requires transparency from all of them.
When institutions openly share how much they spend,
and what results they are achieving, we can measure
progress towards each goal. Openness will make success
much more likely.
Publishing accounts – including sustainability accounts
– brings ownership and accountability to the entire
post-2015 agenda. Sustainability encourages societies
to measure more than money -- and to account for the
value of all of the other natural and societal resources
that bring prolonged prosperity and well-being.
Accountability works best in an environment of
participatory governance. The Millennium Declaration
declared freedom one of six fundamental values, and
stated that it is best ensured through participatory
governance.
One target that would be useful is to decrease the
extent of bribery and corruption in society. There are
concerns with how reliably this is measured—but many
indicators are imprecise and this should just lead to
re-doubled efforts to improve the understanding of
how pervasive this may be. When evidence is found
of bribery or corruption, involving public officials or
private individuals, they should be held to account. Zero
tolerance.
52 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 11
Ensure Stable and Peaceful Societies
a) Reduce violent deaths per 100,000 by x and eliminate all forms of violence
against children
b) Ensure justice institutions are accessible, independent, well-resourced and
respect due-process rights
c) Stem the external stressors that lead to conflict, including those related to
organised crime
d) Enhance the capacity, professionalism and accountability of the security
forces, police and judiciary
Without peace, there can be no development. Without development, there can
be no enduring peace. Peace and justice are prerequisites for progress. We must
acknowledge a principal lesson of the MDGs: that peace and access to justice are not
only fundamental human aspirations but cornerstones of sustainable development.
Without peace, children cannot go to school or access health clinics. Adults cannot go
to their workplaces, to markets or out to cultivate their fields. Conflict can unravel years,
even decades, of social and economic progress in a brief span of time.
When it does, progress against poverty becomes daunting. By 2015, more than 50 per
cent of the total population in extreme poverty will reside in places affected by conflict
and chronic violence.61 To end extreme poverty and empower families to pursue better
lives requires peaceful and stable societies.
Children are particularly vulnerable in situations of conflict.62 In at least 13 countries,
parties continue to recruit children into armed forces and groups, to kill or maim
children, commit rape and other forms of sexual violence against children, or engage
in attacks on schools and/or hospitals. Recognising their particular vulnerability to
violence, exploitation and abuse, the Panel proposes a target to eliminate all forms of
violence against children.
The character of violence has shifted dramatically in the past few decades.63
Contemporary conflict is characterised by the blurring of boundaries, the lack of clear
front lines or battlefields, and the frequent targeting of civilian populations. Violence,
drugs and arms spill rapidly across borders in our increasingly connected world.
Stability has become a universal concern.
Physical insecurity, economic vulnerability and injustice provoke violence, and violence
propels communities further into impoverishment. Powerful neighbours, or global
forces beyond the control of any one government, can cause stresses. Stress alone,
though, does not cause violence: the greatest danger arises when weak institutions
are unable to absorb or mitigate such stress and social tensions. Safety and justice
institutions are especially important for poor and marginalised communities. Security,
along with justice, is consistently cited as an important priority by poor people in all
countries.
In 2008, the International Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor estimated
that as many as 4 billion people live outside the protection of the law.64 But every
country can work towards social justice, begin to fashion stronger institutions for
61. OECD, Ensuring Fragile States are Not Left Behind, 2013 Factsheet on resource flows and trends, (2013)
http://www.oecd.org/dac/incaf/factsheet%202013%20resource%20flows%20final.pdf
62. Report of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict (A/66/782–S/2012/261, April
2012).
63. WDR 2011, p.2.
64. Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor (2008), Making the Law Work for Everyone. Volume
I in the Report of the Commission. United Nations: New York.61. WDR (2011), pp218-220.
Post-2015 | 53
conflict resolution and mediation. Many countries have
successfully made the transition from endemic violence
to successful development, and we can learn important
lessons from their powerful example.
It is crucial that we ensure basic safety and justice for
all, regardless of a person’s economic or social status or
political affiliation. To achieve peace, leaders must tackle
the problems that matter most to people: they must
prosecute corruption and unlawful violence, especially
against minorities and vulnerable groups. They must
enhance accountability. They must prove that the state
can deliver basic services and rights, such as access
to safety and justice, safe drinking water and health
services, without discrimination.
Progress against violence and instability will require
local, national, regional and global cooperation. We
must also offer sustained and predictable support. Too
often, we wait until a crisis hits before providing the
necessary commitments to bring safety and stability.
Assistance from the international community to places
suffering from violence must plan longer-term, using a
65. WDR (2011), pp218-220.
ten- to fifteen-year time horizon. This will allow enough
time to make real gains and solidify those gains. And
during that time, providing the basics, from safety to
jobs, can improve social cohesion and stability. Good
governance and effective institutions are crucial. Jobs
and inclusive growth are linked to peace and stability
and deter people from joining criminal networks or
armed groups.
Steps to mitigate the harmful effects of external
stressors such as volatile commodity prices,
international corruption, organised crime and the illicit
trade in persons, precious minerals and arms are sorely
needed. Effectively implementing small arms control
is especially important to these efforts. Because these
threats cross borders, the responses must be regional
and international. Some innovative cross-border and
regional programs exist, and regional organisations are
increasingly tackling these problems.65
To ensure that no one is left behind in the vision for
2030, we must work collectively to ensure the most
fundamental condition for human survival, peace.
54 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
Goal 12
Create a Global Enabling Environment
and Catalyse Long-Term Finance
a) Support an open, fair and development-friendly trading system,
substantially reducing trade-distorting measures, including agricultural
subsidies, while improving market access of developing country products
b) Implement reforms to ensure stability of the global financial system and
encourage stable, long-term private foreign investment
c) Hold the increase in global average temperature below 2⁰ C above preindustrial levels, in line with international agreements
d) Developed countries that have not done so to make concrete efforts
towards the target of 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official
development assistance to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20% of GNP
of developed countries to least developed countries; other countries should
move toward voluntary targets for complementary financial assistance
e) Reduce illicit flows and tax evasion and increase stolen-asset recovery by $x
f ) Promote collaboration on and access to science, technology, innovation,
and development data
An enabling global environment is a necessary condition for the post-2015 agenda to
succeed, to set us on a course towards our vision of a 2030 which is more prosperous,
more equitable, more peaceful and more just. An enabling environment makes concrete
the spirit of a new global partnership, bringing cooperation to bear on pressing global
challenges.
Creating a global trading system that actively encourages sustainable development is
of paramount importance. Increasingly, countries are driving their own development,
and this dynamism is driven by trade more than aid. Ensuring that the global trading
system is open and fair creates the platform for countries to grow.
The WTO is the most effective tool to increase the development impact of trade, and
a successful conclusion of the Doha round of trade talks is urgently needed to put the
conditions in place for achieving the post-2015 agenda. Currently, goods and services
produced by firms in least-developed countries (LDCs) face quotas and duties that
limit their ability to cross borders and succeed in the global marketplace. Systems that
provide market access for developing countries, including preference programmes and
duty-free, quota-free market access, can assist LDCs. However, even when these fees and
limits are reduced, other complications can arise, such as ‘rules of origin’, that can create
unnecessary red tape and paperwork for LDCs. This curtails the participation of LDCs in
global production chains, and reduces their competitiveness in the global marketplace.
Some agricultural subsidies can distort trade and market access of developing country
products.
A system that better facilitates the movement of people, goods and services would
go a long way towards allowing more people and more countries to benefit fully from
globalisation. Increased trade and access to markets brings more equitable growth and
opportunity for all – the surest way to defeat poverty and deprivation.
Post-2015 | 55
Stability of the financial system is crucial to enable longterm growth and sustainable development. The severe
downsides of an interconnected world were brought
to life in the global financial crisis in 2008. Risky actions
in one part of the world can wreak havoc on people
across the globe – and can reverse gains in eradicating
poverty. Commodities are especially volatile and we
urge continued commitment to initiatives such as the
Agricultural Market Information System, to enhance
food market transparency and encourage coordination
of policy action in response to market uncertainty.
that has been put in. Some of this is money-laundering
of bribes and stolen funds, and some is to evade taxes.
Much more can and should be done to stop this. It
starts with transparency in all countries. Developed
countries could be more actively seizing and returning
assets that may have been stolen, acquired corruptly, or
transferred abroad illegally from developing countries.
The average OECD country is only “largely compliant” in
4 of 13 categories of Financial Action Task Force (FATF)
recommendations when it comes to detecting and
fighting illicit financial flows66.
Following the financial crisis, there is more concern
that the international financial architecture must be
reformed, and agreed regulatory reforms implemented
consistently, to ensure global financial stability.
Recommendations and actions are being implemented,
both in major individual financial centres and
internationally.
If the money is openly tracked, it is harder to steal.
That is the motivation behind the Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative, a voluntary global standard
that asks companies to disclose what they pay, and
has governments disclose what they receive. Other
countries could adopt EITI and follow the example of the
United States and the EU in legally compelling oil, gas
and mining companies to disclose financial information
on every project.
The proper place to forge an international agreement to
tackle climate change is the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change. The Panel wants to underline the
importance of holding the increase in global average
temperatures below 2 degrees Centigrade above preindustrial levels, in line with international agreements.
This is all the more important as, despite existing
agreements, the world is missing the window to meet
the promise made to limit global warming to a 2 degree
rise over pre-industrial temperatures.
Without tackling climate change, we will not succeed
in eradicating extreme poverty. Some of the concrete
steps outlined in this report, on renewable energy, for
example, are critical to limiting future warming and
building resilience to respond to the changes that
warming will bring.
The 2002 Monterrey Consensus was an historic
agreement on development finance that guides policy
today. Developed countries that have not done so
agreed to make concrete efforts towards lifting their
aid budgets towards the target of 0.7% of GNP. As
part of that, they reaffirmed their commitments to
offer assistance equal to 0.15 to 0.2% of GNP to leastdeveloped countries. This is still the right thing to do.
Official development assistance (ODA) that flows to
developing countries is still a very important source
of financing: 55 cents of every dollar of foreign capital
that comes into low-income countries is ODA. Other
countries should also move toward voluntary targets for
complementary financial assistance.
Developed countries have to go beyond aid, however.
There are signs that the money illegally taken out of
sub-Saharan Africa and put in overseas tax havens and
secrecy jurisdictions is greater than all the aid money
Developed countries could also pay more attention
to exchanging information with developing countries
to combat tax evasion. Together, they can also crack
down on tax avoidance by multinational companies
through the abuse of transfer pricing to artificially shift
their profits across international borders to low-tax
havens. When developed countries detect economic
crimes involving developing countries, they must work
together to make prosecuting such crimes a priority.
Domestic revenues are the most important source for
the funds needed to invest in sustainable development,
relieve poverty and deliver public services. Only through
sufficient domestic resource mobilisation can countries
ensure fiscal reliance and promote sustainable growth.
Data is one of the keys to transparency, which is the
cornerstone of accountability. Too often, development
efforts have been hampered by a lack of the most basic
data about the social and economic circumstances in
which people live.
To understand whether we are achieving the goals,
data on progress needs to be open, accessible, easy
to understand and easy to use. As goals get more
ambitious, the quality, frequency, disaggregation and
availability of relevant statistics must be improved. To
accomplish this requires a commitment to changing the
way we collect and share data.
Systems are not in place today to generate good data.
This is a special problem for poor countries, but even the
most powerful and wealthy countries have only a limited
understanding of, for example, how many patients in a
given area are accessing healthcare services, and how
and what happens when they do.
66. OECD, “Measuring OECD Responses to Illicit Financial Flows,” Issue Paper for DAC Senior Level Meeting 2013, DCD/
DAC(2013)13, 2013, p.4.
56 | Annex II: Evidence of Impact and Explanation of Illustrative Goals
The availability of information has improved during the
implementation of the MDGs, but not rapidly enough
to foster innovations and improvements the delivery of
vital services. Learning from data – and adapting actions
based on what we learn from it – is one of the best ways
to ensure that goals are reached.
To be able to do this, we need to start now, well ahead
of 2015. We need to build better data-collection
systems, especially in developing countries. Without
them, measuring the goals and targets set out here
can become an undue and unfeasible burden. With
them, a global goal framework is an effective way of
uniting efforts across the globe. Building the statistical
capacities of national, subnational and local systems is
key to ensuring that policymakers have the information
they need to make good policy. The UN Statistical
Commission should play a key role.
Data are a true public good, and are underfunded,
especially in low-income countries. That must change.
Technical and financial support from high-income
countries is sorely needed to fill this crucial gap.
The innovation, diffusion and transfer of technology
is critical to realising true transformation. Whether in
information, transportation, communications or lifesaving medicines, new technologies can help countries
leapfrog to new levels of sustainable development.
Some technologies exist which can help us reach our
vision for 2030, and science is making ever greater
progress in this direction, but some technologies have
yet to be developed. Partnerships can help us develop
the tools we need, and ensure that these innovations
are more broadly shared.
At its heart, a global enabling environment must
encourage substantial new flows for development,
better integrate resources by engaging the talents of
new partners from civil society and the private sectors,
and use new approaches. This goal underpins the action
and partnerships needed to fully achieve the ambitious
aims of the post-2015 agenda.
Post-2015 | 57
Annex III: Goals, Targets and Indicators: Using a
Common Terminology
In consultations for the report, we talked a lot about goals and targets and found
that people use these words in quite different ways. Since the global community
will continue with this discussion over the next year and a half, we hope that a clear
understanding of and a commonly-shared terminology will make those discussions as
productive as possible.
For the sake of clarity, we use definitions for goals, targets and indicators as shown in
Table 1.
Term
How it is Used in this Report
Example from MDGs
Goal
Expresses an ambitious, but
specific, commitment. Always
starts with a verb/action.
Reduce child mortality
Targets
Quantified sub-components that
will contribute in a major way to
achievement of goal. Should be
an outcome variable.
Reduce by two-thirds, between
1990 and 2015, the under-five
mortality rate
Indicators
Precise metric from identified
databases to assess if target
is being met (often multiple
indicators are used).
Under-5 mortality rate
Infant mortality rate
Proportion of 1-year olds
immunised against measles
A goal should be specific and relate to only one objective. By now, most of the proposals
for post-2015 goals agree that they should be few in number in order to force choices
and establish priorities. But there are different ways of doing this. In some proposals,
each goal tackles several issues. For example, we have seen proposals to combine
food and water into one goal, but these are distinct challenges, each with their own
constituencies, resources, and issues. When they are combined into a single goal, it does
not lead to more focus or prioritisation; it just obscures the reality of needing to do two
things.
It is important that goals be as specific as possible in laying out a single challenge and
ambition.
We believe that the focus of goals should be on issues with the greatest impact on
sustainable development, measured in terms of the number of people affected, the
contribution to social inclusion, and the need to move towards sustainable consumption
and production patterns. Ideally each goal has ‘knock on’ effects in other areas so that
the set of goals, taken together, is truly transformative. So for example, quality education
is important in itself, but it also has an enormous impact on growth and jobs, gender
equality, and improved health outcomes.
Targets translate the ambition of goals into practical outcomes. They may be outcomes
for people, like access to safe drinking water or justice, or outcomes for countries or
communities, like reforestation or the registration of criminal complaints. Targets should
always be measurable although some may require further technical work to develop
reliable and rigorous indicators.
58 | Annex III: Goals, Targets and Indicators: Using a Common Terminology
The target specifies the level of ambition of each
country, by determining the speed with which a country
pursues a goal. That speed can be a function of many
things: the priorities of the country, its initial starting
point, the technical and organisational possibilities for
improvement, and the level of resources and number of
partners that can be brought to bear on the problem.
We believe that a process of allowing countries to set
their own targets, in a highly visible way, will create
a “race to the top”, both internationally and within
countries. Countries and sub-national regions should
be applauded for setting ambitious targets and for
promising to make large efforts. Likewise, if countries
and sub-national regions are too conservative in their
target setting, civil society and their peers can challenge
them to move faster. Transparency and accountability
are central to implementing a goals framework.
In some cases, there may be a case for having a global
minimum standard for a target, where the international
community commits itself to do everything possible
to help a country reach a threshold level. That applies
to the eradication of extreme poverty by 2030, for
example. This could be extended in several other areas,
including ending gender discrimination, education,
health, food, water, energy, personal safety, and access
to justice. Such minimum standards can be set where
this is a universal right that every person on the planet
should expect to realise by 2030.
The only global targets we kept were those that have
already been set out as objectives by the SecretaryGeneral’s Sustainable Energy for All Initiative; and those
that are truly global problems for which only a global
target would work, such as reform of the international
financial and trade systems.
In the report, we often talk about “universal access” or
“eradicating extreme poverty”. These terms need to be
interpreted in each country context. Social issues are not
like diseases. It is possible to be clear about eradicating
small-pox, but it may be harder to demonstrate that
extreme poverty has been eradicated. Someone,
somewhere, may be excluded or still living in poverty,
even if the proper social safety nets are in place. The
intention is that such exceptions should be very rare;
specialists in each area should be called upon to define
when the target can be said to be reached.
Targets should be easy to understand. This means
one direction should be a clear ‘better’ outcome. For
example, a reduction in child mortality is always a good
thing; an increase in literacy rates is always a good thing.
Some potential targets, however, are less clear-cut. Take
rural jobs, for example, a target that was suggested at
one point. It could be that more rural jobs are due to
improved market access, infrastructure or participation
in value chains; but it could just as easily be that there
is an increase in rural jobs because there aren’t enough
jobs being created in cities and migrants are returning
home. In the first case, more rural jobs are a sign of
improvement. In the latter case, they are a signal of
decline. Hence, the number of rural jobs is probably
not a good candidate for a target. The interpretation of
the direction of change depends too much on country
context.
It is important to be clear that allowing countries to set
the speed they want for each target is only one approach
to the idea of national targets. The other suggestion
considered by the Panel is to have a “menu”, whereby a
set of internationally agreed targets are established, and
then countries can select the ones most applicable to
their particular circumstances. For example, one country
might choose to focus on obesity and another on noncommunicable disease when thinking about their
priorities for health.
In the terminology used in this report, national targets
refer only to the national differences in the speed with
which targets are to be achieved. As an example, every
country should set a target to increase the number of
good or decent jobs and livelihoods by x but every
country could determine what x should be based upon
the specific circumstances of that country or locality.
Then these can be aggregated up so that you can
compare achievements in job creation across countries
and over time.
The indicator reflects the exact metric by which we
will know if the target has been met. The Panel did
not discuss specific indicators, but it does recommend
that indicators be disaggregated to allow targets to be
measured in various dimensions, by gender, geography,
age, and ethnicity, for example. Averages conceal more than they reveal. The more
disaggregated the indicator, the easier it is to identify
trends and anomalies. If a target is universal, like access
to basic drinking water at home, it is not enough just
to measure the average trend and expect that will
continue. For example, the national average trend on
basic drinking water may be very good if a major urban
project is being implemented, but rural homes may be
left out completely. Universal access requires sufficient
disaggregation of the indicator to allow discrepancies
from the average trend to be identified early on. We
suggest that a target should only be considered achieved
if it is met for relevant income and social groups.
The Panel reiterates the vital importance of building data
systems to provide timely, disaggregated indicators to
measure progress, in all countries, and at all levels (local,
sub-national, and national).
Post-2015 | 59
Annex IV: Summary of Outreach Efforts
The High Level Panel and its individual members have undertaken an extensive and
multi-faceted outreach effort, spanning every major region of the world and bringing
together a diverse cross-section of stakeholders and interest groups. Widespread
interactions have created an active and deliberate process to listen to people’s
voices and aspirations as an input into the Panel report. Many groups, including UN
entities, helped organise these meetings, and the Panel would like to express its deep
appreciation for these efforts.
Global, Regional and Thematic Consultations
During its meetings in New York (September 2012), London (November 2012), Monrovia
(January 2013) and Bali (March 2013), the Panel held global meetings with youth,
academia, private sector, parliamentarians and elected representatives of civil society.
Social media channels were also used to enable individuals to contribute virtually to
these interactions.
Panel members have also hosted regional and thematic consultations. These have
enabled a deeper understanding of regional specificities - Latin American and the
Caribbean, Asia, Arab States, Africa, the g7+ group of fragile states, Pacific Island
countries and the group of Portuguese-speaking African countries (PALOP) - as well as
engagement with specific issues and constituencies - including Conflict and Fragility,
Governance and the Rule of Law, Migration, Local Authorities, Businesses, and Health.
These meetings are listed on the Panel website.
Written outcomes of these and other consultations with recommendations for Panel
consideration are available on the Panel’s website (www.post2015hlp.org).
Online Outreach Efforts
Online consultations, eliciting more than 800 responses from civil society to the 24
Framing Questions guiding the work of the High Level Panel, were undertaken in two
phases between October 2012 and January 2013. The summary is on the Panel website.
A third online consultation on partnerships was also undertaken in March 2013.
Teleconferences and ‘Twitter town halls’ have also been organised by Panelists to
facilitate engagement with sub-national and youth groups. Online and social media
channels – including the use of the ‘World We Want’ platform and HLP linked Facebook
and Twitter accounts – have helped to share updates and invite responses to the
Panel’s work. The HLP website has been used to disseminate information on the Panel’s
outreach efforts in multiple languages.
Key Recommendations:
Each conversation enabled an appreciation of the complex, multi-dimensional and
yet integral nature of the lessons and aspirations for the post-2015 agenda, and each
has deeply influenced and informed the Panel’s work, even if not all recommendations
were taken on board. While it would be impossible to capture all the insights,
recommendations that have emerged from the major consultations held as part of the
Panel’s outreach include:
60 | Annex IV: Summary of Outreach Efforts
Theme
Examples of Some of the Issues Raised (More Extensive List and Inputs at
www.post2015hlp.org)
Inequality;
Universal
Access
and Equal
Opportunity
• Metrics should be put in place to track progress on equal access and opportunity across
age, gender, ethnicity, disability, geography, and income
• Social protection floors should be established, alongside the right to decent work; A
Global Fund for Social Protection should be established
• Inequality should be a stand-alone goal and cross-cutting theme; it should address
inequality within and between countries
• Goals and targets on universal access to health (including sexual and reproductive rights);
access to inclusive education and life-long learning; access to water, sanitation, hygiene,
food sovereignty and nutrition security are included
• Investments are made in essential services and participatory and accountable systems for
the sustainable management of resources are created;
• Participation is emphasised and people are empowered with the right information
• Infrastructure with improved access to roads, land and energy is developed; Social
partnerships must supersede public-private partnerships
Employment
and Inclusive
Growth
• A goal on decent work with targets on employment creation, reduction of vulnerable
work with indicators for women and young people is included
• Sustained access to productive assets by the poor communities, or nations is enabled;
Green jobs for sustainable development are promoted
• Specific benefits and safeguards are provided for the informal sector; Innovative ways for
them to organise such as through unions and cooperatives is encouraged
• A new trade system based on expanding production capabilities is encouraged and Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) is not the only measure of economic progress
• Global Future studies and foresight are emphasised; Alternative paths such as delinking
growth from natural resource extraction and consumption are researched
• Better use of sovereign funds, development finance institutions and a global knowledge
commons is promoted
Environment,
Natural
Resource
Management
and Climate
Change;
Challenges of
Urbanisation
• A single framework integrates environmental sustainability and poverty elimination
• New goals are considered within planetary boundaries; polluters pay and patterns of
consumption are addressed
• International support for climate change mitigation, adaptation, disaster risk reduction
(DRR) and humanitarian response is mobilised; DRR is integrated into sustainable
development strategies
• Means of resilience for vulnerable communities are defined – with a focus on women
• Scientific knowledge is built at every level and shared across countries
• Specific measures to improve the lives of the urban poor are taken; their right to housing;
essential services, jobs and livelihoods is enabled by policies adapted to informal sectors
• Environmental sustainability in cities is enhanced by improving risk prevention, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and promoting renewable energy sources
• The ‘Avoid-Shift-Improve’ approach in the transport sector is adopted
• Partnerships around migration are promoted; the its role in development is recognised
Post-2015 | 61
Theme
Examples of Some of the Issues Raised (More Extensive List and Inputs at
www.post2015hlp.org)
Conflict,
Fragility and
State Building
• The needs of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS),
Landlocked Developing Countries, and Fragile and Conflict Affected States are prioritised
• The New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States (Busan, 2011) is reinforced as a key step for
national and international partners to work in conflict-affected and fragile states
• LDCs are protected against scarcity of vital resources and destabilising price shocks
• Measures to end violence against women and girls are prioritised; Steps are taken to end
impunity and ensure access to justice for all social groups
• All social groups must be able to express political opinion without fear and participate in
decision making; Divisions within society are constructively resolved
• Steps are taken to eliminate trans-national crime & stop the flow of illicit drugs, arms and
war commodities
• Objectives on the ‘right to self-determination’ are included and a time-bound programme
to achieve development targets is set at the end of every occupation
• Measures to strengthen regional, sub-regional and cross-regional cooperation, especially
South-South cooperation, are undertaken
• Enhanced transparency of the business sector, particularly in their relations with fragile
states is ensured; along with alignment of efforts for shared prosperity.
Governance
and Human
Rights
• A stand-alone goal for open, accountable and participatory governance with measurable,
intermediate and progressive targets on citizen engagement, rule of law, fiscal
transparency and procurement is established
• Principles of transparency, accountability, integrity and participation are integrated into
all other goals; capacities of public institutions at all levels are strengthened
• Poor and socially excluded groups are part of decision making at all levels; minimum
standards for an enabling environment for CSOs are promoted
• Existing human rights norms, operational standards and commitments are a nonnegotiable normative base of the new framework; development policies, programmes
and practice at all levels reflect obligations under international human rights law
• Strengthen access to justice and judicial accountability for human rights; national human
rights monitoring bodies and quasi-judicial regulatory bodies are supported with the
mandate, capacities and resources required to monitor violations of human rights and to
act on complaints
• Systematic integration of national reporting on development goals in reports to the
Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council and to international human rights
treaty monitoring bodies is promoted
• International cooperation and technical and financial assistance is consistent with human
rights obligations and due diligence to prevent human rights abuses
Means of
Implementation
• Call for changes in the global economic and financial architecture through fair trade,
stopping illicit financial flows and effectively tackling tax evasion and avoidance
• Existing commitments on quantity and quality of aid must be met; climate finance must
be public, obligatory, predictable, grant-based, and free from conditionalities
62 | Annex IV: Summary of Outreach Efforts
Theme
Examples of Some of the Issues Raised (More Extensive List and Inputs at
www.post2015hlp.org)
• International trade rules and policies must be socially inclusive and environmentally
sustainable; public financing for development guarantees financial and development
additionality to promote positive and sustainable development impact
• Commodity markets must be regulated, and speculation banned; trade-distorting
agricultural subsidies in developed countries should be eliminated
• Domestic resource mobilisation must be enabled through changes to international tax
regulation; loan-based forms of development cooperation should not be used to deliver
financing commitments
• Comprehensive and participatory debt audits should be conducted, with measures for
immediate cancellation and repudiation of debts illegitimately owed
• Flexibilities in the Trade Related Aspects of intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) must allow
greater access to technology, knowledge, food sovereignty, access to health
• Countries must build regional agreements to address tax competition and excessive tax
incentives; Increase transparency and information exchange around tax havens
• Reach universal domestic resource targets: corporate tax take, tax/GDP ratio; innovative,
democratic financing mechanisms, with a focus on women, is prioritised
Children and
Youth
• Include child rights provisions in constitutions, review national laws and codes in line with
international standards; increase budgets for child protection agencies
• Ensure the participation of children and youth in decision making at all levels; invest in
innovative and sustained youth-led and youth-serving programmes
• Health care services must be sensitive to young people’s sexual and reproductive health
and rights and barriers faced by groups such as youth living with HIV and young women
• Young people must be able to access employment and economic opportunities that
encompass fair wages, possibilities for funding and mentorship, equal opportunities, job
and social security that offer chances for career development and training.
• Traditional education is made relevant to youths’ daily lives, the progress of their
communities, their work and economic prospects, and the exchange of knowledge and
information in the digital economy
• A focus on the post-conflict context and vulnerable groups - including women and girls,
disabled youth, LGBT youth, and youth in war-affected areas - is necessary
Women
• There is a reinforced standalone gender goal and expanded gender targets and indicators
• Women’s access to land, property, productive resources, information and technology is
strengthened; their unpaid care and social reproduction roles are accounted for
• All forms of gender-based violence are addressed; access to justice must be prioritised
and a package of critical services is made available to all victims of gender-based violence
• Laws that discriminate on the basis of gender, criminalise or marginalise specific groups
on the basis of their gender identify or sexual orientation must be repealed
• Specific and cross-cutting financial allocations for women’s rights (gender budgeting) is
ensured; disaggregated data is available to monitor implementation and outcomes
• Women’s leadership in decision-making, including affirmative action measures for
political participation at all levels; and in the private sector must be prioritised
• The role of climate change, natural disasters, land grabbing and the extractives model of
development in perpetuating women’s poverty is recognised and addressed
Post-2015 | 63
Theme
Examples of Some of the Issues Raised (More Extensive List and Inputs at
www.post2015hlp.org)
Other Vulnerable
Groups:
i. Disability and
Ageing
ii. Informal Sector
iii.Indigenous
Groups
iv. Ethnic
Minorities
v. Dalits
vi. Migrants
vii. LGBTQI
viii. Victims and
Survivors of
Gender Violence
ix. Small–scale
farmers, peasants,
Fisherfolk
communities
x. Workers and
Unemployed
xi. Urban Poor
• The new framework should be human rights-based and include stand-alone goals
on inequality and non-discrimination, healthy life expectancy and universal social
protection floors
Parliamentarians
and Local
Authorities
• Elected representatives at all levels are recognised as key stakeholders by virtue of their
legislative oversight, budget approval and representation duties
• Disaggregation of data by disability, age group and gender should be part of all targets
• Disability and ageing must be mainstreamed across policies of the government, and
laws that prevent discrimination against the disabled and aged must be put in place
• Mechanisms to recognise and protect the collective rights of indigenous peoples to
land, territories and resources and other rights under the UN Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) must be ensured
• Legislative and institutional mechanisms to recognise the indivisible rights of indigenous
peoples, ethnic minorities, dalits and other socially excluded groups must be put in place
• Discriminatory laws and policies that criminalise LGBTQI groups and sex workers must
be repealed
• Policies that defend the rights of peasants, Fisherfolk and other marginalised groups to
access land, water and other resources are put in place; legal status to the urban poor is
provided and their rights as citizens is protected
• Affirmative actions to empower women and other vulnerable groups to participate in
the formal economy are introduced
• The importance of eliminating corruption, removing discriminatory laws and promoting
respect for human rights, the rule of law and democracy is stressed
• Establish robust strategies for enhancing the quality, production, use and timely
distribution of socio-economic data, in particular disaggregated data, to inform
development strategies, policies and targets at all levels
• Develop a set of sustainable development goals which fully respect all the Rio principles;
call for accelerated implementation of the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA) 2005-2015
and achievement of its goals.
• Align national and international macroeconomic policies (fiscal, trade, monetary,
financial flows) to ensure accessible and inclusive growth, human rights, social justice
and sustainable development
• Emphasise full delivery on all ODA commitments by OECD/DAC, including the target of
0.7% of GNI for ODA. Put in place mechanisms for accountable and transparent public
expenditures, including redirecting military related resources to development purposes
Private Sector
• Adopt an integrated approach reflecting all three pillars of sustainability – social,
economic and environmental – with one set of combined goals
• Promote scalable and transformational partnerships for development as a critical
enabler; precise targets, with regular milestones and clear accountabilities are set to
evaluate progress
• The ten principles of the UN Global Compact (covering human rights, labour,
environmental and anti-corruption measures) serve as the basis for standards for
business in the post-2015 agenda.
64 | Annex IV: Summary of Outreach Efforts
Theme
Examples of Some of the Issues Raised (More Extensive List and Inputs at
www.post2015hlp.org)
• Businesses can adopt inclusive and sustainable business models, that benefit SMEs in
developing countries and support transitions from informal to formal sectors.
• Innovation and new technology in developing countries is encouraged; investment in
telecommunications and infrastructure is made essential
• Increased and better targeted financial flows from private finance are supported; incountry hubs of public-private partnership supported; foreign direct investment to
developing countries is encouraged as way to move beyond aid
Post-2015 | 65
Annex V: Terms of Reference and List of Panel
Members
Terms of Reference for the High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015
Development Agenda
1. The High-level Panel of Eminent Persons will be
convened by the UN Secretary-General to advise him
on a bold and at the same time practical development
agenda beyond 2015.
2. The High-level Panel will consist of 26 Eminent
Persons, including representatives of governments,
the private sector, academia, civil society and youth,
with the appropriate geographical and gender balance.
Panelists are members in their personal capacity.
3. The panel should conduct its work on the basis of
a rigorous analysis of credible shared evidence. The
panel should engage and consult widely with relevant
constituencies at national, regional and global levels.
4. The Special Advisor of the Secretary-General for Post2015 will be an ex-officio member of the HLP and serve
as link to the UN system.
5. The output of the Panel will be a report to the
Secretary-General which will include:
a) Recommendations regarding the vision and shape
of a Post-2015 development agenda that will help
respond to the global challenges of the 21st century,
building on the MDGs and with a view to ending
poverty.
b) Key principles for reshaping the global partnership
for development and strengthened accountability
mechanisms;
c) Recommendations on how to build and sustain
broad political consensus on an ambitious yet
achievable Post-2015 development agenda around
the three dimensions of economic growth, social
equality and environmental sustainability; taking
into account the particular challenges of countries in
conflict and post-conflict situations.
6. To this end, it would be essential for the work of the
HLP and of the intergovernmental Working Group on the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to inform each
other in order to ensure both processes are mutually
reinforcing. The HLP should advise the SecretaryGeneral on how the SDGs relate to the broader Post2015 development agenda.
7. To prepare the report, the Panel will take into
consideration:
a) The Millennium
Document of Rio+20;
Declaration,
The
Outcome
b) The findings of the Report of the Secretary-General’s
UN Task Team for the preparation of the Post-2015 UN
Development Agenda; as well as lessons learned and
best practices from the MDGs.
c) The findings of the various national and thematic
consultations at regional and national levels which are
coordinated by the UNDG as part of the preparations
for the Post-2015 Development Agenda;
d) The need to build momentum for a constructive
dialogue on the parameters of the Post-2015
Development Agenda, and propose innovative
ways for governments, parliaments, civil society
organisations, the business sector, academia, local
communities to engage continuously in such a
dialogue;
e) The ongoing work of the UN Task Team, the
Special Advisor to the SG on Post-2015, the report
of the Global Sustainability Panel of the SecretaryGeneral and the findings of the Global Sustainable
Development Network Initiative; as well as
f ) Any other relevant inputs it may deem appropriate.
8. The HLP will be supported by a dedicated and
independent secretariat headed by a senior official
(Lead Author of the HLP report). The secretariat will
also be able to draw from the wealth of knowledge and
expertise made available to it by the UN system.
9. The Deputy Secretary-General will oversee, on behalf
of the Secretary-General, the Post-2015 process.
10. The Panel will present its report to the SecretaryGeneral in the second quarter of 2013. The report will
serve as a key input to the Secretary-General’s report
to the special event to follow up on efforts made
towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals
and to discuss the possible contours of the Post-2015
Development Agenda to be organised by the President
of the sixty-eighth session of the General Assembly in
September 2013.
66 | Annex V: Panels Terms of Reference and List of Panel Members
List of Panel Members
H.E. Dr. Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono, President of
Indonesia
Co-Chair
H.E. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf,
President of Liberia
Co-Chair
The Right Honourable David
Cameron MP, Prime Minister
of the United Kingdom
Co-Chair
H.M. Queen Rania Al Abdullah
Jordan
Gisela Alonso
Cuba
Fulbert Amoussouga Géro
Benin
Abhijit Banerjee
India
Gunilla Carlsson
Sweden
Patricia Espinosa
Mexico
Post-2015 | 67
Maria Angela Holguin
Naoto Kan67
Tawakkol Karman
Colombia
Japan
Yemen
Sung-Hwan Kim
Horst Köhler
Graça Machel
Republic of Korea
Germany
Mozambique
Betty Maina
Elvira Nabiullina
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala
Kenya
Russian Federation
Nigeria
67. Mr. Naoto Kan attended the first two meetings, which were respectively held in September (New York) and November (London) of 2012. Mr.Kan subsequently stepped down from the panel.
68 | Annex V: Panels Terms of Reference and List of Panel Members
Andris Piebalgs
Emilia Pires
John Podesta
Latvia
Timor-Leste
United States of America
Paul Polman
Jean-Michel Severino
Izabella Teixeira
Netherlands
France
Brazil
Kadir Topbas
Yingfan Wang
Turkey
China
Amina J. Mohammed
ex officio
Post-2015 | 69
Annex VI: High Level Panel Secretariat And
affiliated institutions
Homi Kharas, Lead Author and Executive Secretary
The Brookings Institution
Karina Gerlach, Deputy Executive Secretary
UN Department of Political Affairs
Molly Elgin-Cossart, Chief of Staff
New York University, Center on International Cooperation
David Akopyan, Chief of Operations
UN Development Programme
Asan Amza, Operations Associate
UN Development Programme
Kara Alaimo, Head of Communications
Hany Besada, Research Specialist
North-South Institute
Haroon Bhorat, Head of Research
University of Cape Town
Lysa John, Head of Outreach
Nicole Rippin, Research Specialist
German Development Institute
Nurana Sadikhova, Operations/Finance Specialist
UN Development Programme
Céline Varin, Executive Associate
UN Development Programme
Jiajun Xu, Junior Research Specialist
Oxford University
Natabara Rollosson, Logistics Coordinator
Jill Hamburg Coplan, Editor
A World to Gain
KampalaCapeTownLuandaTiranaBelgradeShanghaiPanamaCityBeijingAmmanTheHagueKhartoumIslamabadKievBernCopenhagenSofiaRomeBrasili
A New Agenda for Aid,
Trade and Investment
A World to Gain
A New Agenda for Aid,
Trade and Investment
April 2013
A World to Gain
Table of Contents
Summary
5
Introduction9
1 Trends, developments and lessons learned
1.1 Shifts in global power relations
1.2 Increased global interconnectedness and interdependence
1.3 Changing patterns of poverty
1.4 Changing roles
1.5 Lessons learned
12
13
14
14
16
17
2 A new approach
2.1 Policy coherence
2.2 New forms of cooperation
2.3 New forms of financing, definition of ODA and transparency
2.4 Spending cuts 20
21
23
24
25
3 Changing relationships
3.1 Background
3.2 Global issues: international public goods (IPGs)
3.3 Aid relationships
3.4 Transitional relationships 3.5 Trade relationships
26
27
29
34
40
47
4 Cooperation
4.1 Bilateral relations with countries and regions
4.2 Civil society organisations 4.3 The private sector
4.4 Research institutions
4.5 The European Union
4.6 International organisations
52
53
53
54
55
56
57
5 Funding
5.1 Integrated budget for foreign trade and development cooperation
5.2 Cuts in development cooperation expenditure
5.3 Towards the 2017 budget
58
59
59
63
Annexes
66
Dutch Good Growth Fund country list
67
Abbreviations68
References70
|3|
|4|
A World to Gain
Summary
The Netherlands wants to move forward in the world, and move forward with the world. We
are involved in global problems. Ours is one of the most open countries in the world. We
depend on other nations’ development for our own wellbeing and prosperity. Sustainable,
inclusive growth is in our own interests and in the interests of others.
In 1981, 1.9 billion people were living in extreme poverty. By 2010, this figure had dropped to 900
million, and it will probably drop even further – to 600 million – by 2015. This means that the
Millennium Development Goal of halving extreme poverty by 2015 will have been achieved. And
achievement of other MDGs – for example on access to water, sanitation and primary education
– is within reach. But this is not true of every MDG. We are still lagging far behind in reducing
infant, child and maternal mortality rates, and in increasing access to reproductive health care.
Nearly three-quarters of the people living in extreme poverty are to be found in middleincome countries. They are not yet reaping the benefits of their countries’ economic
growth. The people in question are mainly women and members of other vulnerable groups.
Here the emergence of a middle class is important to put pressure on the government in these
countries, thereby promoting democracy, the rule of law and women’s empowerment.
Income inequality has however increased in many middle-income countries. The situation in
fragile states and countries in conflict is extremely alarming. These countries are in danger of
falling far behind the rest of the world – politically, socially and economically. They also pose a
threat in terms of regional stability, radicalisation and terrorism, cross-border crime, and
illegal migration, trade flows and supplies of raw materials.
Asia, Africa and Latin America are the engines driving the world economy. They are expected
to account for nearly 60% of the global economy by 2030. Asia and South America’s
economic power is also reflected in global political relations. China and India have claimed
their seats at international negotiation tables. And countries like Indonesia and South
Africa are represented in the G20, while the Netherlands is no longer invited. Conversely,
many European countries have seen their economies contract and rates of unemployment
rise sharply in the wake of the financial crisis.
Nowhere is globalisation more readily apparent than in world trade. Between 1950 and
2007, world trade grew by an average of 6.2% a year, and global GNP by 3.8%. More and
more countries have joined global production networks. The advantages of further
integration in these networks are the greatest for low- and middle-income countries. But
international interconnectedness also has a downside. The credit crisis and the European
debt crisis have shown how problems in one country can spill over to the rest of the world.
What is more, global population growth and the worldwide increase in Gross Domestic
Product have led to sharply rising demand for energy, food, water and raw materials. This in
turn is leading to scarcity, and rising and wildly fluctuating prices.
The influence of the Netherlands as a country is decreasing due to the emergence of new
actors on the world stage. Increasingly, we are exerting our influence through the European
|5|
Summary
Union. Our relations with low- and middle-income countries are on a more equal footing now
that an increasing number are not only recipients of aid but also trading partners. It is
becoming increasingly difficult to use aid to exert influence on poverty and equity issues.
Recipient countries are taking a much more assertive attitude towards the aid they receive; and
new actors like China, India and Brazil are providing aid under different conditions. What is
more, the aid budget is shrinking, while income from private sources is growing in poor
countries. Companies are increasingly active in developing countries. Both companies and
research institutions are actively involved in seeking solutions to global problems relating to
food security and water. Members of the public too are increasingly taking action against world
poverty by, for example, adopting more sustainable patterns of consumption or setting up
their own development projects.
|6|
The Netherlands will continue to stand by the poorest people. World poverty might be
decreasing, but by no means everyone is benefiting. Nine hundred million people worldwide still
live below the poverty line. Each year, 300,000 women die in childbirth. Women’s and workers’
rights are still under severe pressure. Low- and middle-income countries have few opportunities
to choose their own path to growth. That is why we will continue to fight for an equitable world.
That is why we will continue to strive for sustainable, inclusive growth. And that is why we are
working on issues such as food security, water, security, migration, climate and trade. Poor
countries have much to gain from a global approach.
The market is not perfect. And yet it is indispensable in the fight against poverty. That is why this
government encourages investment and trade activities that benefit both people and the
environment, create employment opportunities, and, preferably, are accompanied by the
transfer of knowledge and skills. The Netherlands is failing to connect with economic growth in
Asia, Africa and South America. Trade still focuses on our neighbouring countries. Yet, thanks in
part to our longstanding aid relationships, we often have close contacts with growing Asian,
African and South American economies. These contacts present opportunities, because these
countries are increasingly seeking a relationship with us based on equality.
These developments call for a new aid, trade and investment agenda. At international level, we
are pursuing three important aims. First, to eradicate extreme poverty (‘getting to zero’) in a
single generation; second, sustainable, inclusive growth all over the world; and third, success
for Dutch companies abroad.
In the field of aid and trade, we can identify three types of bilateral relationship, within which we
will continue to focus mainly on our current partner countries (aid) and focus countries (trade). Of
course, we are engaged in a dialogue with these countries on what the relationship should entail.
1.
Aid relationships
Here, the focus is on countries that are unable to solve their poverty problems singlehandedly. This
category includes conflict-affected and post-conflict countries, fragile states and countries with
insufficient capacity to reduce poverty effectively without assistance. The countries in this category
are Afghanistan, Burundi, Mali, the Palestinian Territories, Rwanda, South Sudan and Yemen.
Where possible, a regional approach will be taken in the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa.
A World to Gain
2.
Transitional relationships
Here, the focus is mainly on low- and middle-income countries with burgeoning
economies. In a transitional relationship, a combination of aid and trade can benefit both
the developing country and the Netherlands. Apart from poverty reduction programmes
relating to the four priorities (see below), we will also support these countries in increasing
their market access and improving their business climate. We will adopt this strategy in
Bangladesh, Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Mozambique and Uganda. Apart
from this specific group, we will of course remain active in other low- and middle-income
countries by means, for instance, of private sector programmes, economic diplomacy, or
aid through the European Union and multilateral institutions such as the World Bank.
3.
Trade relationships
Here, our main aim is to promote trade and investment, with activities that contribute to
economic growth and employment in the Netherlands. The focus is on Australia, Belgium,
Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, France, Germany, the Gulf States, India, Iraq, Japan,
Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea,
Turkey, the UK, Ukraine, the US and Vietnam.
We fight extreme poverty out of solidarity with people. We encourage trade and investment
mainly in our own interests. Where aid and trade meet, we will act out of both solidarity
and enlightened self-interest. Where such diverse motives play a role, conflicts of interest
may arise. We will carefully weigh the different interests at stake, taking sustainable,
inclusive growth as our guiding principle. After all, growth and equitable distribution do
not automatically go hand in hand. Our aim in the longer term is to build a trade
relationship with as many countries as possible.
In the interests of those countries with which we maintain an aid relationship, we will
invest in a global development agenda to follow up the Millennium Development Goals.
Apart from the four priorities of Dutch policy – women’s rights and sexual and reproductive
health and rights (SRHR), water, food security, and security and the rule of law – the
Netherlands wants sustainability and a minimum level of social rights to be included in this
new agenda. The four priorities are still current and will be given more attention in Dutch
policy. They are relevant to global poverty reduction efforts and to the Netherlands’
economic and other interests. In devising and implementing policy, we will make use of the
knowledge and expertise gained through development cooperation, the technological and
other knowledge of the leading Dutch sectors, research institutions and the expertise of
civil society organisations. The purpose of the new international security budget is to
protect civilian populations, prevent and manage humanitarian crises and promote
sustainable security and stability in poor countries. The Netherlands will continue to be one
of the main donors in the field of humanitarian aid.
We plan to increase access to international and regional markets for low- and middleincome countries with which we maintain a transitional relationship. We will do so by, for
example, concluding partial agreements within the Doha Development Round. We will also
improve support to entrepreneurs through, for instance, the Dutch Good Growth Fund.
|7|
Summary
This instrument provides funds for entrepreneurs in low- and middle-income countries and
for Dutch companies wanting to set up ventures with them. Dutch entrepreneurs seeking
funding for exports to low- and middle-income countries may also apply to the fund. We
will work towards equal opportunities and sustainable value chains, by for example
promoting international corporate social responsibility.
|8|
In countries with which we maintain a trade relationship, we will work towards the
conclusion of free trade agreements – with the US, for instance. We will also work to create
a level playing field for international finance, attract foreign investors and protect Dutch
investors abroad. We will also encourage the Dutch private sector, small and medium-sized
enterprises in particular, to internationalise. We will simplify our regulations and
procedures so that entrepreneurs can navigate them more easily. And we are going to help
Dutch companies win contracts put out to tender by international institutions.
International public goods play a major role in every part of our policy. Because they are
transnational in nature, countries can only pursue them by working together. We will focus
on trade, security, food security, water, climate and migration, areas where the Netherlands
can make a real difference. What is more, these IPGs largely dovetail with the four priorities
of our policy. In international organisations we will not only represent our own interests,
but also call for low- and middle-income countries to be given a place at the negotiating
table as fully-fledged partners.
In our new policy, the European Union, the private sector and research institutions will
continue to be major partners. We will form new coalitions and partnerships with various
actors. Civil society organisations continue to be indispensable. We will focus on strategic
partnerships that provide scope for these organisations to launch adventurous, innovative
initiatives, and we plan to substantially reduce the administrative burden on them. We will
also provide financial support to those organisations that are important to our policy
priorities. It is essential to give greater emphasis to the non-governmental nature of civil
society organisations.
This new policy is being launched within a context of shrinking budgetary frameworks. As a
result of the Coalition Agreement, the ODA budget will be cut by €1 billion over the next
four years. At the same time, the government has decided to free up extra funds for the
international security budget and the revolving Dutch Good Growth Fund. The government
will promote the interests of developing countries in other fields, including taxation and
climate. But clear choices need to be made. We will focus our aid, trade and investment
efforts on the priorities of food security, water, women’s rights and SRHR, and security and
the rule of law. With the exception of women’s rights and SRHR, these priorities will
unavoidably be hit by spending cuts, given that the Netherlands wishes to respect current
commitments wherever possible, and needs to set aside funds for international expenditure
on climate. The trend up to 2017 in the budgets for the priorities will partly depend on
trends in our national income. The same applies to spending on improving the business
climate in low- and middle-income countries (private sector development). The budgets for
the crosscutting themes of good governance, the environment and education in low- and
middle-income countries will be phased out more quickly; contributions to multilateral
A World to Gain
organisations will be reduced and earmarked expenditure to civil society organisations will
be lowered when the cofinancing programme MFS II ends in January 2016. Where relevant,
these three themes will be reflected in the implementation of the priorities.
Financial table
Cuts compared to the budgetary framework of the first Rutte government (2013 Explanatory
Memorandum). Amounts are in millions of euros.
Food security
Women’s rights and SRHR
2014
2017
-60
-40
0
20
women’s rights
0
0
SRHR
0
20
-150
-65
-50
-25
Water, the environment and climate
water
environment and climate
-100
-40
-125
-155
security and rule of law
-95
-120
good governance
-30
-35
Security, the rule of law and good governance
Emergency aid
0
0
-105
5
0
-230
Multilateral expenditure**
-60
-140
Other expenditure
-70
-145
-65
-125
-5
-20
Private sector development
Civil society*
education and research
culture, public support, etc.
Deferral
Not yet allocated in 2013 Explanatory Memorandum
TOTAL
-180
0
0
-250
-750
-1000
Excluding:
Dutch Good Growth Fund***
250
International security budget
250
* new funding system for NGOs from 2016 (after MFS II)
** reduction in general contributions in areas outside the four policy priorities
*** €250 million per year from 2014 to 2016 inclusive
250
|9|
Introduction
Introduction
A new world …
The old world order of two political and economic power blocs has been replaced by a
multipolar world of new power blocs. Besides flexing their muscles economically, emerging
economies like China, India, Brazil and South Africa are making their regional and
international political presence felt. Countries that not so long ago we thought of as poor
are developing faster than expected. Ghana, Vietnam and Ethiopia – to name just three – no
longer want their relationship with the Netherlands to be founded on aid. They are seeking
a trade relationship with us based on equality.
| 10 |
… new patterns of poverty …
Poverty has declined throughout the world and considerable progress has been made in
achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Thanks in part to Dutch aid, the incidence of
diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS has fallen sharply, more children are going to school
and more people have access to clean drinking water. Less progress has been made in other
areas such as reducing maternal mortality and the unsustainable use of natural resources.
Some 900 million people still live below the poverty line; three-quarters of them live in
middle-income countries, especially India and China. The importance of Official
Development Assistance (ODA) has fallen sharply in these countries, while that of
investments, remittances, trade and private funds has grown. In many low-income
countries, too, the relative importance of ODA is declining, but it remains a significant
source of income.
… and a new position for the Netherlands …
The Netherlands is an economic power. We are the seventh largest importer, the fifth largest
exporter, the 11th largest investor and the second largest agricultural exporter in the world.
Furthermore, we rank ninth among the recipients of foreign investment. Our business
community enjoys a good international reputation, living up to its corporate social
responsibility. To strengthen our position, we must adapt. Our trade is still strongly
oriented towards neighbouring countries. The Netherlands is not benefiting as much as it
could from the economic growth in Asia, Africa and Latin America, even though our
long-standing aid relations have helped us establish good contacts with emerging countries
on these continents. Our good contacts represent opportunities, especially as these
countries are seeking a relationship with us based on equality. We must seize these
opportunities, particularly given Europe’s disappointing economic growth.
… call for a new approach …
These developments call for a new agenda for aid, trade and investment that contributes to
global justice. It is our task to encourage investment and trade that benefit people and
planet, create jobs and, preferably, are accompanied by the transfer of knowledge and skills.
The new agenda is consistent with one of the key pillars of the coalition agreement:
working for sustainable growth. We are adding inclusivity to this pillar, since growth and
equitable distribution do not automatically go together. At the same time, the coalition
agreement entails a considerable cut in the ODA budget.
A World to Gain
… call for solidarity …
When we weigh the interests at stake we must acknowledge the underlying motives. We
combat extreme poverty principally out of solidarity. We encourage trade and investment
principally out of self-interest. Trade can provide an important contribution to growth.
Where aid and trade coincide, we act both out of solidarity and enlightened self-interest.
Countries cannot alleviate their own poverty unless they grow. But growth does not benefit
everyone. Emerging markets present an opportunity for our business community, especially
in sectors where the Netherlands is an international leader. The combination of aid and
trade can be mutually advantageous. But conflicts of interest can arise where diverse
motives play a role. The Netherlands thinks sustainability is important, for example, but
sustainability criteria make it more difficult for low- and middle-income countries to sell
their products in our markets. In such cases we will carefully weigh the different interests at
stake, taking sustainable and inclusive growth as our guiding principle.
… call for new relations …
We are shifting from an aid to a trade relationship with ever more countries, opening up
our markets to each other and supporting local authorities and entrepreneurs. Since trade
and investment do not by themselves lead to sustainable and inclusive growth, we will
continue to combat inequalities, emphasise sustainability, invest in the rule of law and
support civil society organisations in their pursuit of human dignity for all. We will also
remind Dutch businesses of their responsibilities. It is in all our interests that international
supply chains are made sustainable. At international level, we are pursuing three important
aims. First, to eradicate extreme poverty (‘getting to zero’) in a single generation; second,
sustainable, inclusive growth all over the world; and third, success for Dutch companies
abroad.
… and call for good international cooperation.
Countries are becoming ever more closely bound together. It is in all their interests to have
good international trade agreements and to address transnational problems such as
conflicts, migration, water scarcity, climate change, malnutrition and food insecurity. A
global and regional approach to the corresponding international public goods (IPGs) is
essential. Our aim is to give low- and middle-income countries a place at the international
negotiating table as fully-fledged partners when these problems are discussed. These
countries are the most vulnerable to such transnational problems.
Contents of this document
This document is made up of the following chapters. Chapter 1 describes the trends,
developments and lessons learned. Chapter 2 outlines the new approach in that changing
context. Chapter 3 connects the approach to activities (including activities for IPGs).
Chapter 4 looks at the consequences of our policy for cooperation with our partners.
Chapter 5 presents the budgetary framework, including the spending cuts.
| 11 |
1
Trends, developments and
lessons learned
A World to Gain
This chapter outlines the relevant trends, global developments and main lessons learned
about trade and aid.
1.1 Shifts in global power relations
Rapidly emerging countries …
Asia, Latin America and Africa (see also figure 1) are the engines driving the world economy.
And with their fast-growing populations, they will remain so for the foreseeable future.
They are expected to account for nearly 60% of the global economy by 2030. China is
forecast to overtake the USA and become the largest economy in the world in 2016. In Latin
America, Brazil is performing particularly well however Colombia and Chile are also
growing quickly. In Africa, Ethiopia (7% growth in GDP in 2012), Mozambique (8%) and
Ghana (8%) are expanding rapidly. The IMF has predicted that within five years Africa will be
home to no fewer than seven of the top 10 fastest growing economies.
Per capita GDP growth
Figure 1
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
| 13 |
 1997-2001
 2002-2006
North America
EU27
East Asia (excl. China)
Sub-Saharan Africa
Latin America
Russia
South Asia
(excl. India)
India
China
 2007-2011
Source: calculations based on World Development Indicators
... and the economic problems in the EU …
Many European countries have seen their economies contract and unemployment rise
sharply since the start of the financial crisis. More than a quarter of the people in Spain and
Greece are jobless. In the Netherlands, more than 600,000 people are unemployed. Our
economy went into recession again at the end of last year. A recovery is foreseen for 2014
and subsequent years as world trade picks up again. Thanks in part to the good connections
with the hinterland provided by our major transport hubs, the Dutch economy will benefit
significantly from any recovery.
Trends, developments and lessons learned
... are causing rapid shifts in global power relations.
The economic power of Asia and South America is also reflected in global political relations.
China and India have claimed their seats at international negotiation tables. And countries
like Indonesia and South Africa are represented in the G20, while the Netherlands is no longer
invited. The new global power relations obviously affect how international institutions and
bodies operate, and how the Netherlands operates within them.
1.2 Increased global interconnectedness and
interdependence
| 14 |
The importance of integration in global supply chains is increasing …
Nowhere is globalisation more evident than in world trade. Between 1950 and 2007 world
trade increased annually by 6.2% on average and global GNP by 3.8%. More and more
countries are becoming linked up to the global supply chain and gaining easier access to new
knowledge and technology as a result. Low- and middle-income countries benefit most from
integration into the supply chain. They have seen their share in the chain increase from 20% in
1990 to 30% now. Their share in the services sector has nearly doubled in the same period:
from 11% to 21%. This is due chiefly to trade between low- and middle-income countries. Trade
between Africa and China, for example, increased from USD 10 billion in 2000 to USD 166
billion in 2011.
… and global issues are becoming more pressing.
There is also a downside to international interconnectedness. The credit crisis and the European
debt crisis show how problems in one country can spread to the rest of the world. Furthermore,
demand for energy, food, water and raw materials has increased sharply owing to the growth of
the world’s population and global GDP. This is leading to scarcity, upward pressure on prices and
wide fluctuations in prices. At the same time, the pressure on our environment is increasing,
with climate change, environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity as a result. Supply
chains must be made more sustainable. Historically, there is a link between scarcity and the
outbreak of conflicts. Trade and the financial system, climate, food and water and certain aspects
of migration, security and stability are sometimes referred to as international public goods
because they affect us all. Low- and middle-income countries often suffer the most from global
problems and have the fewest opportunities to withstand them.
1.3 Changing patterns of poverty
Extreme poverty is gradually declining throughout the world ...
The heads of government of 189 countries adopted eight Millennium Development Goals in
2000 to reduce poverty, disease and hunger before 2015. Significant progress has been
achieved in recent years (see figure 2), especially with the goal to halve extreme poverty. In
1981, 1.9 billion people lived in extreme poverty; by 2010 the number was 900 million and it
will probably fall to 600 million by 2015. And achievement of other MDGs – for example on
access to water, sanitation and primary education – is within reach. But this is not true of every
A World to Gain
MDG. We are still lagging far behind in reducing infant, child and maternal mortality rates,
and in increasing access to reproductive health care.
Figure 2
Progress towards the MDGs
...
Progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals
100
80
60
40
20
 Progress needed by 2012
MDG 7.c Access to
sanitation (% of
population without access)
MDG 7.c Access to
water (% of population
without access)
MDG 5.a Maternal
mortality ratio (estimate
per 100,000 births)
MDG 4.a Under-five
mortality rate
(per 1,000 live births)
MDG 4.a Infant mortality
(per 1,000 live births)
MDG 3.a Ratio of
girls to boys in primary
and secondary education
MDG 2.a Universal
primary education
(total of relevant
age group)
MDG 1.a Extreme
poverty (% of population
>USD 1.25 per day)
0
 Actual progress
but not everyone is benefiting from increased prosperity …
Nearly three-quarters of the people living in extreme poverty – mainly women and members
of other vulnerable groups – are to be found in middle-income countries. They are not yet
reaping the benefits of their countries’ economic growth. Income inequality has increased in
many middle-income countries. Between 1990 and 2007, the Gini coefficient, a measure of
income inequality, rose in China from 0.36 to 0.47, in Indonesia from 0.29 to 0.36 and in
Ghana from 0.34 to 0.43. The higher the Gini coefficient, the greater the income inequality.
... owing to a lack of opportunities …
Sustainable development requires a fair distribution of opportunities. Economic growth does
not automatically trickle down to all levels of the population. In many middle-income
countries, there is little if any political attention for the interests of poor men and women.
The emerging assertive middle class is exerting pressure on governments and facilitating
democracy, the rule of law and the empowerment of women. Positive social processes must
be nurtured to increase prosperity and equality. Greater purchasing power at the lower end of
the social scale increases business activity and promotes economic dynamism. Economic
growth by no means always leads to jobs, access to clean drinking water and equal rights for
women. Furthermore, many people – especially women – still work in the informal sector.
This makes them vulnerable and difficult to reach. Two billion women do not work in a
productive sector, even though a large proportion of them want paid employment.
| 15 |
Trends, developments and lessons learned
...which can lead to social exclusion and instability.
Rapid population growth is exacerbating the problem of unemployment. In 2020, the
number of jobs in sub-Saharan Africa must be at least 50% higher than in 2005 to hold the
official unemployment rate at the same level. In South Asia, East Asia and Oceania, a
million jobs would have to be created every month. High unemployment can lead to social
disorder and instability, especially in rapidly expanding cities. Half the population of
low- and middle-income countries will live in cities in 2020.
Basis for growth lacking in fragile states.
The situation in fragile states and conflict countries gives cause for concern. These countries
are in danger of being left far behind the rest of the world politically, socially and
economically. They also represent a threat in terms of regional stability, radicalisation and
terrorism, transnational crime, and illegal migration, trade flows and supplies of raw
materials. One and a half billion people in these countries face a difficult if not impossible
task to break free from poverty. A positive development is that the number of deaths in
conflicts has declined from 180,000 in the 1980s to 50,000 between 2000 and 2010. But
without peace, security and the rule of law, the prospect of a better future is slim. It is
thought that two-thirds of poor people will live in fragile states and conflict countries in
2025.
| 16 |
1.4 Changing roles
The Netherlands will play a different role in the world …
The influence of the Netherlands as a country is decreasing due to the emergence of new
actors on the world stage. Increasingly, we are exerting our influence through the European
Union. Our relations with low- and middle-income countries are on a more equal footing
now that an increasing number are not only recipients of aid but also trading partners. It is
becoming increasingly difficult to use aid to exert influence on poverty and equity issues.
Recipient countries are taking a much more assertive attitude towards the aid they receive;
and new actors like China, India and Brazil are providing aid under different conditions.
What is more, the aid budget is shrinking, while income from private sources is growing in
poor countries thanks to trade and investment flows, remittances by migrants, tax revenue
and income from raw materials. Only in the case of low-income countries and fragile states
does ODA remain the main external source of income.
…and the role of businesses, civil society organisations, research institutions and citizens is growing.
Businesses are becoming more active in developing countries, not only as trade partners but
also as investors in projects that transfer knowledge and technology to support local
authorities and entrepreneurs. Businesses and research institutions are also actively
involved in the search for solutions to global problems such as food security and water.
More citizens are taking action to eradicate global poverty, for example by consuming more
sustainable products or by carrying out their own development projects. Private donations
by philanthropic institutions to low- and middle-income countries amount to about USD
55 billion per annum, nearly half of all ODA provided every year by all the members of the
A World to Gain
OECD Development Committee. Civil society organisations remain important, especially in
areas where it is difficult for the government to work and as promoters of citizens’ rights in
low- and middle-income countries at local, national and global level.
1.5 Lessons learned
Development lessons …
A good balance must be struck between social, economic and ecological development.
Social development has an intrinsic value from a human rights point of view but is not
tenable without sustainable economic development. Conversely, economic development
requires long-term investment in social sectors. Growth is not sustainable if it is
accompanied by great inequality and exclusion. Development has proven possible in a
variety of political systems, but political participation by a country’s citizens is an important
condition for lasting social cohesion. This calls for good leadership, an open political
system and a willingness to reform and innovate. The state must play an active role, by
gradually opening up to world markets and through social policy.
Only people and countries can ‘develop’ themselves. External aid is seldom decisive but it is
often indispensable at a low income level. Development is country specific. There are no
universal recipes but certain principles are nearly always important. Macroeconomic
stability and an effective policy against inflation, for example, are essential. A sustainable
agricultural sector makes a significant contribution to development. Industrialisation did
not really take off in Southeast Asia, for example, until there had been a significant
reduction in rural poverty. The rule of law is also a condition for the safeguarding of
development.
In the field of security, our experience with the integrated approach has been favourable in
recent years. The idea is that development is not possible without security and, conversely,
long-term security is sustainable only if there is a prospect of development. To this end, a
range of instruments in the fields of development, defence and diplomacy (the ‘3D
approach’) are being implemented in conflict-affected countries.
…aid…
Important lessons have also been learned with regard to aid. Many of them relate to
effectiveness and have been laid down in the Paris Declaration (2005), which was later
elaborated upon in the Accra Agenda for Action (2008) and the Busan Declaration (2011).
All these lessons highlight the importance of better cooperation: country-specific strategies
(ownership), the participation of local institutions, harmonisation of donor procedures,
the measuring of results and mutual accountability for them. Several other principles are
also important, such as predictability: multiyear cooperation agreements with the prospect
of continuity and clear phasing-out provisions. Frequent changes in the aid pattern can
reduce the effectiveness of aid. This is one of the reasons to maintain the current priorities
and not to change the list of partner countries until their development gives cause to do so.
Aid must remain focused. Fragmentation (across countries and/or themes) creates
inefficiencies owing to the donors’ high fixed management costs and higher transaction
| 17 |
Trends, developments and lessons learned
costs for the recipients. To prevent dependency, aid must complement local efforts.
Financing must be shared wherever possible so that risks are shared.
…and trade…
International trade increases productivity. Companies active on the international market
often employ more people and pay higher wages than those that are not. To encourage
international business, the government must minimise its use of grants. Again, ‘aid’ should
be both a stimulus and, above all, a complement to local efforts. If markets do not work
efficiently, the government can help by, for example, offering businesses export credit
insurance. The government is a dominant actor in many emerging markets. The Dutch
government must use advice and economic diplomacy to help businesses open doors that
would otherwise remain closed. Trade does not automatically reduce poverty. The impact is
the greatest in countries that make additional reforms – appropriate investments in
education, a stronger financial sector and good governance – enabling them to cope with
the international competition. Trade ‘aids’ a developing country when improvements to its
starting position are accompanied by the removal of barriers to trade and by corporate
social responsibility.
| 18 |
A World to Gain
| 19 |
2
A new approach
A World to Gain
A different role in the world calls for a different approach. We are going to pay closer
attention to the coherence between policy fields. We will seek a new definition of ODA,
transparent financial and non-financial data and new forms of financing and cooperation.
This new approach will be worked out against the background of an economic crisis and
thus substantial spending cuts.
2.1 Policy coherence
Policy coherence for development means that the consequences of our policy for low- and
middle-income countries will be taken into account in our decision-making. The Minister
for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation is responsible not only for the coherence
of development policy but also for the coherence of foreign trade policy. Combining aid and
trade can be mutually beneficial. Larger volumes of trade between the Netherlands and
low- and middle-income countries will benefit us both. Nevertheless conflicts of interest
can arise, for example with regard to how quickly markets are opened up, the enforcement
of product standards and sustainability requirements. A number of concrete examples are
provided below.
It is in the Netherlands’ interests to gain rapid access to the markets of low- and middleincome countries. Yet it is uncertain whether these countries have developed strongly
enough to compete on the international market. In the EU, we are a strong advocate of long
transitional periods and complementary measures to help low- and middle-income
countries develop their private sectors further.
Dutch companies that maximise their profits by employing contrived tax avoidance
arrangements can damage low- and middle-income countries. Low taxes for individual
companies do not weigh up against the unintended loss of tax revenue in low- and
middle-income countries. Together with the Minister of Finance, we are studying whether
tax treaties concluded by the Netherlands with a number of developing countries are in line
with the memorandum on Dutch tax treaty policy of 2011.1 In doing so, we will see whether
these treaties have unintended effects. That would be the case if, for example, the treaty
with the Netherlands presents more opportunities than treaties with other countries to
erode the tax base in developing countries. Should that prove to be the case, we are
prepared to enter into dialogue with those countries. Of course, treaty partners themselves
may launch a dialogue with the Netherlands on the treaties. The Netherlands is actively
supporting an OECD action plan to combat tax avoidance and the erosion of tax bases.
Products traded on European markets are subject to strict safety, sustainability and
packaging standards. The standards are a barrier to products from low- and middle-income
countries. They protect our consumers but indirectly give our manufacturers a competitive
advantage. Rather than lowering our standards, we will encourage producers from
1
Parliamentary Papers, House of Representatives 2010-2011, no. 25 087, no. 7
| 21 |
A new approach
developing countries to comply with them, for example through the Centre for the
Promotion of Imports from Developing Countries (CBI).
We want farmers in low-income countries to be able to sell their produce on international
markets. To this end, the interests of farmers in OECD countries most be brought more into
line with the interests of farmers in low-income countries. This means that markets must be
opened up more, for example by phasing out import tariffs. In comparison with other
OECD members, the EU has long provided access to farm products from low-income
countries. The Netherlands wants the reform of the common agricultural policy to lead to a
further phasing out of grants that distort trade. The Netherlands also supports measures to
combat food dumping by abolishing export support and by phasing out support to farmers
in other OECD countries.
| 22 |
The revision of the EU annual accounts directive will introduce a requirement for mining
and logging companies to disclose the payments they make to the governments in the
countries where they operate. Transparency as regards earnings from raw materials is an
important means to combat corruption in countries with a wealth of natural resources.
Transparency better enables citizens to hold their governments to account for their use of
revenues. The potential downside of transparency is that some governments would not be
prepared to accept investments by companies that are required to disclose the payments
they make. European – including Dutch – companies therefore have less freedom and a
more onerous administrative burden than those not required to disclose these payments.
Nonetheless, the government expects that once a critical mass of companies and countries
comply with this reporting requirement, fewer countries will claim infringements of
national prohibitions on disclosing payments. The US Dodd-Frank Act contains a similar
provision on transparency. As indicated in two previous letters to the House of
Representatives,2 for this reason the Netherlands recently called for no exceptions to be
made to the reporting requirement. Negotiations with the European Parliament on the
directive are at an advanced stage, and agreement is expected to be reached between the
Council, the Commission and the European Parliament in the near future. It will then be up
to the Commission to monitor correct implementation of the annual accounts directive by
the member states.
It has become clear in recent years that the production of first-generation biofuels is
detrimental to the production of food, can lead to degradation of the ecosystem and
displacement of the local population. Furthermore, the contribution from biofuels to
reducing CO2 emissions is less favourable than initially assumed. The blending obligation
has been revised but more is needed. We do not want our biofuel blending to have negative
consequences elsewhere. Together with the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment
and the Ministry of Economic Affairs I will seek the formulation and introduction of criteria
for the sustainable production of biofuels in both an EU and an international context.
2
Letter to Parliament of 8 February 2013 on exceptions to the reporting requirement on payments to
governments (House of Representatives 2012-2013, 21 501-30, no. 303) and answers to the question
posed by members Bram van Ojik, Marit Maij and Mei Li Vos on the Dutch position on financial
transparency in the commodities sector (House of Representatives 2012-2013, Annexe 1566)
A World to Gain
The trade section of the association agreement with Central America includes agreements
to improve access to each other’s markets. Dutch insurers, for example, have better
opportunities on Central American markets and Dutch dredging companies can compete for
public contracts on the Panama Canal. In exchange, the EU has improved access to its markets
for sugar, beef and other products. In this instance, the interests of Dutch dredging companies in
Central America conflict with the interests of sugar manufacturers in the Netherlands because in
exchange for the opportunity to dredge the Panama Canal, the EU has opened up its sugar
market. In such cases we opt for the solution that delivers the best result for the Dutch economy.
These are only a few examples of the assessments we have to make. If interests conflict, the
government must make clear and measured choices in each individual case, guided by the
principle of sustainable and inclusive growth.
2.2 New forms of cooperation
We will work in a different way with our partners. In accordance with the recommendations
of the Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) regarding the interaction between the
actors in international cooperation, we believe the traditional division into channels
(bilateral, multilateral, civil society organisations and the private sector) is becoming less
relevant today. Cooperation is becoming more ‘hybrid’. Increasingly, new forms of
cooperation are required with companies, research institutions and NGOs, such as the
Global Alliance to Improve Nutrition. We will also enter into new alliances with countries
and philanthropic institutions to tackle problems at national and international level.
We will retain the country list for bilateral cooperation, however but will increase its
flexibility by reviewing it more frequently. We will opt more often for a regional approach as
the best means to tackle problems such as instability and food insecurity.
Trilateral cooperation is growing in importance in our direct poverty reduction initiatives. In
such alliances, the Netherlands works with an emerging middle-income country in order to
support the development of a low-income country. We seek contacts with new players that
have their own agenda and specific expertise, for example in combating poverty, like Brazil.
Civil society organisations have lost none of their relevance. They are vital to identify social
and economic injustices. Civil society organisations in low- and middle-income countries
have grown stronger in recent years. At the same time, in many countries NGOs are not
guaranteed political freedom. We will therefore work in strategic partnerships with civil
society organisations, seeking forms of cooperation between organisations both here in the
Netherlands and in developing countries that have clear added value and are more aligned
with Dutch policy priorities. We will also support civil society organisations politically.
Restrictions on their freedom of action will be specifically addressed in our bilateral contacts.
Companies and research institutions will be given a new role. The trade and investment
domain provides opportunities for sustainable and inclusive growth in low- and middleincome countries. Companies and research institutions are essential development partners
| 23 |
A new approach
on account of their knowledge, technology and networks. The internationalisation
initiatives of the leading Dutch economic sectors show that the business community wants
to work in developing countries and in strictly regulated sectors such as energy, logistics,
water, horticulture and propagation materials, and agrifood. Here too, research institutions
support policy on the leading Dutch sectors: by teaching and doing targeted research they
help to develop and expand knowledge within them. We will invite companies and research
institutions to take part in our missions. Further support will be provided in the form of
private sector instruments (see section 4.4). Trade must play a bigger role in bilateral aid
relations, subject to certain conditions. Companies must commit themselves to
sustainability and corporate social responsibility criteria, including compliance with the
applicable EU rules on country-by-country reporting.
Our relationship with international organisations is changing. We will focus aid more sharply
on international organisations that are engaged in areas where Dutch companies, research
institutions and civil society organisations are among the best in the world and that are at the
heart of Dutch policy. We will increasingly participate in international initiatives involving a
variety of players, such as the Aid for Trade Agenda of the OECD and WTO, the agrichain and
food security initiatives of the World Economic Forum and the Global Fund to Fight Aids,
Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM). This will increase effectiveness.
| 24 |
In a world of radical change and new challenges, the Netherlands needs European
cooperation above all else. Through the EU we can make our voice heard in such areas as trade
politics and investment protection and incorporate sustainability into international trade and
investment treaties. We will also work more often in an EU context in respect of other IPGs.
Within the EU, we will improve the coordination of our aid efforts with those of other
member states. We will also carry out more joint programmes. Furthermore, we will raise
sensitive issues such as human rights and good governance through the EU wherever possible.
By doing so, our voice will be better heard and our efforts will have a higher return.
2.3 New forms of financing, definition of ODA and
transparency
We will make greater use of new financing mechanisms, such as guarantees and venture
capital. This will enable us to tap new funding sources, including banks and companies.
We will continue existing initiatives such as The Currency Exchange Fund (TCX). By hedging
exchange rate risks, this fund helps prevent entrepreneurs in developing countries being
saddled with risks they cannot bear. We will introduce two new instruments: the Dutch
Good Growth Fund (previously known as the Revolving Fund) and the International Security
Budget. The Dutch Good Growth Fund will help finance entrepreneurs both in developing
countries and in the Netherlands, especially small and medium-sized enterprises that want
to trade with and invest in low- and middle-income countries. An initial presentation of the
fund is provided in section 3.4. The international security budget is considered further in
section 3.3. This budget will strengthen cooperation between the various parts of the 3D
policy (Development, Defence, Diplomacy).
A World to Gain
Innovative financing instruments are not always compatible with the official definition of
ODA. Other, often substantial, development-related initiatives that contribute to prosperity
and economic growth also fail to meet the definition. This is undesirable. In the
international debate on the future of ODA to be held in the OECD and elsewhere in the years
ahead, we will call for a broader definition that embraces innovative financing mechanisms
and other development-related expenditure. We will take a close look at subjects that are
currently covered by the ODA definition but have little relevance to development. Turkey
and China, for example, are on the ODA country list. The interministerial policy review to
modernise the definition of ODA will present its recommendations before the summer.
We will make our own activities and expenditure more transparent. We will take part in
open data initiatives such as the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). This
initiative makes data on Dutch development policy accessible to a wider public and enables
us to share and re-use data with third parties, for example through the www.openaid.nl
website and the ‘Where does my aid go?’ app of the OneWorld magazine. Initiatives such as
IATI are directed at people and organisations in the Netherlands and at people in low- and
middle-income countries. Under the banner of the IATI, we will publish more data,
including data from our implementing organisations. We will publish data at country and
activity level and data on ODA flows that are not the responsibility of the ministry,
development-related expenditure classified as Other Official Flows, and private
contributions in the form of investments, grants and loans. We have a responsibility to
show the taxpayer what we do and what we achieve.
2.4 Spending cuts
The one-billion-euro cut in the development budget over the next four years will force us to
make choices. We will concentrate our aid and trade efforts on the priorities of food
security, water, women’s rights and SRHR, and security and the rule of law. The government
has also decided to release additional funds for the international security budget and the
Dutch Good Growth Fund.
With the exception of women’s rights and SRHR, spending on the priorities will be cut
because the Netherlands wishes as far as possible to respect current commitments and
release funds from the development budget to finance international climate expenditure.
Changes in the budgets for the priorities between now and 2017 will depend in part on the
growth of national income.
Spending will be cut principally by reducing expenditure on the crosscutting themes of
good governance, the environment and education faster than planned and integrating
them into the priorities where relevant, by reducing contributions to multilateral
organisations and by reducing earmarked expenditure on civil society organisations after
the end of MFS II on 1 January 2016. The budgetary framework of this letter is considered in
chapter 5.
| 25 |
3
Changing relationships
A World to Gain
3.1 Background
Our relationships with other countries are changing in the wake of global developments.
The aid, trade and investment agenda focuses on three groups in particular, i.e. countries
whose relationship with the Netherlands is primarily based on aid; countries with which we
have a transitional relationship, in which both aid and trade play a role; and countries with
which our relationship revolves around trade and investment.
We will be focusing on a limited number of countries in each of these three groups. In
deciding which, we took the following into account: income levels and levels of poverty,
UNDP’s Human Development Index, the activities of other donors, the knowledge and
expertise the Netherlands has to offer, opportunities for the Dutch private sector and the
historical relationship with the Netherlands. In order to increase the effectiveness of past
and current efforts, we have aimed for a degree of continuity in our choice of countries. At
the same time, however, we also need to ensure sufficient flexibility to enable us to respond
to economic and political developments. For this reason, we will regularly take a critical
look at the country lists presented below. We will enter into dialogue with each country to
decide what our relationship should entail.
1. Aid relationships
This category includes conflict-affected and post-conflict countries, fragile states and
countries with insufficient institutional capacity to reduce poverty effectively without
external assistance. The list of countries with which we have a mainly aid-based
relationship includes Afghanistan, Burundi, Mali, the Palestinian Territories, Rwanda,
South Sudan and Yemen. In these countries, we link action to reduce poverty to activities
in the field of security and diplomacy. Since problems relating to issues such as security
and the environment are not confined to single countries, we are increasingly adopting a
regional approach, in the African Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa for instance.
Each of the countries targeted by the Central America Programme (MAP) – Guatemala,
Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador – has the status of low-to-middle income country.
The relationship with this region is increasingly moving towards trade and investment.
Aid to this region will therefore be phased out in the years to come.
2. Transitional relationships
In this category are countries with which our relationship is based on both aid and trade,
i.e. Bangladesh, Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Mozambique and Uganda.
The need for direct intervention to reduce poverty will decline as we build or extend our
trade and investment relations. The pace at which this will occur will differ from country
to country. In low-income countries like Mozambique and Ethiopia our work will mainly
centre directly on poverty reduction in the next few years, while in countries like Ghana
and Indonesia the aid relationship can be phased out.
We will enter into a multi-year bilateral aid relationship with a larger development budget
(delegated funds) with the 15 countries with which we have chosen to maintain an aid or
transitional relationship. This does not mean to say that Dutch development funds will no
| 27 |
Changing relationships
longer be invested in any other countries. The EU, multilateral institutions and civil society
organisations are active in many low- and middle-income countries. The private sector
programmes, the Stability Fund and the scholarship programmes are open to a greater
number of countries. In implementing these programmes, we will focus ODA funds on lowand low-to-middle income countries. A special transition facility is available for countries
where the aid relationship is moving towards a trade relationship. The ties we have forged
with these countries through our aid relationship can be used to strengthen our trade and
investment relationship.
| 28 |
3. Trade relationships
Relationships with countries in this category are primarily based on trade and investment.
We will focus our efforts on our relationship with Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,
China, Colombia, France, Germany, the Gulf States, India, Iraq, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico,
Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the UK,
Ukraine, the US and Vietnam. Activities will aim to facilitate the success of Dutch
companies abroad. For example, we are working hard on an offensive to internationalise
our leading sectors. There is enormous potential for the Netherlands in sectors such as
energy, agrifood and water, where our companies and research institutions are
international leaders. We will also mainly focus on countries undergoing rapid
development, where it is important for the Netherlands to win a share of the market,
especially in view of disappointing growth in Europe.
International public goods
1. Aid relationship
Aid recipients
2. Transitional
relationship
3. Trade
relationship
Trading partners
A World to Gain
The relationship between the Netherlands and other countries may change in the wake of
economic and political developments. If low-income countries develop quickly, the need
for aid will decline and reciprocal trade-related interests will increase. We will move from an
aid to a trade relationship with these countries. That does not mean that aid will become
unnecessary. Economic growth does not automatically lead to better opportunities and
more quality of life for everyone. We will therefore continue to be committed to inclusive
growth – a more equitable distribution of income and equal opportunities. In addition, we
may also trade with and invest in countries with which our relationship is primarily based
on aid. In other words, there are no watertight divisions between the three elements of
policy. If development proceeds as desired, the number of countries in the right-hand circle
in the figure above will increase, and the number in the left-hand circle will decrease.
The four priorities – water, food security, security and the rule of law, and women’s rights
and SRHR – are still current, and will be given more attention. Many activities under these
priorities are now beginning to bear fruit and it would be inefficient to nip positive
developments in the bud. But of greater importance is the fact that these priorities are
relevant to poverty reduction and to the Netherlands’ economic and other interests. In
working on the four priorities we will make as much use as possible of the technological
and other knowledge of the leading Dutch sectors. The added value brought by the
Netherlands to the themes identified as priorities is internationally recognised, thanks
partly to the knowledge possessed by our private sector, civil society organisations and
research institutions. The Netherlands has many years’ experience of water management,
which we can use to help other countries solve their water problems. We have an
outstanding agricultural sector and food processing industry. We have much experience of
agricultural and other logistics, enabling us to contribute to global food security. The
Netherlands’ 3D (Defence, Diplomacy and Development) approach to the theme of security
and the rule of law has received international acclaim, and The Hague is the legal capital of
the world. Lastly, the Netherlands has long had robust civil society organisations working to
promote women’s rights and SRHR.
3.2 Global issues: international public goods (IPGs)
This new agenda will be rolled out within an international context in which transnational
problems are looming ever larger. Every country stands to benefit from safeguarding
international public goods (IPGs) such as food security, climate and security. Our new
agenda cannot be implemented without reliable agreements between countries on these
goods. Pursuing and enforcing sensible management of IPGs is a collective interest and is
thus in the Netherlands’ own interests.
We are therefore working at various levels – multilateral, regional and bilateral – and with
various partners – international institutions, countries, civil society organisations and
companies – to conclude international agreements. We are committed not only to
protecting our own interests, but also to ensuring that low- and middle-income countries
have a greater say in international negotiations. The EU will be the primary conduit by
which we will seek to further our aims. We will focus mainly on achieving results in relation
| 29 |
Changing relationships
to trade, security and the rule of law, food security, water, climate and migration. The
Netherlands can make a difference in these areas, given that companies and research
institutions in the leading Dutch sectors can make a very valuable contribution.
Reasonably well-developed international forums in which most countries are represented
already exist in the field of trade (WTO) and security (United Nations and NATO). However,
global governance of the other IPGs often falls short. A recurring problem is that low- and
middle-income countries have too little voice in the international forums in which decisions
are taken on IPGs. These countries are often ill-prepared to use the methods and procedures
needed to exert influence effectively. That is an unfortunate state of affairs: international
organisations can only function properly if they are sufficiently representative.
The report to be issued by the Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) later this year
on global challenges in the field of food, energy, water and climate, will help us shape
policy on these IPGs. We will inform parliament of our further plans in relation to these
themes after the report has been issued.
Our agenda
3.2.1 Trade
| 30 |
The WTO negotiations on a comprehensive agreement on liberalising world trade have
reached deadlock. A major theme of these negotiations, based since 2001 on the Doha
Development Agenda, is that low- and middle-income countries should benefit from the
growth in world trade. During this government’s term in office, we will attempt to achieve a
breakthrough on some themes and conclude partial agreements. The Netherlands is, for
example, committed to concluding a partial agreement on trade facilitation. According to
studies conducted by the World Bank, the actual introduction of better rules on trade
facilitation could lead in both developed and developing countries to improvements in
welfare amounting to tens of billions of euros. Trade procedures – for example customs
procedures – need to be harmonised and simplified in order to reduce the costs of trade.
African countries, and countries like China, India and Brazil, say that trade facilitation calls
for expenditure – investment in ICT, for example – which developing countries cannot
afford. The Netherlands, the EU and other donors, will meet the need for technical
assistance and capacity building. Low- and middle-income countries may also implement
agreements at their own pace, and do not need to implement them in their entirety from
the outset. The extent to which low- and middle-income countries may take a flexible
approach to implementing the agreements is one of the hot issues in the negotiations.
Here, emerging markets, led by India, are at odds with donor countries. Moreover, countries
like India and Brazil want to link trade facilitation to discussions on agriculture. The aim is to
conclude an agreement on trade facilitation at the Ministerial Conference in December 2013.
The members of the WTO have equal voting rights. But having equal voting rights does not
by definition mean exerting equal influence. That calls for knowledge, of both the trading
system and its requisite procedures and the problems local companies encounter in selling
their products in international markets. The Netherlands supports low- and middle-income
countries in acquiring the necessary knowledge. We were, for example, among the
A World to Gain
countries supporting the launch of the Advisory Centre on WTO Law which helps in the
settlement of disputes. We will continue to support this initiative. We also wish to enable
talks on trade liberalisation, based, of course, on a reliable analysis of the wishes of the
private sector in low- and middle-income countries.
3.2.2 Climate
Climate change and the exhaustion of natural resources (environment, soil and biodiversity)
impose limits on the social and economic development of both poor and rich countries.
Climate change is a major cause of natural disasters, such as floods. Drought pushes up the
price of food and environmental degradation leads to destruction of our natural production
base and loss of ecosystems. The very poorest people, women in particular, are hit first and
hardest. For this reason, too, it is important for the Netherlands to focus its efforts to mitigate
the effects of climate change on low- and low-to-middle income countries, wherever possible.
The Netherlands will also work for an ambitious climate policy in which international
agreements are reached on the reduction of CO2 emissions and for policy to prevent the
exhaustion of natural resources. We are now working to achieve these aims in close
cooperation with the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.
In international negotiations, the Netherlands has pledged to contribute to the extra costs of
mitigation and adaptation to climate change in developing countries. Depending in part on
the progress of the international climate talks, the Dutch contribution may rise from €200
million in 2013 to €1.2 billion in 2020, and comprise both public and private funds. Climate is a
perfect example of an area where closer cooperation with the private sector can be sought,
ultimately leading to a stronger Dutch commitment. Given the considerable knowledge and
expertise the private sector possesses in these fields, it can play a highly significant role.
Ultimately, this contribution should go hand in hand with the seizing of opportunities in the
sectors relevant to climate and the environment, such as the agriculture and water sectors.
Given the relationship between climate change and natural disasters, the Netherlands will
make a stronger commitment to disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience.
Climate change has repercussions for many other themes: drought puts food security under
pressure, floods increase the importance of water management, the degradation of soil and
forests hits women first, and the exhaustion of natural resources can lead to conflicts.
Ecological degradation is also strongly related to inequality between the richer and poorer
parts of the world. Frontrunners in the private sector are aware of these threats, and are
already taking measures. It is therefore becoming increasingly necessary to mainstream
climate within the policy priorities, for example within sustainable water management and
food security programmes.
3.2.3 Food security
Food security is developing into a global issue. Climate change and wildly fluctuating prices
on the commodity market are major factors threatening food security. Poor countries that
import food are particularly vulnerable, since they are most severely hit by the fluctuating
food prices. Though the Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people
in the world suffering from hunger by 2015 is within reach, one person in every eight is still
| 31 |
Changing relationships
chronically hungry/undernourished. In Africa that figure is one person in every four.
Achieving food security calls for the commitment of the entire agricultural production and
trade chain. We must not only increase food production, but also improve the quality
(nutritional value) and distribution of food without harming our living environment and
the climate. The agriculture sector is not only affected by climate change, but is itself
responsible for emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation will work closely with the
Minister for Agriculture in the search for solutions, on the basis of their respective
responsibilities for the different facets of food security. Dutch companies and research
institutions in our leading sectors (e.g. agrifood, horticulture and propagation materials,
logistics and water) possess exceptional knowledge and technology that could be used to
bring global food security within reach. We are sharing our knowledge within international
knowledge networks such as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR). Dutch companies and research institutions are also involved in public-private
partnerships, for example to improve food security in Ethiopia (see section 3.4). We will
devote particular attention to strengthening the role of women in agriculture. Studies show
that if women had the same access as men to sources of production, hunger in the world
would decrease by between 12% and 17%.
| 32 |
The distribution of food also needs to be improved. Through inefficiency in the production
and trade chain, 30% of the food produced never reaches the consumer. The cause is not
only poor harvesting and production methods, but also badly organised trading systems.
That is why we are also focusing on issues such as promoting trade facilitation and
encouraging regional trade, in Africa for example. The Netherlands is promoting these
issues in international organisations such as the FAO, WFP, IFAD and the World Bank.
The Netherlands is also involved in G20 and G8 food security initiatives.
Climate-smart agriculture
Climate change is severely affecting the development of smallholder agriculture in
vulnerable areas. More robust forms of land and water use are urgently needed to
cope with drought, heavy rainfall, shifting seasons and other increasingly frequent
occurrences. With its Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP),
the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) is improving smallholders’ resilience to climate change. ASAP integrates resilience to climate change
within every agriculture programme run by IFAD with government authorities, local
organisations and the local private sector in developing countries. This programme
is enabling vulnerable smallholder agriculture to adapt to climate change, while
supporting sustainable agricultural development in the future, and thus local food
security. The Netherlands is also a driving force behind climate-smart agriculture,
i.e. highly productive agriculture which is resilient to climate change and emits less
CO2. To put this subject on the international map, the Netherlands organised two
international conferences, the second in and with Vietnam in September 2012. The
Netherlands will press ahead with its efforts in pursuit of this aim.
A World to Gain
3.2.4 Water
In its Global Risks 2013 report, the World Economic Forum cites water security as one of the
greatest social, political and economic challenges of our time. This encompasses water
scarcity, flooding and pollution. By 2030 global demand for water will outstrip supply by
40%. In North Africa and the Middle East, groundwater levels are sinking so rapidly as to
threaten regional stability and security. Where water governance fails and water problems
are tackled inadequately, major ecosystems, crucial services and economic interests come
under pressure – urban drinking water supplies, energy supplies, agriculture and industry.
Water can then become a major cause of regional conflict.
We will therefore contribute to transboundary water management in seven international
river basins in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Working with international financial
institutions such as the World Bank, the Netherlands plans to promote cooperation
between upstream and downstream riparian states.
3.2.5 Security and the rule of law
Problems such as radicalisation, terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal trade and imports
of raw materials pose an increasing threat to stability in fragile states, and also to the
Netherlands and Europe. Pirates off the coast of Somalia are a threat to commercial
shipping, while instability in West Africa presents opportunities for illegal trafficking in
drugs, weapons and raw materials.
We will therefore work towards a better global approach to peace and security. We will do so
at international level by making tangible agreements on international security, and
supporting their implementation. In the UN and NATO, the Netherlands will champion
causes such as the protection of civilian populations, the inclusion of peace and security in
the post-2015 development goals, and UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women,
peace and security. The Netherlands will call for implementation of this resolution in EU
and NATO missions and support women’s active participation in peace and reconstruction
processes in six conflict-affected and post-conflict countries. Within the EU, we will call for
more cohesion between the activities of EU institutions in crisis areas.
This government is also committed to promoting the international legal order. A strong
international legal order is essential to ensure justice, peace and prosperity in the world.
The Netherlands’ commitment to promoting the international legal order is enshrined in
its Constitution (article 90). It is in our interests for other countries to respect the core
values of the rule of law. This government’s policy therefore aims to embed countries
wherever possible in the multilateral system, and to support countries in developing
the rule of law.
We will give specific support to the capacity of leading organisations in the field of peace
and security, including the UN, the World Bank, NATO and regional organisations. Examples
include UNDPA’s programme for mediating in conflicts and UNDP’s Global Programme for
Rule of Law, Justice and Security, which supports 25 countries in developing the rule of law
and transitional justice processes. The African Union will receive support in setting up and
| 33 |
Changing relationships
operating its own regional security organisation. Working with NGOs and research
institutions, the Netherlands will contribute to the collection and destruction of small arms
and light weapons.
3.2.6 Migration
More than 214 million people are international migrants. People migrate for economic
reasons, to flee war or to avoid persecution. The Netherlands first seeks to protect and
shelter refugees in their regions of origin. That is why we support UNHCR.
Migration calls for transnational cooperation between the governments of countries of
origin, transit and destination. We will take account of the rights of migrants and of the
interests of the various countries concerned. Migrants admitted to the Netherlands will be
expected to seize the opportunity to integrate into Dutch society. The Netherlands will seek
at both bilateral and EU level to ensure that migration has a greater impact on
development. The government will therefore fund projects that help countries of origin
build their migration management capacity and projects that enhance the contribution of
migrant communities to development in their countries of origin.
| 34 |
Migrants residing illegally in the Netherlands, including failed asylum seekers, will return to
their country of origin. The Netherlands will pursue an active policy on returning migrants
not entitled to stay here. We will put pressure on countries to readmit nationals who have
been refused admittance to the Netherlands and will employ the option of conditionality in
our trade and development relationships with countries to help achieve the return of their
nationals.
3.3 Aid relationships
Fighting poverty in low-income countries, fragile states and conflict-affected and postconflict countries is one of the main elements of our policy. The Netherlands will focus in
particular on Afghanistan, Burundi, Mali, the Palestinian Territories, Rwanda, South Sudan
and Yemen. These countries are not in a position to deal with poverty themselves because
they are either embroiled in – or emerging from – conflict.
We will support these countries by investing in basic services relating to our priorities of
water, food security, women’s rights and sexual and reproductive rights, and security and
the rule of law. We will also be making a contribution to the international debate on a new
post-2015 poverty reduction agenda to follow up the Millennium Development Goals. We
will provide humanitarian assistance to countries in emergency situations.
Focusing on individual countries is not always enough. Problems in one country may have a
huge impact on the development of another. The refugee problem and water-related issues
in Africa are a case in point. Where relevant, and where the Netherlands brings added value,
we will adopt a regional approach, as we are doing in the African Great Lakes region and the
Horn of Africa.
A World to Gain
Our agenda
3.3.1 Investing in a global development agenda
The Millennium Development Goals are tangible, measurable aims for poverty reduction.
A new international poverty reduction agenda to replace the MDGs after 2015 is of great
importance in setting further concrete goals for efforts to fight poverty and inequality in
the future. The UN High-Level Panel, which is currently working on a framework, plans to
present a proposal in May 2013. The consultation process, in which the views of many
experts and interested parties are being heard, is in full swing. The Netherlands is
contributing by consulting the private sector and members of the public, by facilitating an
international conference on water in the Netherlands, and through the EU and other
international forums.
Though the post-2015 agenda will probably focus less sharply on the social sectors than the
current framework, poverty reduction will continue to be the main theme. The main aim
put forward in the letter to the House of Representatives setting out policy on the post-2015
development agenda was the eradication of poverty within a single generation – ‘getting to
zero’. Improving people’s income position is therefore important, but other aspects of
poverty should not be ignored. Everyone should be able to rely on a certain basic level of
social protection – a social protection floor. This includes protection against the
consequences of illness, and the right to decent work and a properly functioning labour
market. We will look at how the experience acquired by the Netherlands in the field of social
protection can contribute. Apart from the social dimension of poverty, other subjects
should be included in the new framework, for example the priorities of water, food security,
women’s rights and SRHR, and security and the rule of law, as well as sustainable growth,
human rights and access to financial services. We will give you further information on the
Dutch position once the High-Level Panel has published its report.
Of exceptional importance to the post-2014 agenda are the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). The 2012 Rio+20 conference on sustainable development agreed that these new
goals, which mainly relate to the environment and sustainable development, should be
worked out in more detail. The Netherlands is a member of the working group tasked with
developing these SDGs. We believe that it is important for the SDGs to be included in the
global development agenda. In the years after 2015 we would then be able to work with a
single set of goals comprising both the updated development agenda and the SDGs.
3.3.2 Investing in basic services
Investing in water
Water is inextricably linked to the availability and production of food and energy. An
integrated, sustainable approach is therefore needed to secure future supplies of water,
food and energy. Water security is vital to poverty reduction and economic growth. Without
it, poverty will be perpetuated. Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is a condition
for escaping poverty. The same applies to protection from flooding and pollution. Poor
people are exposed to the greatest water risks: slums are often the first areas to be affected
| 35 |
Changing relationships
by flooding, and contaminated waste water threatens the health of large numbers of
people. Population groups that depend on good water management, such as fishermen and
small-scale livestock farmers are often among the poorest. Their water security is often the
first to be threatened. With better water management, the interests of these groups would
be taken on board in decision-making on water distribution.
In the water programmes that the Netherlands supports, we are pursuing three specific
goals: (i) 25% higher water productivity in agriculture; (ii) better river basin management
and safe deltas; and (iii) better access to safe drinking water and sanitation for 25 million
people. We are contributing with this third goal to achieving a human right: the right to
safe drinking water and sanitation.
| 36 |
Between 2000 and 2010, Dutch investments in drinking water supplies and sanitation gave
20 million people access to a safe source of drinking water, and more than 35 million people
access to adequate sanitation. We want to provide safe drinking water for another 25 million
people, and sanitation for the same number in the 2010 to 2015 period. To achieve these
aims, we will be stepping up the water programmes in the countries where we are active,
and supporting a number of multilateral programmes. In Bangladesh, for example, we are
supporting the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), a large NGO which, with
the help of Dutch funding and Dutch experts, focuses on people living in remote areas. In
late 2012, the Netherlands entered into a programme with UNICEF that aims to provide
drinking water and sanitation to five million people in nine countries – mainly fragile states
– in West and Central Africa.
Investing in food security
To ensure everyone has sufficient food with sufficient nutritional value we need to take
account of population growth, climate change, changing patterns of consumption,
urbanisation, price speculation and demand for biofuels. The role of local producers,
especially women, is important. They must be able to provide sufficient food not only for
themselves but also for the growing urban population. This is a precondition for further
economic diversification and growth. Agricultural logistics and the food processing industry
will therefore become important elements of policy. In the relatively poor, mainly agrarian
economies in sub-Saharan Africa, we will work on developing agriculture sustainably and
increasing access to nutrition.
A good example is Dutch participation in the global Scaling Up Nutrition Alliance. Thanks
to campaigns led by this alliance in the past few years, malnutrition is now high on the
international agenda. Everyone agrees that interventions should focus on the first 1,000
days of a child’s life, because it is here that the greatest gains can be made. Together with
UNICEF, the Netherlands has drawn up a plan to improve the nutritional status of nine
million children in Burundi, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Rwanda.
Investing in equal rights for women and sexual and reproductive health and rights
Women’s rights are still being violated on far too great a scale. The Millennium
Development Goals on reducing infant, child and maternal mortality have still not been
A World to Gain
achieved. What is more, the international consensus on equal rights for men and women
and on sexual health and rights is under severe pressure. That is why the Netherlands will
invest in alliances with other progressive countries. Themes such as equal rights for men
and women and sexual rights should be included in the new post-2015 poverty reduction
agenda which will replace the Millennium Development Goals. Equal rights for women and
sexual and reproductive health and rights will also be identified as priorities in the letter
setting out human rights policy, which the Minister of Foreign Affairs will send to the House
of Representatives this spring.
The Netherlands wants to make a difference in the lives of women. The eradication
of violence against women is a priority of both the Minister for Foreign Trade and
Development Cooperation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and is a condition for
women everywhere in the world to be active in political, economic and social life. By
contributing to funds such as FLOW (Funding Leadership and Opportunities for Women),
NAP 1325 (the National Action Plan on Resolution 1325) and Women in the Frontline, and
working with UN Women, the Netherlands hopes to achieve better legislation, more
effective prevention mechanisms and better access for women to legal aid.
The Netherlands is committed to preventing both forced marriage (child brides) and sexual
violence, which is why – for example – it is participating in the international campaign
‘Girls not Brides’. Child marriage cannot be condoned, even for reasons of culture, tradition
or religion. Forced marriages are a violation of the right to self-determination.
Sexual violence against women is still frequently used in conflict situations as a means of
disrupting communities. This practice is unacceptable. That is why we will work with
partners such as the UK and the US to implement existing resolutions which are still very
much paper tigers (e.g. UN Security Council Resolution 1325). With its National Action Plan
on Resolution 1325 (NAP1325), the Netherlands wishes to help national governments, civil
society organisations and local communities fight impunity, bring culprits to justice and
strengthen legal systems.
In the transition countries in the Arab region, the rights of women are at risk of being
severely curtailed. In our relations with other countries, in international organisations, and
with the new Women in the Frontline fund, we will push for greater political participation
for women. Our aim is to increase the capacity of women and their organisations, enabling
their involvement in drafting new legislation based on international agreements.
We are investing in sexual health and rights (including HIV/AIDS prevention) because these
are fundamental rights. The spread of HIV/AIDS can be brought to a halt only if everyone
– including young people, gays, prostitutes and drug users – has access to health care.
The number of teenage pregnancies will decrease only if young people receive good sex
education. The abortion rate will drop only if the 220 million women who want to use
contraceptives have access to them. And pregnancy will no longer be a potential death
sentence only if women receive adequate obstetric care. In all of these cases, an accessible,
effective healthcare system is a prerequisite. The Netherlands is working to achieve this in
partnership with the Global Fund, WHO, UNAIDS and UNFPA, and with NGOs and the
private sector.
| 37 |
Changing relationships
Telemedicine
Application of new technologies can lead to better, cheaper health care in low- and
middle-income countries. One of the organisations active in the field of telemedicine or ‘e-health’ is the Connect4Change consortium. With financial support from
the Netherlands, the consortium provides information using mobile telephony.
Mothers in Malawi, for example, are sent text messages with information on
preventing and treating childhood illnesses. In Uganda, texting is used to inform
pregnant women of opportunities to give birth in a clinic. People with HIV and TBC
are sent reminders to take their medicine. In East Africa, where there is little
specialist health care, PharmAccess, the Medical Credit Fund and the Health
Insurance Fund, working with Dutch support and in collaboration with local companies, use modern technology to address the shortage of doctors. Using a video link,
for example, doctors and nurses can give diagnoses and advise on treatment.
| 38 |
Investing in security and the rule of law in fragile states
Of necessity, the development agenda for fragile states and conflict-affected and post-conflict
countries is different than for other countries. This was reaffirmed during the Fourth High
Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, held in Busan in 2011, where a coalition of conflict-affected
countries, donors and international organisations agreed the New Deal for Engagement in
Fragile States, an agenda comprising activities in the field of defence, diplomacy and
development. Flexibility, risk awareness and long-term commitment are decisive for this
integrated 3D approach.
We are investing in political reform, restoration of the rule of law, and establishment of a
police force and army, proceeding on the basis of local circumstances and capacity. Dutch
advisors are, for example, working closely with the authorities in Burundi to reform the
security apparatus. The primary aims are to ensure that the police – and not the army – are
responsible for public safety; that soldiers and police officers are trained in ethical issues and
women’s rights; and that the general population and civil society organisations have a clearer
idea of the structure and activities of the police force and the army.
This policy will be fleshed out in the next few years. It constitutes a joint agenda of the Minister
for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, working
in close cooperation with the Ministers of Defence and of Security & Justice to support crisis
management operations, security sector reform, and police and justice programmes. Wherever
possible and necessary Dutch military intervention in fragile states will be harmonised with
Dutch programmes specifically geared to development of the rule of law, legitimate governance
and reconstruction. The international security budget will help to strengthen cohesion
between the various elements of 3D policy (see box). Special attention will also be given to
conflict prevention. The challenge is to translate information on smouldering and escalating
conflict into immediate action. In the coming years we will also devote extra attention to
strengthening the rule of law in fragile states. We will be investing in transitional justice,
preventing violence against women in conflict-affected countries, and protecting land rights.
We will devote specific attention to the positive role women can play in conflict situations, for
example in settling disputes, and in reconstruction and peacekeeping.
A World to Gain
International security budget
As announced in the Coalition Agreement, a new permanent budget of €250 million
will be established for international security from 2014. The Minister for Foreign
Trade and Development Cooperation will decide how it is spent, in close cooperation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence. We will look at
political and military factors, adhering to the principle that activities must be
relevant to development and contribute to solving the problems faced by the
country or region in question. This means that Dutch interventions must contribute
to protecting the civilian population, preventing or managing humanitarian crises,
and promoting lasting security and stability. Where possible, activities will be
embedded in long-term strategies and will focus on the relevant factors of conflict,
security and instability in the country or region in question, partly from the
viewpoint of human security. We will build on the experience and lessons learned in
Afghanistan, South Sudan and Burundi, guided by the principles underpinning the
New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States.
The Netherlands need not be involved directly in every part of the integrated
approach. It may also contribute indirectly, through the UN or the EU, for example.
The international security budget complements the resources earmarked for
security and the rule of law. This priority focuses on the underlying causes of
conflict, instability and exclusion, as well as on prevention and on support for the
positive forces in society. There are five goals, namely security for citizens, a
functioning legal order, inclusive political processes, legitimate and capable
government and the peace dividend/employment opportunities.
The ministries involved will send a separate letter with further details of the
international security budget.
3.3.3 Attention for emergency aid and resilience
Natural disasters have risen in number in the past decades to an average of almost 400 a
year. As a result of urbanisation, climate change, exhaustion of natural resources and
increasingly complex conflicts, the impact of disasters has also become more severe.
People in poor countries in particular are bearing the brunt.
The Netherlands is one of the world’s biggest humanitarian aid donors, and it therefore
has an important voice in international discussions on emergency aid. In international
organisations, we push for humanitarian aid to be organised as effectively as possible.
Coordination, particularly at EU and UN level, is important. And expenditure must be
accounted for, to both donors and recipients.
It is crucial for humanitarian aid workers to have free access to the areas affected. In
complex conflict situations, this is becoming an increasing challenge, with the warring
factions using aid provided by other countries for their own political and military ends.
In providing emergency aid, the humanitarian principles of independence, neutrality and
| 39 |
Changing relationships
impartiality are paramount. We believe that aid workers should operate with due regard for
the local situation, to ensure that aid goes to those most in need.
We are attempting to prevent disasters, wherever possible, by investing in self-reliance and
resilience. The Netherlands Senior Expert Programme (PUM), for example, gives low- and
middle-income countries access to the knowledge of senior experts. However, we are
planning to launch new initiatives in this field. We will use the specific knowledge of the
Dutch water sector to help prevent water-related disasters and to help countries reconstruct.
The UN and the EU, the coordinators of aid to countries in need, can make good use of
Dutch water management expertise, for example in the field of delta technology. In
addition, we are going to improve disaster risk identification in countries where the
Netherlands also provides aid. We can spend our money more effectively if risks are taken
into account in planning other aid activities.
3.4 Transitional relationships
| 40 |
We are going to build a trade relationship with Bangladesh, Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana,
Indonesia, Kenya, Mozambique and Uganda, and gradually phase out aid. The pace at which
this will occur will differ from country to country. In Mozambique and Ethiopia, for
example, we will most certainly continue to focus on poverty reduction in the coming years.
And because trade and investment do not automatically lead to sustainable, inclusive
growth, we will promote equal opportunities and sustainability. It is our aim to encourage
investment and trade activities that are good for both people and planet, create
employment opportunities, and, preferably, are accompanied by the transfer of knowledge
and skills. We will also support NGOs and trade unions in these countries in their efforts to
promote human rights and good working conditions.
Building a trade relationship starts with opening up markets and promoting private sector
development. Entrepreneurs in low- and middle-income countries will then be able to sell
their products on European and Dutch markets, while, in the long term, Dutch
entrepreneurs will gain access to their markets. For trade to be possible, the conditions
enabling investment and enterprise need to be in place. For this reason, we will contribute
to a good investment and business climate in low- and middle-income countries.
Our mission is to combine aid and trade activities to our mutual benefit. We can use the
expertise of Dutch companies to develop ports and construct roads. In return, the Dutch
private sector will gain a toehold in growth markets. Private sector development will
increasingly be achieved through knowledge transfer and the efforts of the private sector
itself. But support will be needed if technological knowledge and cutting-edge business
solutions are to be used to solve problems in poor countries. The government must
facilitate, and companies must comply with the guidelines for sustainable and socially
responsible business.
A World to Gain
Our agenda
3.4.1 Improving access to international and regional markets
Access to each other’s markets is essential for a fully-fledged trade relationship. This can
be achieved through the WTO (see section 3.2) and by concluding interregional trade
agreements like the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). However, help for
entrepreneurs in low- and middle-income countries wanting to export their products is
possibly even more important. The Centre for the Promotion of Imports from Developing
Countries (CBI) helps them in marketing their products for Western Europe. Various
organisations and companies work together in the CBI. Trade Mark East Africa (TMEA), an
initiative launched by the Netherlands and other donors such as the UK, works with local
authorities to streamline customs procedures, reform tax administrations and create
one-stop border posts. Trade costs are extremely high in East Africa, so that trade between
the countries in the region is developing only very slowly. Opportunities to develop through
regional trade and economic integration are thus being lost.
Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)
In the past, EU countries’ former colonies had preferential access to the European market.
At the same time, they were allowed to protect their markets from European products.
This kind of positive discrimination contravened WTO law: every country with the same
development status must have the same market access. At the request of and in consultation
with 78 countries from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific Group of States (the ACP
countries), the EU is therefore working on new economic partnership agreements, or EPAs.
The EPAs provide far-reaching access to European markets, and require the ACP countries to
open up their markets gradually. We regard the further integration of these countries into
the production and trade chain as a major advantage of these agreements. EPAs are geared
to the development of countries and therefore include agreements on cooperation.
Countries also receive technical assistance. Certain products can be exempted from
liberalisation, for example to ensure food security. The intention was to have concluded an
EPA with each ACP region by 1 January 2008. To date, however, the EU has only concluded
an agreement with the Caribbean region.
Negotiations on the EPAs are proving to be slow and difficult. This has to do with the diverse
nature of the regional partnerships with which we are negotiating. They include middleincome countries and LDCs (Least Developed Countries). These LDCs already enjoy
tariff-free and quota-free access to the EU markets, and feel they have little to gain from an
EPA. At the same time, many countries are concerned about the consequences of the EPAs
– whether their private sector can compete with companies from the EU. The European
Commission therefore commissioned an Impact Assessment of the EPAs. The analysis
showed that there is enough scope to exempt vulnerable sectors from liberalisation.
However, this has not allayed concerns. To meet the wishes of the low- and middle-income
countries, a provision may be included in the EPAs giving them a maximum of 25 years to
liberalise their markets. Where products are exempted from liberalisation, the EU assesses
whether they are essential for the development of the country in question.
| 41 |
Changing relationships
The EPA with the Caribbean region is a good example of how agreement can be reached.
The EU has opened its market to all products from Suriname, Jamaica and 13 other
Caribbean states. The only exception is sugar, the market for which will open in due course.
The Caribbean states will in turn open their markets to 87% of EU products within the next
25 years.
The Netherlands believes that it is important to break the deadlock with the other regions.
In our role as honest broker, we want to bring the EU and the ACP countries closer together.
For this reason we will enter into dialogue with the ACP countries, and identify the main
problems. We will also explore the extent to which WTO rules provide room for manoeuvre,
enabling us to allay the concerns of the ACP countries, without needlessly putting other
countries at a disadvantage. A separate letter on trade policy with further information on
this subject will be sent to the House of Representatives before the summer.
3.4.2 Supporting entrepreneurs and government authorities
| 42 |
We support countries in developing their private sector. The missions will play an important
role in implementing the programmes that focus on this aim. It is important to remove
obstacles in the production and trade chain, with due regard for people and planet (see
section 3.5.2). The more obstacles that are tackled at once, the higher the effectiveness of
our activities. We can help farmers by providing improved seed that is more resistant to
disease, but the yield will be limited if crops cannot be harvested in time or transported
to markets because of lengthy customs procedures.
Together with companies, research institutions and civil society organisations we will help
governments achieve the conditions needed to enable enterprise. They include the effective
rule of law, transparent legislation, an adequate infrastructure and access to finance. To
make our efforts more effective, we will dovetail with international initiatives wherever
possible. For example, we are working with the logistics sector – one of the leading Dutch
sectors – and the World Bank to set up infrastructure projects and our ORIO programme
(Infrastructure Development Facility) supports Dutch companies in building bridges and
developing ports. The Netherlands is playing a pioneering role in improving the financial
infrastructure for poor people. For example, we are involved with the Entrepreneurial
Development Bank (FMO) in Equity for Africa, a programme which enables small-scale
entrepreneurs to apply for loans in kind for machinery and tools. Dutch companies and
research institutions in the leading sectors of water, agrifood, horticulture and propagation
materials, and logistics possess the knowledge with which farmers in developing countries
can sustainably raise their production, improve the quality of their produce and guarantee
its safety. Dutch research institutions and companies are closely involved in raising food
security in Ethiopia (see box).
A World to Gain
Food security in Ethiopia
Dutch research institutions and companies are closely involved in improving food
security in Ethiopia. Knowledge acquired by Wageningen University and Research
Centre is being used to enable farmers in Ethiopia to raise their productivity. Our
private sector is a major investor in agriculture, often in the first place with support
from the government through the Private Sector Investment Programme. In the
past few years, however, companies have increasingly been entering into publicprivate partnerships. Within these partnerships, they are providing products,
services and practical solutions to remove obstacles in the Ethiopian supply chain.
Examples include import of seed, poultry, dairy products and oil seed. The private
sector is also helping Ethiopia organise the export of agricultural produce
The support of our embassy in Ethiopia is complementary to the financial programmes available to the private sector. It is important to have reliable contacts, both in
bidding for tenders and to draw attention to problems caused by legislation. Dutch
companies are bringing innovation to Ethiopia, and access to international
markets. The latter is crucial for a country like Ethiopia with its many poor people
and large trade deficit. Dutch companies are chiefly active in the Ethiopian
horticulture, services and food production and processing sectors.
| 43 |
A more accessible private sector instrument
Various instruments are available to Dutch entrepreneurs for international and
development-relevant activities. These private sector instruments provide information and
advice, and also funding for activities. A number of changes are planned to improve services
for entrepreneurs. The House of Representatives will be informed of these changes in a
separate letter to be sent before the summer.
The government has various instruments to support both Dutch entrepreneurs wishing
to engage in international trade and investment and entrepreneurs in low- and middleincome countries. Dutch research institutions, too, can use certain instruments such as
the Sustainable Business and Food Security Facility (FDOV) and the Sustainable Water Fund
(FDW) if they are part of a consortium in which the private sector and/or civil society
organisations are also represented. These instruments all have different help desks/portals
and this is an obstacle to adequate service provision for entrepreneurs. As a result, the scope
they provide for companies to internationalise is not being used. The same applies to
opportunities to support entrepreneurs in low- and middle-income countries, and to
improve the business climate there. For this reason, the private sector instruments will be
made more accessible, and services will be more widely publicised. They will be more
demand-driven, with customised solutions and a focus on the entrepreneurs themselves.
Entrepreneurs will identify the countries and sectors they want to trade or invest in, and
possible risks – financial risks, but also risks relating to the environment, working
conditions and human rights – will be discussed with them. We will then be able to give
them information or advice specifically tailored to their situation, or provide a loan if there
are problems finding finance for activities. We will also look at ways in which entrepreneurs
can contribute to improving the local business climate, or whether they can support local
Changing relationships
counterparts. Groups of companies and research institutions looking to set up joint trade
and/or development activities could also be given guidance.
| 44 |
To make services more transparent, the private sector instruments will be grouped into
three modules. The first module will include information provision and advice for SMEs
wanting to operate at international level. Services will include a market scan, advice on
taking the first steps towards export, and information on potential partners in the export
market. They will be provided in part by NL Agency. The second module will contain
financial instruments for entrepreneurs seeking funding for export and foreign
investments. Their number will be considerably reduced. Existing programmes such as
Finance for International Business (FIB), the Emerging Markets Fund (FOM), FOM/OS,
MASSIF, the Private Sector Investment Programme (PSI) and the Infrastructure Development
Facility (ORIO) will be incorporated into the new Dutch Good Growth Fund (see below) as
far as possible. ORIO will also be modernised. Resources from these existing programmes
can be added to the fund with a view, for example, to making concessional loans or
implementing supporting measures. As a result of these changes, some instruments may
cease to exist as independent schemes. The list of eligible countries will tie in as far as
possible with the list of countries to which the private sector instruments apply. In
consultation with the State Secretary for Finance, an assessment will be made to see
whether more can be done concerning the funding of export transactions, for example by
creating a level playing field with other countries. The findings of the high-level working
group on export financing will be taken on board.
The third module will comprise assistance and support to groups of companies and
research institutions. Together with embassies, business support offices and implementing
organisations, these groups will draft a plan of approach to achieve their aims in, for
example, setting up development-relevant activities. They will receive further support from,
for example, an economic mission, the embassy and government-to-government
cooperation to help remove any obstacles they encounter.
The Dutch Good Growth Fund
The new cohesive approach to trade and development cooperation calls for a new form of
funding. The Dutch Good Growth Fund is therefore being developed in consultation with
the Ministries of Economic Affairs and Finance, the private sector and civil society
organisations.
It is difficult for entrepreneurs to obtain funding for activities in emerging markets and
developing countries, because of the relatively high risks they entail. Financiers want
security, and this cannot always be given. This amounts to a market failure. The fund will
fill the gap.
Activities financed from the Fund must be socially responsible and sustainable. They must
meet a single set of criteria for International Corporate Social Responsibility, based on the
OECD guidelines and, depending on the size of the company and risk of non-compliance
with CPR standards, the IFC performance standards. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational
A World to Gain
Enterprises incorporate the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
(Professor Ruggie’s ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework) and the ILO Core Labour
Standards. Companies that do not meet all these criteria when funding is provided will be
given the opportunity to introduce the necessary changes step by step, on the basis of a
pre-agreed plan.
The Dutch Good Growth Fund will provide customised forms of funding for entrepreneurs
with good investment plans. It will focus on funding for direct, innovative investments
involving a substantial element of risk in low- and middle-income countries, Dutch
companies wishing to engage in activities with their counterparts in low and middleincome countries and Dutch entrepreneurs wanting to export to developing countries and
emerging markets. The split of funds among these three target groups will not be
determined in advance.
This is a revolving fund, which means that resources will largely be repaid, and can be used
again. To raise the fund’s financial and social returns, it will be accompanied by supporting
measures in the form of technical assistance, help drafting a good business plan, or market
scans. Supporting measures will not be financed from the fund. The fund is also designed to
leverage private investment. The countries on which activities must focus to be eligible for
funding will be specified in a flexible list, which will tie in as far as possible with the list of
countries to which the private sector instruments (e.g. the Private Sector Investment
Programme (PSI)) apply. See the full list of countries in the annexe to this document.
Consultations are currently taking place with various parties including the State Advocate
concerning the management and implementation of the Fund. Responsibility for these
tasks will not in any event fall within the remit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3.4.3 Promoting equal opportunities
From both a social and economic viewpoint, an equitable distribution of income is
important for the development of countries. Economies benefit if everyone participates to
the full in the labour market, without being hindered by tradition, social taboos or
legislation. That is why we encourage Dutch companies doing business with local partners
to ensure equal rights and opportunities for women. We also support the International
Land Coalition (ILC) which is working to improve access to land rights for the poorest
people, and to strengthen the position of women in farmers’ cooperatives. With the further
implementation of the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda, we will work to achieve a living wage for
everyone who works, social security systems with a social protection floor for the 80% of the
world population without any social safety net, and safe, decent working conditions, with
space for trade unions and worker participation. Combating child labour will continue to
be a priority. Children who do not work but attend school are a social investment in the
future of developing countries.
3.4.4 Encouraging International Corporate Social Responsibility
International Corporate Social Responsibility is a prerequisite for sustainable, inclusive
growth. The onus is on companies to take responsibility for their actions in this area, and
we hold them to account. We expect them to comply with the OECD guidelines and the UN’s
| 45 |
Changing relationships
| 46 |
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights proposed by its Special Representative
Professor John Ruggie and to act in accordance with the due diligence principle by taking
measures to prevent abuses in their supply chains in relation to working conditions, child
labour, the environment, corruption and human rights. Companies that practise corporate
social responsibility can also set an example to governments in low- and middle-income
countries, encouraging them to take their responsibility. The Dutch private sector has a
good international reputation for CSR. But we want to take further steps. This spring,
therefore, the government will be presenting its Ruggie Action Plan on Business and
Human Rights. And we are going to work with the private sector, civil society organisations,
the Social and Economic Council’s International Corporate Responsibility Committee and
ministries including the Ministry of Economic Affairs to identify risks in the supply chain
and decide where action is needed. We will then conclude voluntary agreements with the
sectors concerned. The Business, Economy and Ecology Platform set up by the Ministry of
Economic Affairs under the Green Deals initiative can make a major contribution to
protecting biodiversity. We have also given MVO Nederland (CSR Netherlands) a grant for an
ambitious project to support Dutch SMEs in making their business operations in developing
countries sustainable. Before the summer of 2013, the House of Representatives will receive
a letter from the Minister of Economic Affairs and myself with information on the new CSR
policy. In his letter on human rights policy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will discuss
human rights and the private sector. The Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH) will also play an
important role in ensuring sustainability in production and trade chains. As its partner and
co-financer, we will support IDH in attracting more donors, improving measurement of
impact on development and strengthening certification programmes.
Colombia: sustainable banana production
In Colombia, we are working on a successful combination of sustainable enterprise
and links with the Dutch market. Together with the Colombian private sector, the
Netherlands supported efforts to ensure sustainable banana production, with local
authorities investing in infrastructure. This public-private partnership, in which
Augura – the Colombian Banana Growers’ Association – played an important role,
was awarded the Colombian peace prize for enterprise in 2009. The initiative also
won the National Export Prize in 2010 for the most successful inclusive business
model. The bananas have been on sale in Plus supermarkets since 2010. This was
the first supermarket chain to change over completely to fair trade bananas from
Colombia. Spar and Coop supermarkets also sell them. Thanks to companies like
Plus and banana exporter Fyffes, Colombian banana growers now have access to
the Dutch market and receive a fairer price for their products, while the export of
sustainably produced bananas has more than doubled.
A World to Gain
3.5 Trade relationships
We want to help Dutch companies be successful abroad. For Dutch companies, trade is the
way out of the crisis. Foreign trade creates jobs at home. Our aim is to increase both the
number of companies – SMEs in particular – that are internationally active and the level of
exports to and investment in emerging economies. Foreign markets also present
opportunities for sustainable, socially responsible enterprise, a field in which the Dutch
private sector is a frontrunner. There is, for example, considerable market potential for
companies that provide sustainable production solutions. Very few Dutch companies
operate in the middle-income countries in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa that have huge
growth potential. We also want to attract foreign companies and investment to the
Netherlands to strengthen our leading sectors. These are the sectors in which the
Netherlands excels and in which the government works with the private sector, universities
and research centres to promote knowledge and innovation. The sectors are horticulture
and propagation materials, agrifood, water, life sciences and health, the chemical industry,
high tech, energy, logistics and the creative industry. We want to achieve our aims through
free trade agreements, economic diplomacy and better services for SMEs.
The European market is a good first step for SMEs wanting to export their products. This is
true not only of our neighbours Germany and Belgium but also of fast-growing markets like
Poland and Turkey. The barriers to more remote markets in middle-income countries are
currently too great for smaller businesses to overcome. It often takes far more time and
effort to gain a toehold in Ghana or Vietnam, for example, than in Germany or France.
We want to give extra support to ambitious entrepreneurs who wish to move into these
new markets.
Economic diplomacy is becoming increasingly important, in both policy on private sector
internationalisation and the work of the mission network. A characteristic feature of
markets outside Europe is the government’s prominent or increasingly prominent role in
the economy. Economic diplomacy can open doors for companies operating in sectors such
as energy and water in which the Netherlands is strong and foreign governments are closely
involved. Companies wishing to enter markets far from home also face numerous barriers.
The mission network can act as troubleshooter, helping solve the many practical problems
companies run into. We will strengthen our trade and investment relationship with the
following countries: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, France, Germany,
the Gulf States, India, Iraq, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Russia,
Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the UK, Ukraine, the US and Vietnam. The
decision to select these countries was informed by their size and the opportunities they
present for growth, the aims of the leading sectors, and the degree to which the
government can help overcome obstacles to trade.
| 47 |
Changing relationships
Our agenda
3.5.1 Concluding free trade agreements
We are committed to securing new free trade agreements to increase access to foreign
markets. We will work with business and civil society organisations in this endeavour. At
European level, preparations have recently begun for negotiations with the US on a free
trade agreement. Trade between the EU and the US amounts to €455 billion a year. This will
be the biggest trade agreement ever, with a very ambitious deadline: it must be completed
before the end of President Obama’s second term in office. The agreement is also ambitious
in terms of content. The EU is aiming for convergence and/or mutual recognition of
standards. This will cut through a great deal of red tape. Through the EU, we will also be
starting negotiations on a free trade agreement with Japan, the third biggest economy in
the world, and the second biggest non-EU investor in the Dutch economy in terms of job
creation.
| 48 |
In the near future, we will also be working on agreements with emerging economies. Talks
with Thailand are about to begin. We want to move forward with the negotiations with the
Gulf States, India, Malaysia and Vietnam, and we are exploring the opportunities for
agreement with Brazil. The Netherlands is involved, through the EU, in talks with Mercosur,
an economic partnership of several Latin American countries. However, these talks have
reached deadlock. We would like to explore the desirability of and scope for continuing
talks with Brazil bilaterally via the EU.
Services are accounting for an increasing share of Dutch exports. We are therefore working
on a General Agreement on the Trade in Services with a large number of WTO countries.
Whether it will prove possible to conclude such an agreement is unclear as yet. The
negotiations are still at the exploratory stage.
3.5.2 Promoting internationalisation of the Dutch private sector
We are supporting individual companies and groups of companies in internationalising
their operations. Economic diplomacy is becoming increasingly important in providing
Dutch companies with access to markets – such as water and energy – which are often
dominated by governments, and to markets in more remote low- and middle-income
countries. Each year we will organise several trade missions to enhance opportunities for
the Dutch private sector and research institutions in foreign markets. The economic
diplomacy conducted by our embassies is crucial. This will be taken into account when
decisions are made on cutbacks to the mission network. Destinations will be chosen in
consultation with the leading Dutch sectors and the Dutch Trade Board (DTB). We will
report on the economic missions to the House of Representatives and discuss the results
twice a year at parliamentary committee meetings. We will also support the leading Dutch
sectors at international trade fairs abroad.
A World to Gain
Economic diplomacy in Turkey and Brazil
The economic mission to Turkey under the leadership of Prime Minister Mark Rutte
in November 2012 included a large delegation of eighty small and medium-sized
enterprises and twelve CEOs of major companies. During the mission, a Dutch
company entered into a joint venture with a Turkish law firm. Royal HaskoningDHV
has been given the go-ahead to use its geotechnical know-how in a major
infrastructure project, and agreement was reached with the Dutch firm Farm Frites
to market French fries in Turkey. In November 2012, the Prince of Orange and
Princess Máxima visited Brazil with a delegation of 157 companies, research
institutions and representatives of the creative industry. The many meetings with
ministers, governors and other authorities and representatives of the private sector
focused attention on what the Netherlands has to offer Brazil. The visit produced
numerous deliverables and leads. As the Netherlands had long hoped, Agriculture
Minister Mendes Ribeiro Filho announced that Brazilian inspectors would be
visiting the Netherlands to assess our inspection system for dairy products.
Approval of this system will make it much easier to export dairy products (cheese in
particular) to Brazil. The Netherlands also signed an agreement with a number of
research organisations on the subject of the biobased economy, and the
Amsterdam Arena will be involved in building football stadiums for the World Cup
in 2014.
We will provide support to SMEs wishing to become active in emerging markets in the form
of feasibility studies, market research and demonstration projects. We will support
companies seriously wanting to invest in emerging markets by participating in small
high-risk transactions and providing funding through the Entrepreneurial Development
Bank (FMO) in the case of larger investments. The new Dutch Good Growth Fund provides
customised funding not only to Dutch companies wanting to operate in developing
countries but also to Dutch entrepreneurs wishing to export to developing countries and
emerging markets. Money from the fund will only go to development-relevant activities. In
consultation with the State Secretary for Finance, an assessment will be made as to whether
more can be done to help fund export transactions, in part by creating a level playing field
with other countries. We also want to make it easier for entrepreneurs to find the services
provided by the government for internationalisation. The House of Representatives will be
informed of plans for the further development of private sector instruments before the
summer (see section 3.3).
Finally, we will help Dutch companies win contracts with major international institutions.
Every year, these institutions spend billions of euros on projects in sectors where Dutch
companies are among the international leaders in their field. The Netherlands will seek to
simplify and shorten tendering procedures, and adapt the assessment system, which
focuses too little on the quality at which the Netherlands excels. NL Agency and embassies
will advise companies on ways of enhancing their opportunities to win contracts awarded
by major international institutions such as the World Bank. It is to these institutions’
advantage to put Dutch expertise to use at an early stage in developing projects.
| 49 |
Changing relationships
3.5.3 Attracting foreign investment
In the coming years, we aim to attract many foreign companies and much foreign
investment to the Netherlands. In doing so, we will work together with the Ministry of
Economic Affairs and the Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency (NFIA). Activities will
focus on companies that bring high-grade knowledge and technology, and thus strengthen
our leading sectors. They will be implemented by project teams, in which academic and
professional knowledge is grouped by sector in order to establish what kind of foreign
company could strengthen that sector. Companies meeting this profile will then be sought
abroad, again in partnership with research institutions. The Netherlands will then enter
into talks with them. Apart from factors such as an attractive business climate, the
Netherlands can also offer the strengths of the leading sector in question. A strategic
approach to attracting foreign investment has proved successful in leading sectors such as
the chemical industry and agrifood. We wish to repeat this success in other sectors, too. This
will call for a change to the work of NL Agency. It will need to build up more sectoral
expertise to enable it to provide services to the leading sectors.
3.5.4 Protecting Dutch investment abroad
| 50 |
The Netherlands is one of the biggest investors in the world, partly because it has concluded
nearly a hundred Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). BITs protect investors on both sides
from, for example, expropriation. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the power to conclude
investment treaties has been transferred to the EU. Within the EU, we are lobbying for
treaties with the same high level of protection as we are accustomed to. We are also working
on new agreements with investment partners such as China. We will take account of the
greater role played by emerging economies, and of the increasing need for an integrated
approach to our aims in the field of sustainable development. At EU level, we will remain
committed to the inclusion of a sustainability clause in investment treaties.
A World to Gain
| 51 |
4
Cooperation
A World to Gain
In our approach to global problems and in our aid and trade relations, we will work with a
variety of strategic partners. We will seek cooperation through our bilateral relations with
countries. Civil society organisations and research institutions will remain important
partners. Businesses in low- and middle-income countries and in the Netherlands are
important partners in supporting countries pursuing sustainable development. We will
work to strengthen and modernise multilateral forums. The EU is becoming increasingly
important in terms of promoting the Netherlands’ interests, including its aid and trade
interests. We will seek a new relationship with all these actors, tailored to today’s needs.
4.1 Bilateral relations with countries and regions
The agenda for aid, trade and investment focuses on three groups of countries. The first
consists of countries with which we chiefly have an aid relationship because the basic
conditions for development are lacking or because of conflict or instability. The second
consists of countries with which we have a transitional relationship. These are countries
where we wish to build up or expand our trade relationship and where the need for poverty
reduction is declining. The third group consists of countries where our relationship is based
chiefly on trade or where there are significant opportunities for Dutch businesses. A limited
number of countries have been selected in each of these three groups. The three groups are
described elsewhere in this document (see section 3.1)
4.2 Civil society organisations
Civil society organisations and popular movements give citizens a voice, locally, nationally
and internationally. They strengthen the rule of law and the inclusiveness of social and
economic development and combat environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity.
The participation of civil society organisations in local, national and international policy
processes is essential to ensure that policy is inclusive and effective. By increasing the
government’s public accountability and legitimacy, they bring about social cohesion, more
open and stronger democracies, a better response to environmental problems and a more
favourable business climate. Civil society organisations must also maximise the
transparency and accountability of their own operations.
Civil society organisations have grown stronger in low- and middle-income countries in
recent years despite the growing political pressure. A reappraisal is therefore needed of the
relationship between the Dutch government and Dutch civil society organisations. We must
prevent Dutch civil society organisations competing with local organisations. However,
Dutch civil society organisations can strengthen their counterparts in low- and middleincome countries. Needless to say, cooperation should be based on added value. Added
value for organisations in low- and middle-income countries differs from that for Dutch
organisations. The relationship will be founded on the following three pillars:
1. Strengthening civil society organisations in low- and middle-income countries by means
of financial and technical support so that they can optimise their functions as watchdogs,
| 53 |
Cooperation
service providers or guardians of peace and political stability. The focus will be on the
four priorities. We will set up an Accountability Fund to provide funding for local civil
society organisations to fulfil their monitoring and watchdog functions.
2. Connecting national and global agendas for direct poverty reduction, economic
cooperation and international public goods. Dutch organisations and those in low- and
middle-income countries have their own roles to play in providing a counterweight to
governments and businesses and in mobilising citizens to connect these agendas.
3. Relieving the political pressure faced by civil society organisations in many low- and
middle-income countries. Donors must provide political as well as financial support:
without political support, there is little point in financial and technical support.
| 54 |
When MFS II ends, we will support civil society organisations through strategic partnerships
in four ways. Firstly, by providing support for the general strengthening of civil society
organisations in developing countries through their Dutch counterparts and through
embassies. Secondly, by supporting civil society organisations in their roles as watchdogs
and implementing organisations in the priority areas of women’s rights and SRHR, water,
food security, and security and the rule of law. Thirdly, by helping civil society organisations
raise global issues, provide a counterweight to governments and businesses, and mobilise
citizens. Fourthly, by facilitating the innovative strength of civil society organisations and
private initiatives by financing innovative and adventurous proposals.
The civil and non-governmental nature of these organisations must become more
pronounced. For this reason and in view of the size of the spending cuts, the overall budget
currently available for MFS II will be reduced, although part of the financing will be
channelled through the priorities.
A key priority in these new partnerships will be a sharp fall in the regulatory burden. I will
explain the implementation of these strategic partnerships with civil society organisations
and my position on private initiatives in a separate letter in the summer.
4.3 The private sector
The Dutch business community is an important development partner. Through trade and
investment, Dutch companies contribute to the development of local economies by
creating local jobs and production capacity and by transferring knowledge, establishing
partnerships with local entrepreneurs and training and educating people.
Dutch businesses also provide solutions to problems in low- and middle-income countries,
for example in the fields of clean drinking water, infrastructure and food security. A large
number also play a key role in making international trade networks more sustainable.
A group of Dutch multinationals known as the Dutch Sustainable Growth Coalition is
setting the tone. These companies actually go further than required by the corporate
sustainability guidelines.
A World to Gain
The Dutch water sector and sustainable development
The Netherlands has a good reputation in the field of water and water management. It has a strong knowledge infrastructure, a water sector enjoying a high
international profile and a civil society of acknowledged quality. The Dutch model
of water management and control attracts interest throughout the world. The
water companies, with their public shareholders and private management, are an
example to many low- and middle-income countries. Dutch innovative strength is
recognised internationally, for example in the field of water treatment and the
processing of satellite data into management information for agriculture and water
safety, and its centres of water education are held in high regard.
The water sector and the government will introduce low- and middle-income
countries to Dutch water technology. Dutch SMEs are international leaders in the
development of information services such as remote sensing to map out environmental problems. Low- and middle-income countries can make good use of such
technology, for example by making more efficient use of water in agriculture and
by monitoring the safety of river deltas. Another example is the Young Experts
Programme (YEP), which trains local water experts to tackle water-related
problems. Dutch know-how and expertise will also be provided to tackle waterrelated disasters (disaster risk reduction, reconstruction or disaster prevention).
They will be provided in close cooperation between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and knowledge providers from
this leading Dutch sector.
4.4 Research institutions
Our academic and research institutions are very active internationally. The Netherlands
ranks fifth among the world’s knowledge-based economies. Together with Dutch research
institutions we are conducting research in the fields of aid (through the knowledge
platforms), trade and investment (through the Top Consortiums for Knowledge and
Innovation (TKIs)). We offer educational programmes to students from low- and middleincome countries and we seek improved access to knowledge and information, for example
by financing research from aid funds.
The knowledge platforms and the TKIs are important drivers of transnational research in
the field of aid and trade. The knowledge platforms bring together public authorities,
businesses, think tanks, universities, international institutions and civil society
organisations to collaborate on a common knowledge and research agenda for
development. The government will release additional research funds for them. On the basis
of the platforms’ research agendas, calls for research proposals will be issued via the
Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). Research institutions will be able
to submit proposals, usually in consortiums with other parties. They may also submit bids
in response to calls for proposals under the policy priorities. There are five knowledge
| 55 |
Cooperation
platforms: one for each of the priorities and an overarching platform to study how
economic growth in Africa can be made more inclusive and sustainable. The knowledge
platforms must grow into independent networks in which the Dutch government is just one
of the partners. In the TKIs, entrepreneurs and academics work together on the
development of innovative products and services. The new agenda for aid and trade will link
the knowledge platforms to the TKIs to increase the effectiveness of both initiatives.
Dutch research institutions also play a key role in this policy as providers of higher
education programmes to students from low- and middle-income countries. They include
institutions of higher professional education and universities and the six institutions for
international education and research. The programmes address the lack of qualified
personnel in low- and middle-income countries. With the aid of scholarship programmes
funded by the Dutch government, such as the Netherlands Fellowship Programme and the
MENA Scholarship Programme, professionals from a variety of countries are educated in the
Netherlands. These international students are the CEOs, ministers and diplomats of the
future. Quotas for female participants in scholarship programmes are an important means
to increase women’s empowerment in low- and middle-income countries.
| 56 |
Finally, we will improve access to knowledge and information. We will promote free access
to information on aid activities and research financed from aid. The Netherlands will apply
instruments that give low- and middle-income countries better access to knowledge and
technology that is protected by intellectual property rights. This will require flexibility in the
implementation of international treaties such as TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of
International Property Rights) and UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New
Varieties of Plants), an open access policy for academic publications and research data and
the use of Humanitarian Use Licences in publicly-funded research.
4.5 The European Union
The EU is the natural multiplier of Dutch ideas and interests. European aid programmes are
an important complement to our bilateral policy, particularly now that the Netherlands
must cut expenditure on aid and the mission network. The EU is active in many countries in
which its member states have strategic interests (owing, for example, to their geographical
location) but in which they have few if any bilateral programmes. This is the case, for
example, for southern members of the EU in countries in the Middle East and North Africa.
The EU is well represented and applies a wide range of instruments in fragile states such as
the Central African Republic. Its development programmes, special representatives and civil
missions in the fields of security, police and justice are a source of stability in many
countries. In most cases where the Netherlands’ programmes in social sectors (such as
education and health care) are being phased out, the EU will remain the main donor.
The EU is better positioned than others to conduct an integrated external policy. It has great
influence on low- and middle-income countries as an economic and trading partner and
through political dialogue, security policy and many other policy areas – from trade to
agriculture, from the environment and climate to energy and migration. We can exercise
more influence as a member of the EU than we can alone. That is why for us the EU is the
most relevant framework within which to conduct a coherent policy.
A World to Gain
The Netherlands wants the EU to spend its member states’ development budgets carefully,
transparently, coherently and efficiently. To this end, the EU must seek to link up more with
new partners. A more detailed consideration of our policy on EU development policy is
presented in a letter to parliament of 11 December 2012 regarding the government’s position
on EU development cooperation policy. The letter considers the steps that have been taken to
adapt EU aid policy to the changing international context and to the demands of this new
reality. The EU will, for example, focus on fewer themes, seek a greater role for innovative
financial instruments and evaluate its policy on budget support.
4.6 International organisations
International organisations are playing a greater part in resolving transnational problems that
countries cannot address successfully unless they work together, such as climate change and
financial instability. International organisations help set the agenda by means of groundbreaking
reports such as the World Development Report (World Bank) the Human Development Report
(UNDP) and the World Populations Report (UNFPA). They also contribute to the sustainable
economic development of countries by, for example, investing in infrastructure to improve the
business climate. International organisations play an important role in direct poverty reduction.
They invest in basic services for the very poorest, help defuse conflicts, resolve disputes, coordinate
peace operations, care for refugees and develop local government.
The Netherlands is a fully committed member of several international organisations and supports
their work financially. The Netherlands is standing for the Human Rights Council (2015-2017) and
the Security Council (2017-2018), and is a major donor to the UN and an important shareholder of
the international financial institutions. In addition to compulsory contributions, the Netherlands
supports funds and UN programmes and contributes to the development banks. This support is
provided chiefly to organisations that promote women’s rights and SRHR, food security, water,
and security and the rule of law. We will concentrate further on these areas in the period ahead,
in part on account of budgetary restrictions. The Netherlands wishes to work with international
organisations that are active in fields in which Dutch companies, institutions and civil society
organisations rank among the best in the world.
An efficient network of international organisations is vital. The network, however, does not
always work as well as it might. International organisations must share and coordinate their
work effectively. UNDP, UNICEF and the World Bank must play a strong coordinating role. The
Netherlands attaches great value to the multilateral system and will work to increase its
efficiency and effectiveness. Furthermore, international organisations must generate added
value for Dutch policy. Management remuneration is often too high and the public
procurement policies of international organisations could be better and more sustainable.
Every two years, the effectiveness and efficiency of the various UN organisations, funds and
programmes are reviewed by means of scorecards, as is their contribution to the Dutch
government’s objectives. A new review will be carried out this spring. The House will be
informed by letter before the summer. The letter will also consider the Netherlands’ financial
contributions to international organisations.
| 57 |
5
Funding
A World to Gain
5.1 Integrated budget for foreign trade and development
cooperation
The government has opted to strengthen the policy and budgetary coherence of foreign
trade and development cooperation. A new budget will be prepared for foreign trade and
development cooperation as from 2014 (budget chapter 17); the first will be presented next
Budget Day. In the near future the House will receive a proposal from the government
regarding the new budget’s organisation into policy articles and subarticles. In anticipation,
the 2013 budgets for development cooperation and foreign trade have been combined in a
separate statement in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs budget. The trade promotion budget
(€89 million in 2013, of which €87 million non-ODA) has been transferred from the Ministry
of Economic Affairs. The coalition agreement also provided for the establishment of the
Dutch Good Growth Fund. This revolving fund will receive €250 million a year between 2014
and 2016. The structural funding of the international security budget will total €250 million
as from 2014.
Trade and development cooperation expenditure in millions of euros
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
4,240
3,816
3,990
3,975
3,846
125
113
104
102
96
Dutch Good Growth Fund
250
250
250
Budget for peace and security
250
250
250
250
4,430
4,594
4,577
4,192
Total gross ODA, Rutte II
Non-ODA (including trade promotion)
Total
4,365
5.2 Cuts in development cooperation expenditure
The coalition agreement includes a substantial cut in the development cooperation budget.
Between 2014 and 2016 the ODA budget will be cut by €750 million a year and by €1 billion a
year as from 2017. Furthermore, there will be a significant budget reduction – rising to
nearly €300 million in 2027 – on account of the disappointing GNP estimates. The table below
shows the consequences for the ODA budget and annual net ODA in millions of euros.
| 59 |
Funding
ODA budget in millions of euros
Gross ODA draft budget 2013
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
4,340
4,701
4,912
4,950
5,142
-750
-750
-750
-1,000
Rutte II coalition agreement cuts
GNP adjustment since 2013 draft budget
Gross ODA, Rutte II
less repayments/receipts
Net ODA, Rutte II
Net ODA as a percentage of GNP
-100
-135
-172
-225
-296
4,240
3,816
3,990
3,975
3,846
-85
-81
-77
-77
-77
4,154
3,735
3,913
3,898
3,769
0.68
0.59
0.60
0.59
0.55
NB Owing to the repayment of development cooperation loans (included in repayments/receipts), net ODA is lower
than gross ODA expenditure. Both the new international security budget and the Dutch Good Growth Fund consist
of a mix of ODA and non-ODA expenditure. The ODA component in these instruments is not known in advance and
has not been included in the table above. The ODA percentages will therefore be higher than shown.
| 60 |
Any decision on the spending cuts must take account of the fact that a large proportion of the
ODA budget is fixed. There are fixed allocations for the reception of asylum seekers from DAC
countries during their first year, the EU, debt forgiveness (export credit insurance) and overhead
costs. Together, these allocations total about €1 billion a year. A significant proportion of the
budget is also earmarked for commitments that have already been made. The coalition
agreement, moreover, states that international climate expenditure will be funded from the
ODA budget. This, too, increases the pressure on the remainder of the budget.
Principles
The spending cuts will be based on the following principles:
• We will concentrate our aid, trade and investment efforts on the priorities of food
security, women’s rights and SRHR, water, and security and the rule of law. With the
exception of women’s rights and SRHR, the priorities will inevitably be hit by spending cuts.
• O
ur expenditure on private sector development helps countries gain access to markets
and improves the business climate. In comparison with the budgetary framework under
the first Rutte government, funding for private sector development and trade promotion
will be €105 million lower in 2014; in comparison with 2013, this represents a cut of
around €35 million.
• G
iven the importance of donor reliability, ongoing contracts and commitments will be
respected in so far as possible. This means, among other things, that the current
contracts with the World Bank and MFS II organisations will not be broken.
• E mergency aid will not be cut. Humanitarian aid is essential for people in emergency
situations.
A World to Gain
• T he budgets for the crosscutting themes good governance, environment and education
in low- and middle-income countries will be phased out more quickly. Where relevant,
these three themes will be reflected in the implementation of the priorities. The
scholarship programme, however, will be spared.
• T he Dutch contribution to international climate financing consists of public and private
funds. The aim is to finance as much as possible privately.
• F unds will not be allocated to financing channels in advance. Partners will be selected for
the effectiveness and efficiency of their operations, not because they belong to a
particular channel.
• T here will be no successor to MFS II. Civil society organisations can apply to the priority
programme budgets for funding. A slimmed down budget will be available after 2015 for
activities to strengthen civil society organisations and the watchdog function for global issues.
• T he general contributions to multilateral organisations will be cut. Multilateral
organisations can also apply to the priority budgets to fund their theme-based activities.
| 61 |
Funding
The table below shows where spending cuts will be made in 2014 and 2017 in comparison
with the budgetary framework under the first Rutte government (2013 Explanatory
Memorandum) in millions of euros.
Food security
Women’s rights and SRHR
2017
-60
-40
0
20
women’s rights
0
0
SRHR
0
20
-150
-65
-50
-25
Water, the environment and climate
water
environment and climate
-100
-40
-125
-155
security and rule of law
-95
-120
good governance
-30
-35
Security, the rule of law and good governance
Emergency aid
| 62 |
2014
0
0
-105
5
0
-230
Multilateral expenditure**
-60
-140
Other expenditure
-70
-145
-65
-125
-5
-20
Private sector development
Civil society*
education and research
culture, public support, etc.
Deferral
Not yet allocated in 2013 Explanatory Memorandum
TOTAL
-180
0
0
-250
-750
-1000
Excluding:
Dutch Good Growth Fund***
250
International security budget
250
250
* new funding system for NGOs from 2016 (after MFS II)
** reduction in general contributions in areas outside the four policy priorities
*** €250 million per year from 2014 to 2016 inclusive
The table above does not take account of the downward GNP adjustment after adoption of
the coalition agreement. This reduction will be recognised in the 2014 draft budget based
on GNP estimates at the time. The spending cuts at instrument level, including the
consequences for the country budgets, will follow in the 2014 draft budget.
A World to Gain
5.3 Towards the 2017 budget
The figure below shows the breakdown of expenditure on foreign trade and development
cooperation in the period 2014-2017 after the spending cuts but before GNP adjustments
(NB ODA expenditure charged to other budgets is also included). The proportion of
expenditure on the four priorities (including the international security budget) and private
sector development/trade promotion will increase during this period from 51% to 57%.
The proportion of expenditure on civil society in the Netherlands, education in low- and
middle-income countries, good governance, culture and public support will fall from 16%
to 11%. Annual allocations will amount to some 20% of the budget.
Expenditure on trade and development cooperation, after spending cuts, 2014-2017
(incl. ODA charged to other budgets
in millions of euros
Food security
Women’s rights and SRHR
| 63 |
Water, environment
and climate
Security, the rule of law
and good governance
Emergency aid
International
security budget
Private sector
development and
trade promotion(excl.
Dutch Good Growth Fund)
Civil society*
Multilateral
expenditure**
Other expenditure
(scholarships, education
and research, culture, etc.)
2014
2015
2016
950
2017
* A new funding system will be introduced in 2016 (MFS II will expire at year-end 2015). In addition to the budget
indicated, NGOs may also receive funding from the budgets for the priorities from 2016.
** Budget for general contributions, replenishments, debt relief, etc.; multilateral organisations may also receive
funding from the budgets for the priorities.
1000
900
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
0
50
Allocations
Funding
Expenditure
Food security
This includes bilateral programmes and contributions via the multilateral channel, publicprivate partnerships and investments in knowledge and research. After the spending cuts
have been accounted for, the budget will increase in 2014-2017.
Women’s rights and SRHR
This includes the budget to eradicate HIV/AIDS, the budget for the WHO, UNFPA, GFATM and
bilateral programmes to promote SRHR, and the budget to strengthen women’s rights. The
government considers gender equality to be a priority in foreign policy.
Water, environment and climate
The priority water and expenditure on the environment and climate are combined under this
heading. The budget will increase between 2014 and 2017, chiefly on account of higher
climate expenditure owing to our international commitments.
| 64 |
Security, the rule of law and good governance
This includes the central programmes for reconstruction being carried out in, for example,
South Sudan and Afghanistan, the delegated budgets for the priority of security in the partner
countries and the Central America programme. Between 2014 and 2017, the overall budget for
security and the rule of law will remain unchanged.
Private sector development, trade promotion and the Dutch Good Growth Fund
This includes budgets to improve the business climate in partner countries, the private sector
instruments and infrastructure funds. After the spending cuts, the private sector development
budget will increase by €110 million between 2014 and 2017 before accounting for the
contribution to the Dutch Good Growth Fund. The budget includes contributions to the
Dutch Good Growth Fund only for 2014-2016; no account has been taken of investment
reflows and reinvestments.
Civil society
This category includes expenditure on MFS II partners and SNV. The contracts with these
organisations expire at the end of 2015, after which a new funding system will be introduced
and the available budget will be lowered. The organisations concerned can also apply for
funding from the priority programme budgets.
Multilateral expenditure other than priorities
This includes expenditure for the World Bank, the regional development banks, the European
Development Fund (EDF) and the general voluntary contributions to UNDP and UNICEF. This
expenditure will be cut by €60 million in total in 2014, rising to €140 million in 2017.
Other themes (scholarships, research and education, culture, etc.)
Development-related education and research activities in low- and middle-income countries
will be phased out more quickly; by 2017 only the scholarship programme and a small budget
A World to Gain
for research and capacity building will remain. The ODA contribution to research
institutions on the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science budget will be cut by €5
million a year in the 2014-2016 period, and by €10 million a year from 2017. Agreements will
be reached with institutions for international education and research to focus more sharply
than at present on the priorities.
| 65 |
Annexes
A World to Gain
Dutch Good Growth Fund country list
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Armenia
Bangladesh
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cape Verde
Colombia
Djibouti
DRC
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gambia
Georgia
Ghana
Guatemala
India
Indonesia
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Laos
Libya
Macedonia
Madagascar
Maldives
Malawi
Mali
Moldova
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Nepal
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Pakistan
Palestinian Territories
Peru
Philippines
Rwanda
Sao Tomé
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
South Sudan
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Tanzania
Thailand
Tunisia
Uganda
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
| 67 |
Annexes
Abbreviations
| 68 |
3D
ACP
ASEAN
BIT
GDP
Cariforum
CBI
CSR
DTB
ECOWAS EKI
EPA
EU
FIB
FMO
FOM/OS
GFATM
IATI
ICSR
IFAD
ILC
ILO
IMF
IPGs LDC
MDGs
Mercosur
MFS
SMEs
NFIA
NGO
NICHE
ODA
OECD
ORIO
PPP
PSI
SADC
SDGs
SRHR
TCX
TMEA
TRIPS Defence, Diplomacy, Development
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Bilateral Investment Treaty
Gross Domestic Product
Caribbean Forum of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States
Centre for the Promotion of Imports from Developing Countries
Corporate Social Responsibility
Dutch Trade Board
Economic Community of West African States
Export credit insurance and investment guarantees
Economic Partnership Agreement
European Union
Finance for International Business
Entrepreneurial Development Bank
Development variant of the Emerging Markets Fund
Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
International Aid Transparency Initiative
International Corporate Social Responsibility
International Fund for Agricultural Development
International Land Coalition
International Labour Organization
International Monetary Fund
International Public Goods
Least Developed Country
Millennium Development Goals
Common Market of the South
Cofinancing system
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency
Non-Governmental Organisation
Netherlands Initiative for Capacity Development in Higher Education
Official Development Assistance
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
Infrastructure Development Facility
Public-Private Partnership
Private Sector Investment Programme
Southern African Development Community
Sustainable Development Goals
Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
Currency Exchange Fund
Trade Mark East Africa
Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights
A World to Gain
UN
UNAIDS UNDP
UNDPA UNFAO
UNFPA
UNHCR UNWFP
UPOV WEF
WRR
WTO
YEP
United Nations
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Department of Political Affairs
United Nations Food & Agriculture Programme
United Nations Population Fund
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
United Nations World Food Programme
International Union for the Protection Of New Varieties of Plants
World Economic Forum
Advisory Council on Government Policy
World Trade Organisation
Young Experts Programme
| 69 |
Annexes
References
| 70 |
• A
dvisory Council on International Affairs (2012), Unequal Worlds: Poverty, Growth,
Inequality and the Role of International Cooperation, advisory report no. 80.
• Advisory Council on International Affairs (2013), Interaction Between the Actors in
International Cooperation: Towards Flexibility and Trust, advisory report no. 82.
• Annen, K., and L. Moers (2012), Donor competition for aid impact, and aid
fragmentation. International Monetary Fund, Washington D.C. (WP/12/204).
• BCG (2012), NL2030. Contouren van een nieuw Nederlands verdienmodel.
• Chronic Poverty Research Centre (2008), Chronic Poverty Report 2008-9.
• Donge, J.K. van, D. Henley, and P. Lewis (2012), Tracking development in South East Asia
and Sub-Saharan Africa: The Primacy of Policy. Social Science Research Network.
Development Policy Review, Vol. 30, pp. s5-s24, 2012
• FAO (2011), The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-2011.
• Kharas, H., W. Jung and M. Makino (eds.) (2011), Catalysing development: A new vision for
aid. Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C.
• Kharas, H. and A. Rogerson (2012), Horizon 2025: Creative destruction in the aid industry.
• Knack, S., and A. Rahman (2007), Donor fragmentation and bureaucratic quality in aid
recipients. Journal of Development Economics 83 (1): 176-197.
• Kodama, Masahiro (2012), Aid unpredictability and economic growth. World
Development 40-2: 266-272.
• Le Goff, M. en R.J. Singh (2013), Does trade reduce poverty? A view from Africa. World
Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6327.
• OECD (2011), Perspectives on Global Development 2012: Social Cohesion in a Shifting
World. OECD Publishing.
• OECD (2012), Policy priorities for international trade and jobs. D. Lippoldt (ed). OECD,
Paris.
• OECD (2013), Ensuring Fragile States are not left behind. 2011 Factsheet on resource flows
and trends.
• United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2013), Human Development Report 2013.
• World Bank (2010), World Development Report 2011. World Bank, Washington D.C.
• World Bank (2011), Women, Business and the Law 2012.
• World Bank (2011), World Development Report 2012.
• World Bank (2011), Financing for Development: Trends and Opportunities in a Changing
Landscape. CFP Working Paper No. 8.
• World Bank (2012), Global Monitoring Report.
• World Bank. (2012), World Development Report 2013: Jobs. World Bank, Washington D.C.
DOI: 10.1596/978-0-8213-9575-2.
• World Bank (2012), Migration and development brief.
• World Bank (2013), Trade costs and development: A new data set. Economic Premise,
January 2013, no. 104. World Bank, Washington D.C.
• World Economic Forum (2013), Global Risks Report 2013.
• World Economic Forum (2013), Enabling Trade. Valuing Growth Opportunities.
• Advisory Council on Government Policy (2010), Less pretension, more ambition.
Development aid that makes a difference. WRR/Amsterdam University Press, The Hague/
Amsterdam.
A World to Gain
| 71 |
| 72 |
Published by:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands
P.O. Box 20061 | 2500 eb The Hague
www.rijksoverheid.nl
Layout: VijfKeerBlauw | Rijswijk
© Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands | april 2013
BrasiliaBrasiliaViennaDohaBeirutTokyoDakarBerlinParamariboDublinSydneyKuwaitBogotaAntwerpPristinaJubaBratislavaIstanbulWellingtonCaracas
Published by:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands
P.O. Box 20061 | 2500 eb The Hague | The Netherlands
www.rijksoverheid.nl
© Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands | april 2013
13BUZ617440 | E
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 27.2.2013
COM(2013) 92 final
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
A DECENT LIFE FOR ALL:
Ending poverty and giving the world a sustainable future
EN
EN
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
A DECENT LIFE FOR ALL:
Ending poverty and giving the world a sustainable future
1.
INTRODUCTION
Two of the most pressing challenges facing the world are eradicating poverty and ensuring
that prosperity and well-being are sustainable. Around 1.3 billion people still live in extreme
income poverty and the human development needs of many more are still not met. Two-thirds
of the services provided by nature – including fertile land, clean water and air – are in decline
and climate change and biodiversity loss are close to the limits beyond which there are
irreversible effects on human society and the natural environment.
These challenges are universal and inter-related and need to be addressed together by all
countries. It is not sufficient to address the challenges separately – a unified policy framework
is needed. Such an overarching policy framework is needed to mark out a path from poverty
towards prosperity and well-being, for all people and all countries, with progress remaining
within planetary boundaries. It should also be closely related to issues relating to governance,
human rights and peace and security issues, which are enabling conditions for progress. It is
estimated that 1.5 billion people are living in countries experiencing significant political
conflict, armed violence, insecurity or fragility.
In autumn 2013, a UN special event will take stock of the efforts made towards achieving the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), discuss ways to accelerate progress until 2015 and
start exchanging on what could follow after the MDG target year of 2015. In addition, the
commitments made at the Rio+20 Conference in June 2012 need to be implemented,
including through actions towards an inclusive green economy. Furthermore, it will be
necessary to build further on this progress through the Open Working Group that was
established in Rio. All of these inputs will provide input for the development of a post-2015
overarching framework.
This Communication proposes a common EU approach to these issues. To do this, it first
identifies the main global challenges and opportunities. It then turns to evaluate the success of
global poverty eradication agenda and the experience of the MDGs, as well as outlining some
of the key steps towards sustainable development as agreed in Rio+20, and outlining key
actions. It then describes the challenges and elements for a future framework that can be
drawn from the experience of the MDGs and the work stemming from Rio+20, in particular
the elaboration of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and indicates how these can be
brought together within relevant UN processes.
Based on these considerations, it proposes principles for an overarching framework for post2015 which would provide a coherent and comprehensive response to the universal challenges
of poverty eradication and sustainable development in its three dimensions, thereby ensuring a
Decent Life for All by 2030.
EN
2
EN
2.
NEW GLOBAL CONTEXT, NEW CHALLENGES, NEW OPPORTUNITIES
The world has undergone enormous change over recent years, including major shifts in the
global economic and political balance, increased global trade, climate change and depletion of
natural resources, technological change, economic and financial crises, increased
consumption and price volatility of food and energy consumption, population changes and
migration, violence and armed conflict and natural and man-made disasters, and increased
inequalities. New actors, including private and other non-governmental players, have arisen in
the global arena.
While developed and emerging economies account for most of global GDP, the latter have
now become the key drivers of global growth and already have a significant impact on the
world economy. Trends suggest that the balance is expected to shift further; by 2025, global
economic growth should predominantly be generated in emerging economies, with six
countries expected to collectively account for more than half of all global growth.
Unemployment remains a worldwide challenge. Some 200 million people are out of a job,
among them 75 million young people. Rates of female participation in the labour market often
remain low, while social services remain limited. Furthermore, some 621 million young
people worldwide are not in school or training, not employed and not looking for work,
risking a permanent exclusion from the labour market. Undeclared work and the fundamentals
for decent work, including rights at work and social dialogue, are problems in many countries.
Most poor people in developing countries are engaged in small-scale farming or are selfemployed. Many poor people in these countries are working in unsafe conditions and without
the protection of their basic rights. Only 20% of the world population has access to adequate
social protection.
At the same time, inequalities within countries have increased in most parts of the world. The
majority of the poor now live in middle income countries, in spite of their fast growth.
Achieving poverty eradication in such countries appears to be one of the major challenges.
However, longer term projections indicate that by 2050 the locus of poverty might again be
concentrated in the poorest and most fragile countries.
More than 1.5 billion people live in countries affected by violent conflict. Violence destroys
lives and livelihoods and often affects women and people in vulnerable situations, such as
children and people with disabilities. The gap between fragile, violence-affected countries and
other developing countries is widening. In April 2011, no low-income fragile or conflictaffected country had achieved a single MDG and few are expected to meet any of the targets
by 2015. Poor governance, including a lack of democracy, rule of law and respect for human
rights, is currently hampering efforts towards poverty eradication and sustainable
development.
In addition, there is overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus that the unsustainable
use of the natural resources is one of the greatest long term threats to humankind. The effects
of environmental degradation and climate change are already being felt and threaten to undo
much of the progress already made in eradicating poverty, and so do natural disasters. We are
not on track to keep temperature increases within 2°C above the temperature in pre-industrial
times, the threshold beyond which there is a much higher risk that catastrophic impacts on
natural resources will occur, posing risks to agriculture, food and water supplies and the
development gains of recent years. At the global level, the challenge will be to adapt and to
mitigate impacts, including through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Already today, climate change, depletion of natural resources and ecosystem degradation are
having a significant impact on livelihoods, for example through the increased number and
EN
3
EN
intensity of natural disasters and the depletion of natural capital and infrastructure. Since
1992, natural disasters have caused € 750 billion of damage and killed 1.3 million people. The
effects of unsustainable patterns of current economic development are still largely determined
by developed countries and increasingly by emerging economies, while poorer countries are
disproportionately impacted and have the least resources to cope with negative effects1. These
countries are also often particularly dependent on natural resources, in particular for sectors
such as agriculture, forestry, energy and tourism, which aggravates their vulnerability to
degradation and depletion.
Development and growth contribute to human prosperity and well-being, but also to
environmental challenges, such as resource depletion and pollution, which are likely to
become more acute over time. These negative effects are mostly determined by the 5.7 billion
people that do not live in extreme income poverty, which leads to a significant increase in
global demand and consumption, putting additional strain on natural resources. Progress
towards an inclusive green economy through sustainable consumption and production patterns
and resource efficiency, including in particular low emission energy systems, is therefore
essential.
In order to satisfy increasing demand, it is estimated that global agricultural production in
2050 will have to increase by 60% over 2005 levels, putting increasing pressure on alreadyscarce natural resources, in particular land, forests, water and oceans. At the same time, there
are indications that up to half of global food production is wasted. Given urbanisation and
population growth, water use is projected to increase by 50% by2025, by which time roughly
5.5 billion people – two thirds of the projected global population – will live in areas facing
moderate to severe water stress.
Looking ahead, these challenges must be viewed in the context of demographic trends: it is
projected that the world population will reach more than 9 billion by 2050, with the
population of sub-Saharan Africa set to more than double. Together, Africa and Asia will
represent nearly 80% of the world's population by 2050. The increase in the world's median
age is expected to affect developing countries most, with consequences for health services and
pensions, as well as tax revenues.
It is in this context that the follow up to Rio+20 and the MDG review special event take place.
We need to keep in mind that the challenges are interrelated and require a coherent and
comprehensive response, supportive also of other international processes, such as climate and
biodiversity negotiations.
3.
BUILDING ON THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE MDGS AND RIO+20
3.1.
Taking stock of MDG achievements
The EU remains committed to doing its utmost to help achieve the MDGs by 2015, in line
with its policy framework as set out in the Agenda for Change2 and the European Consensus
on Development3.
The MDGs embody a fundamental global agreement to end poverty and to further human
development. They have in the last decade proven to be a valuable tool to raise public
1
2
3
EN
Least Developed Countries comprise more than 880 million people (about 12 per cent of world
population) but account for less than 2 % of world GDP.
COM(2011) 637 final
2006/C 46/01
4
EN
awareness, increase political will and mobilise resources to eradicate poverty. Impressive
progress has been made:
•
•
•
•
•
According to the World Bank, the share of people living on less than USD 1.25 a day
(2005 prices) fell from 43% in 1990 to 22% in 2008. It is likely that the target to halve the
proportion of people living in extreme poverty was reached in 2010.
The target to halve the proportion of the population without access to safe drinking water
was achieved globally in 2010 – between 1990 and 2010 over two billion people gained
access.
Globally, primary school enrolment has increased to an average of 89%, with girls now
almost as likely to be enrolled as boys.
Children are significantly less likely to die of disease or malnutrition.
Global HIV infections continue to decline and access to anti-retroviral drugs has expanded
widely.
The global partnership for development has complemented national efforts towards the
MDGs. Since 2000, annual global Official Development Assistance (ODA) has increased by
nearly 70%, to EUR 96 billion, and the share of ODA going to Least Developed Countries
(LDCs) has more than doubled. The EU and its Member States collectively are the largest
donor, providing an annual EUR 53 billion in ODA (2011), or more than half of global ODA.
In parallel, the implementation of the aid and development effectiveness principles and targets
has contributed to greater ODA impact. The phenomenal growth in trade has been a major
factor in progress: between 2000 and 2009 developing country exports rose by 80%,
compared to 40% for the world as a whole The EU is the biggest trading partner for
developing countries and has led the way in granting duty-free and quota-free access to all
LDC products, under the Everything But Arms initiative. Furthermore, EU-funded research,
such as through the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, has also
contributed to the achievement of the MDGs.
Challenges to the achievement of the MDGs however remain, with sub-Saharan Africa in
particular lagging behind. Globally, 1.3 billion people still live in extreme income poverty.
More than 850 million people do not have enough to eat. About 61 million children are still
out of school. Women continue to be the subject of discrimination and confront severe health
risks, in particular to maternal health and their sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Violence affects one third of all women in their lifetime and undermines efforts to reach any
MDG. An estimated 2.5 billion people are without access to decent sanitation facilities and
780 million people still lack access to clean and safe drinking water. 7 million people living
with HIV/AIDS still do not have access to treatment. The world is still far from reaching the
target of full and productive employment and decent work for all. Only 20% of the world's
population has access to adequate social protection. Unsustainable use and management of the
Earth's limited resources puts at risk the lives and well-being of future generations.
In addition, success is unevenly distributed not only between countries – in particular with a
striking lack of progress towards the MDGs in fragile and conflict affected states – but also
within countries - including those that already have the means to provide better lives and
futures for their population.
Yet the overall picture, especially in view of technological advances and economic progress
achieved by many emerging and developing countries since the MDGs were developed,
shows that elimination not just reduction of poverty in a single generation is within reach.
EN
5
EN
3.2.
Main Rio+20 outcomes and commitments
The Rio+20 Conference confirmed a common global vision for an economically, socially and
environmentally sustainable future for the planet and for present and future generations and
underlined that many challenges remain to be addressed. Rio+20 recognised the green
economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication as an important
pathway for achieving sustainable development, set in motion a process to develop universal
sustainable development goals (SDGs) and agreed to take action towards sustainable
development. These actions will also help inform the process of developing SDGs and will, in
the longer term, also contribute to their realisation. Rio+20 also agreed to reform the
institutional framework for sustainable development, to set in place a structure that can
deliver the follow-up to the Conference and to work further on means of implementation. It is
important that the EU now implements promptly the commitments taken at Rio, actively
engages in these processes and takes the necessary action both within the EU and
internationally.
3.3.
Implementation: Actions at EU and international level
The EU will continue to pursue the sustainable development, including by
implementingRio+20 commitments through a range of overarching policies, in particular
through its overarching strategy for smart, inclusive and sustainable growth - Europe 2020.
This covers, inter alia, resource efficiency, low carbon economy, research and innovation,
employment, social inclusion and youth. The implementation and regular review of the
Europe 2020 Strategy, which builds on the integrative approach initiated by the EU Strategy
for Sustainable Development, should contribute to greater coherence, mainstreaming and
integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development in EU policies at large.
Sustainable development objectives will be made operational through a range of key policies
under preparation, including the reform of the Common Agricultural and the Common
Fisheries Policies, the forthcoming 7th Environmental Action Programme, the Innovation
Union, Horizon 2020 and the Social Investment Package.
The EU has consistently provided development cooperation in order to contribute to the full
implementation of the MDGs. Through its external action and notably the implementation of
the Agenda for Change, the EU will continue facilitating progress towards the MDGs and
sustainable development in developing countries, with a specific focus on the least developed
and the ones most in need. At the same time, a number of actions need to be carried out in
order to contribute to the implementation of Rio+20 commitments.
The main current EU activities to implement Rio+20 are brought together in Annex I.
3.4.
Institutional framework
implementation
for
sustainable
development
and
means
of
Rio+20 started a process to reinforce the institutional framework for sustainable development,
including strengthening the role of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and ECOSOC. A
major decision was to establish a High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) on sustainable
development, which will replace the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. The
HLPF will follow up and review progress in the implementation of the outcomes of Rio+20
and is also mandated to strengthen the science-policy interface, which will be crucial for the
implementation of SDGs. It should be directly linked to ECOSOC, currently under reform,
and work at a higher political level (UNGA) at regular intervals. These linkages provide an
opportunity to enhance coherence with the on-going work on the review of the MDGs and
discussions on development post-2015.
EN
6
EN
Another important outcome of Rio+20 was the decision to strengthen and upgrade the UN
Environment Programme (UNEP) and, in particular, the decision on universal membership for
its Governing Council. This has now been confirmed by the decision on new institutional
arrangements for UNEP at its recent Governing Council. The decision to establish a UN
Environment Assembly is an important step forward, consistent with the EU's ambition to
transform it in the longer term into a UN agency. The EU will take an active role in
implementing this revised institutional framework. Ensuring the appropriate participation of
the EU in both the HLPF and the reformed UNEP will be a priority.
Rio+20 also decided to promote clean and environmentally-sound technologies and to
establish an intergovernmental expert committee to prepare options for a sustainable
development financing strategy. The committee needs to ensure coherence and coordination
and avoid duplication of efforts as regards the financing for development process. The EU
will participate in this process in line with the overall approach to financing and other means
of implementation, as indicated below.
3.5.
Public Consultation
A number of public consultations and dialogues have been held by the Commission on future
perspectives of poverty eradication and sustainable development. These consultations have
helped guide a number of aspects of proposals contained in this Communication. An overview
of these consultations is outlined in Annex II. The Commission will continue active dialogue
on all these issues with all stakeholders and civil society.
4.
INTEGRATING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY ERADICATION IN A POST2015 OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK
At international level and at the UN, much of the work on poverty eradication and sustainable
development has been carried out in separate strands within different communities – one
stemming from the Millennium Declaration and the other from the series of UN summits on
sustainable development. In reality, these two strands have always had common elements; for
example, the MDGs address environmental issues through MDG7 and sustainable
development has always placed poverty eradication as a priority objective.
In order to effectively address the challenges of poverty eradication and sustainable
development, as a major and interlinked global challenge, the review of MDGs and the work
on elaborating SDGs need to be brought together towards one overarching framework with
common priority challenges and objectives, so as to ensure a decent life for all by 2030 and
give the world a sustainable future beyond it.
In autumn 2013, a UN special event will take stock of the efforts made towards achieving the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), discuss ways to accelerate progress before 2015
and exchange views on what could follow after the MDG target year of 2015. The first
session, in September 2013, of the High Level Political Forum established by the Rio+20
Conference will in addition look at the follow-up to the commitments made at Rio+20 in June
2012. It will also be necessary to progress through the Open Working Group on Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) that were established in Rio. All of these inputs will provide the
framework for the agreement of a Post-2015 Overarching Framework.
In order to further elaborate thinking on goals, the EU will continue its open dialogue with all
relevant stakeholders. This will contribute to the EU's active input into the work of the Open
Working Group on SDGs, which will make recommendations for action to the UN General
Assembly.
EN
7
EN
This section describes the lessons learnt from the MDG review and the work on the
elaboration of SDGs and the kinds of priority elements that emerge from both of these. Then
it indicates briefly in practical terms how these can be brought together within relevant UN
processes. Then, based on this, some of the key principles of an overarching framework are
brought together in the final section.
4.1.
Priority elements for the overarching framework
Drawing on MDG experience and the work stemming from Rio+20 on sustainable
development and considering current trends, the EU considers that a number of challenges
can be identified for the post-2015 overarching framework.
There is a fundamental link between global environmental sustainability and poverty
eradication. It will not be possible to eliminate poverty and ensure a decent life for all
without, at the same time, addressing global environmental sustainability, and the other way
around. Climate change, natural disasters, biodiversity loss and the degradation of oceans,
freshwater sources, land and soil have a particularly negative impact on the world’s poorest
populations. To be able to act on these issues, the overarching framework needs to act as a
catalyst for good governance, transparency, social cohesion and the empowerment of women,
in all countries and internationally, all of which are essential for sustainable development and
the eradication of poverty.
As agreed in the Rio+20 outcome document, goals for sustainable development (SDGs)
should be universally applicable to all countries, while taking into account different national
realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting national policies and priorities,
should incorporate the three dimensions of sustainable development and should be actionoriented, concise and easy to communicate and limited in number. The EU proposals made in
the run-up to Rio+20, indicated that they should also focus on resources which represent
public goods and basic "pillars of life," such as energy, water, food security, oceans,
sustainable consumption and production, as well as social inclusion and decent work. At the
same time, goals should also be coherent with existing international agreements, such as goals
and targets on climate change and biodiversity, as well as social protection floors.
They should address the three overarching objectives of sustainable development: poverty
eradication, changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns and protecting and
managing the natural resource base of economic and social development.
Post-2015 goals would need to span into the future and aim at laying the drivers to achieve a
sustainable future: with a shared vision for 2050, goals and targets should aim at the timescale
of 2030.
Given that the framework should have both poverty eradication and sustainable development
as its overall objectives, the priority challenges need to address both perspectives drawing
from the above. Based on this reasoning, the framework could be constructed around a
number of main elements: ensuring basic living standards; promoting the drivers for inclusive
and sustainable growth as well as ensuring sustainable management of natural resources;
while promoting equality, equity and justice; and peace and security. In addition, whilst the
challenge of addressing planetary environmental boundaries will require an integrated
response that will impact on all these elements, and will have to be addressed in some of
them, it will also require specific action in its own right. It can therefore also be seen as an
additional cross-cutting ingredient of an integrated post-2015 overarching framework.
4.1.1.
Basic living standards
The MDGs have provided a framework for human development, setting targets such as
minimum income, freedom from hunger, full and productive employment and decent work for
EN
8
EN
all, access to primary education, basic health outcomes, access to water and sanitation, all of
which form the very basis of a decent life.
We need to finish the unfinished business of the current MDGs, filling gaps and learning the
lessons. For example, we need to address broader issues of education and health and include
social protection. Aggregate averages have hidden national inequalities caused by extreme
poverty, geographic location or marginalisation. We must move from purely quantitative
goals to address quality, for example in education and health. There must be a floor under
which no man, woman or child should fall by the very latest in 2030: standards by which
every citizen should be able to hold her or his government to account. We should aim at
empowering people to lift themselves out of poverty. Goals to stimulate action to deliver key
standards in education, nutrition, clean water and air will help eradicate hunger and improve
food security, health and well-being. Goals should also stimulate action to deliver productive
employment and decent work for all, including youth, women and people with disabilities,
depending on countries' levels of development. Unlike the existing MDGs, they should apply
to every country and not only be a global target without individual country responsibilities.
Each country has the responsibility to ensure progress towards internationally agreed goals.
4.1.2.
Drivers for inclusive and sustainable growth
The Commission's public consultation, as well as experience by countries that have succeeded
in pulling themselves out of poverty, demonstrate the vital role played by key drivers for
inclusive and sustainable growth, in particular in providing essential human development
services and creating growth and decent jobs. Structural transformation should be sought by
all countries in all stages of development, to allow for market-friendly, open economies that
promote inclusive and sustainable growth, improve productive capacities, promote private
sector development, investment and wealth creation, promote the transition towards the
inclusive green economy and ensure that the benefits are widely shared. Goals would help
stimulate opportunities for more inclusive and sustainable growth, supported by indicators
looking beyond GDP. Many countries would be able to use these to focus on social cohesion
as well as more sustainable agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture, to deliver better nutrition,
overcoming water scarcity and avoiding food waste. Others would deliver more resource
efficient production, economising on water and reducing and recycling waste. A goal of
moving towards sustainable, resilient cities would deliver improvements in air quality, water,
energy, accessible infrastructure, housing and transport, leading to solutions that link with
employment, health, economic development and also address climate change adaptation and
disaster prevention and preparedness. Other important drivers include sustainable energy,
science and technology, telecommunications services, financial services and infrastructure,
for example facilitating access to markets, as well as migration and mobility. All these aspects
require an enabling and stable environment for business, entrepreneurship, innovation and
productive employment to thrive.
While economic transformation is necessary, it is also a huge challenge: billions in new
investment will be needed4. However, experience in countries that have made huge strides in
providing these services to their citizens and recent global initiatives – such as Sustainable
Energy for All and Scaling Up Nutrition – have demonstrated that such an approach can
provide promising results, catalysing rapid growth and investment.
4
EN
For example, the International Energy Agency estimates that to provide sustainable energy services to
all by 2030, approximately an additional EUR 30 billion per year will need to be invested above the
business-as-usual scenario. The FAO estimates that more than USD 50 billion per year of additional
public expenditure on agriculture and safety nets would be needed to reach a world free of hunger in
2025.
9
EN
4.1.3.
Sustainable management of natural resources
Sustainable management and use of natural resources is essential to support economic growth
and employment, in particular in primary production sectors like agriculture, fisheries and
forestry or services sectors such as tourism. 70% of the world's poor live in rural areas and
depend directly on biodiversity and eco-system services for their survival and well-being,
making them more vulnerable to scarcity and climate risks. Good stewardship of natural
resources, based on transparency, accountability and good governance, is essential for poverty
eradication and developing sustainably towards an inclusive green economy. Action is needed
to promote corporate sustainability reporting, which will encourage a broad range of
businesses to engage in responsible practices. Goals to move towards a land degradationneutral world would contribute to economic growth, biodiversity protection, sustainable forest
management, climate change mitigation and adaptation and food security, while improving
soil quality, reducing erosion, building resilience to natural hazards and halting land take.
Given the global importance of oceans, protecting and restoring the health of oceans and
marine ecosystems for sustainable livelihoods goals should apply universally, helping deliver
sustainable fish stocks also with a view to food security, as well as reducing significant
hazards such as marine litter. To address these challenges, each country should steer a path to
the sustainable management of their natural resources and establish open and transparent
governance structures, to ensure that resources are used in a manner that benefits their citizens
in an equitable and sustainable way.
This requires each country to ensure that resources are used in an environmentally responsible
manner and, with respect to resources such as land, forests, rivers and oceans, so that they will
also benefit future generations. Equally, exploitation of finite resources, such as minerals and
groundwater, must be done in an inclusive and responsible manner that guarantees maximum
societal benefit, in terms of the way that they are commercialised, the rate of their depletion
and the use of the income generated. Phasing out subsidies for use of finite resources, such as
fossil fuels, is a cost-efficient key contribution, promoting resource efficiency. States should
also enhance their cooperation to manage shared resources, such as fish stocks and marine
biodiversity, in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
It will also be necessary to adopt an integrated perspective, in order to ensure that solutions to
resource constraints in one area do not place additional constraints on another. The future
agenda should commit all countries to manage and use their natural resources sustainably over
the coming decades, including such issues as transparency, maximisation of income,
protection of tenure, resilience5, including to natural disasters, and environmental protection.
The global community needs to stand together in these efforts. In particular, private and
public companies must be accountable and adhere to high standards of transparency and good
governance. A low carbon and resource efficient economy will also require actions and
training for the specific skill sets that will be needed.
4.1.4.
Equality, equity and justice
The objectives of human well-being and dignity for all are enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the Millennium Declaration, which also explicitly recognise
the links between human rights, good governance and sustainable development. This, as well
as the commitment to common fundamental values, was reaffirmed at the MDG Summit of
2010 and the Rio+20 Conference in 2012.
5
EN
COM(2012)586: The EU Approach to Resilience: Learning from Food Security Crises
10
EN
The importance of justice and equity, human rights, democracy and other aspects of good
governance goes far beyond their impact on progress towards development targets on income,
education, health and other basic needs. They are also important in their own right, in all
countries. The recent movements in North Africa and the Middle East showed the importance
of inclusive political systems, justice and jobs, particularly for young people, and highlighted
that progress on the MDGs is essential but not sufficient. Governance will remain a global
challenge for the years ahead.
It is important that the new post-2015 overarching framework captures these issues. The role
of women is particularly important in unlocking the drive for sustainable development and all
forms of barriers to equal participation need to be removed. The framework should put
particular emphasis on moving towards a rights-based approach to development, on reducing
inequalities, as well as on the promotion and protection of women's and girls' rights and
gender equality, transparency and the fight against corruption. It should also capture the
fundamental issues related to equity. To meet this challenge, goals and targets should
stimulate action needed to ensure increasing coverage by a basic set of social guarantees and
improve their implementation.
4.1.5.
Peace and security
Where there is physical insecurity, high levels of inequality, governance challenges and little
or no institutional capacity, it is extremely difficult to make sustainable progress on the key
MDG benchmarks such as poverty, health, education or sanitation. It is therefore essential to
address the root causes of such conditions and take action to prevent them from arising.
This agenda goes beyond fragile states, however, since many other countries also struggle
with issues relating to insecurity and violence. Trafficking, transnational terrorism, criminal
networks and gang violence are undermining the security of citizens and reducing the
prospects for a decent life, with women and children particularly affected.
Addressing peace and security issues in the context of the post-2015 overarching framework
should use as a starting point the work already done between some fragile states and the
OECD countries, the EU, the UN and Development Banks at Busan in November 2011. This
should build on the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States that laid out an agreed set of
Peace-building and State building Goals (PSG).
5.
TOWARDS A POST-2015 OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK
5.1.
Bringing the strands together to respond to future challenges
Poverty eradication and ensuring that prosperity and well-being are sustainable remain the
most pressing challenges for the future. To be tackled successfully, they must be tackled
together, within a new overarching framework that is universal and directly relevant to all
countries, while recognising that different countries are affected to varying degrees and that
their responses and contribution to global goals will vary. Even though many will continue to
rise above the level of extreme poverty, a strong poverty focus is needed to make this
irreversible. Unsustainable patterns of current economic development, impacting the
environment and the natural resource base, are still determined to a large extent by developed
countries, and increasingly by emerging economies, while least developed countries also feel
the impacts. Social exclusion and inequality, unemployment, precarious employment and lack
of social protection also have a direct bearing on poverty and sustainable development.
The Millennium Declaration, which remains relevant, should guide work on developing the
future framework. Building on the follow up to Rio+20, the MDG review and other relevant
international processes, the future overarching framework should set out the path for
EN
11
EN
eradicating poverty and towards achieving prosperity and well-being for all, by focusing on
the main drivers for inclusive and sustainable growth, within planetary boundaries. This
framework should therefore bring together the three dimensions of sustainable development:
economic, social, environmental. It should include responsibilities for all countries.
The underlying objective of this new overarching framework should aspire to provide for
every person, by 2030, "A Decent Life for All." This should address simultaneously the need
for poverty eradication and the universal vision of sustainable development needed to ensure
prosperity for current and future generations.
The above sections outlined how the interrelated processes at the UN level should deliver
ingredients for a common overarching framework that are needed if the objective of a Decent
Life for All is to be met. The final outcome should be based on the results of constructive
interactions with all stakeholders and among international partners. However, the EU believes
there are a number of already- identifiable general principles that should be commonly
acceptable.
5.2.
Principles for a post-2015 overarching framework
The Commission proposes that the EU pursues the following principles in its discussions on
the post-2015 framework:
5.2.1.
Scope
The framework should be universal in aspiration and coverage, with goals for all countries,
applying to all of humanity, focused on the eradication of poverty in all its dimensions,
wherever it is found, and promoting prosperity and well-being for all people, within planetary
boundaries.
•
•
•
The framework should integrate the three dimensions of sustainable development economic, social, environmental - taking into account the lessons learnt from the review
of MDGs and building on the work for elaborating the SDGs, aiming at poverty
eradication and sustainable development. Goals should constitute a floor to living
standards under which no person should fall, by 2030 at the very latest, and guide progress
towards prosperity and well-being, within planetary boundaries.
It should recognise that poverty, prosperity and well-being cannot just be seen from a
financial perspective, but are multidimensional and reflect the ability of people to grow
and develop.
The framework should cover, in an integrated fashion:
•
•
•
•
EN
basic human development (based on updated existing MDGs and also reflecting issues
such as social protection),
drivers for sustainable and inclusive growth and development that are necessary for
structural transformation of the economy, needed to ensure the creation of productive
capacities and employment and the transition to an inclusive green economy capable of
addressing climate challenges, and
the sustainable management of natural resources .
The framework should also address justice, equality and equity, capturing issues relating
to human rights, democracy and the rule of law, as well as the empowerment of women
and gender equality, which are vital for inclusive and sustainable development, as well as
important values in their own right. It should also address peace and security, building on
the existing work on Peace Building and State Building Goals.
12
EN
5.2.2.
•
•
Goals should be limited in number and apply universally to all countries, but should have
targets respecting different contexts. In order to ensure ownership and relevance, the goals
should be tailored and made operational at the national level. Special consideration should
be given to the needs of fragile states.
Goals should be elaborated in a way that takes into account the scientific and research
evidence base and related targets and indicators should be measurable.
5.2.3.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Transparency, implementation and accountability
The responsibility for achieving the desired outcomes is first and foremost national. The
mobilisation of all resources is needed, domestic and international, private and public.
Financing and other means of implementation should be addressed in a comprehensive
and integrated manner, given that the potential sources for implementing various global
goals are the same.
The framework should be developed and implemented in close partnership with civil
society stakeholders, including the private sector.
A time frame should be set to start acting at all levels in order to achieve the goals. This
could have a vision towards 2050 with goals and targets for 2030.
The framework should be based on the individual responsibility of countries to take
action, coupled with partnership between all countries and stakeholders. Goals should
provide incentives for cooperation and partnerships among governments, civil society,
including the private sector, and the global community at large. All countries should
contribute their fair share towards reaching the goals. Goals should also induce stronger
accountability.
The development of the framework should be accompanied by efforts to enhance
coherence at the institutional level.
To allow good monitoring of progress, the statistical base should be strengthened.
5.2.4.
•
Nature and number of goals
Coherence
The framework should be coherent with existing internationally-agreed goals and targets,
such as on climate change, biodiversity, disaster risk reduction, and social protection
floors.
5.3.
Implementing the framework: country ownership and accountability
The responsibility for implementing the future framework lies within each country itself,
involving all relevant stakeholders, including social partners. The main drivers for
development are first and foremost domestic, notably including democratic governance, the
rule of law, stable political institutions, sound policies, transparency of public finances and
the fight against fraud and corruption. Domestic resource mobilisation, legal and fiscal
regulations and institutions supporting the development of the private sector, investment,
decent job creation and export competitiveness are essential to make the ambition achievable
for all countries. In this context, domestic reforms are crucial to make economic growth
sustainable and make it work effectively for poverty eradication, decreased inequalities and
improved well-being for all. This is true for all countries, at all levels of development.
Nevertheless, the EU recognises that some countries will continue to need support, including
development assistance. In this context, more efficient and effective methods of investing
development aid are emerging, ensuring that aid acts as a catalyst for development, leveraging
investment, including through innovative financial sources, instruments and mechanisms,
such as blending. This updated approach was adopted in the EU's "Agenda for Change."
EN
13
EN
South-South cooperation can make substantial contributions to shaping global development
outcomes. The principles of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation,
agreed at the Busan High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in 2011, should be applied
universally.
Beyond aid, Policy Coherence for Development plays a major role in eliminating poverty and
achieving sustainable development. Strong consideration of the role of these policies should
therefore be given due place in the future framework. For example, in many developing
countries, the income available from trade has greatly increased and can be used to fight
poverty. This trend is set to continue in many developing countries and is especially important
in sub-Saharan Africa.
To be achievable, the overarching framework should be accompanied by an effort to ensure
that all resources are mobilised and harnessed effectively, alongside a commitment by all
countries to pursue a comprehensive approach to these resources and coherent and appropriate
policies. Goals and targets will contribute to stimulating private sector investment. All
countries should report on progress towards achieving future goals in an open and transparent
manner.
The EU should promote a comprehensive and integrated approach to the means of
implementation including financing issues at the global level. At present, financing
discussions related to climate, biodiversity, development and sustainable development are
taking place in different fora, even though the potential financing sources are the same. There
is a strong need to ensure coherence and coordination and avoid a duplication of efforts with
regard to the financing for development process. In mid-2013, the Commission plans to
present a Communication proposing an integrated EU approach to financing and other means
of implementation related to the various global processes.
6.
NEXT STEPS
The EU needs to engage fully in the forthcoming international processes with coherent and
coordinated inputs at the UN and in other relevant fora.
In this respect, the adoption of this Communication should be followed by a debate with
Council and Parliament during the spring of 2013 for the development of a common EU
approach for the next stages of the ongoing processes, which should:
•
•
ensure a comprehensive follow up to Rio+20 and guide the EU position at the UN Open
Working Group (OWG) on SDGs, which will report regularly to the UNGA; and
contribute to the preparation of the UN General Assembly Special Event on the MDGs in
autumn 2013, including the report of the Secretary-General and the UN High Level Panel
on post-2015, as well as the first meeting of the HLPF.
The EU should support moving towards a post-2015 overarching framework. Discussion on
the basis of the orientations set out above should make it possible for the EU to come to a
common position on how the SDGs and the MDG review processes should best be converged
and integrated into a single process to better deliver such a comprehensive framework. In this
respect, the EU should also actively seek a constructive dialogue with all partners and
stakeholders, in order to build common ground, including through political dialogues with
third countries.
EN
14
EN
ANNEX I
Main current and forthcoming actions in the EU and internationally that contribute to
the implementation of Rio+20
Area
EU
International
Water and sanitation
Improve water efficiency and quality
through EU Water Blueprint
In line with the Agenda for Change and
international commitments, promote
improved access to drinking water and
sanitation facilities, improved water
quality and reduced pollution; as well
as facilitation of political dialogue for
shared
water
resources
and
implementation of water activities for
economic and sustainable growth
Energy, climate
Improve efficiency and share of
renewables and reduce greenhouse
gases through:
Promote international climate action
through the Durban Platform and
UNFCCC
- climate and energy package and low
carbon roadmap for 2050
International Partnership on Mitigation,
and the International Cooperative
Initiatives (ICIs)
- 2030 climate and energy policy
- energy efficiency directive
IRENA:
global
renewable energy
- ongoing legislative proposals on
emissions from cars and vans, as well
as fluorinated GHG reduction
GEEREF: Global Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy Fund
Global climate
(GCCA)
deployment
change
of
alliance
Sustainable Energy for All Initiative
(SE4ALL)
ACP-EU Energy Facility and the
Africa-EU
Renewable
Energy
Cooperation Programme (RECP)
Biodiversity,
land
forests,
EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020,
work on biodiversity valuation and
ecosystem services
Forest Action Plan; review of Forestry
Strategy
Preparation
Land
Communication
as
Resource
Digital Observatory for Protected
Areas as a component of the Global
Earth Observation System of System of
Systems (GEOSS)
CBD Strategic Plan and the 20 Aichi
Targets
Support the Economics of Ecosystems
and Biodiversity (TEEB) and Wealth
Accounting
and
Valuation
of
Ecosystem Services (WAVES)
Implement the Environment and
Natural
Resources
Thematic
Programme (ENRTP)
Expand and implement Forest Law
Enforcement, Governance and Trade
initiative (FLEGT) and contribution to
UN-REDD+
Possibility of protocol under UNCCD,
declaring the EU as an Affected Party
Global Soil Partnership (with FAO)
Compilation of a New World Atlas of
Desertification with UNEP
EN
15
EN
Marine Strategy Framework; Integrated
Maritime Policy, Marine Litter and
Plastic Waste
Oceans
Common Fisheries Policy: maximum
sustainable yield, science based
management plans, discards.
Observation and modelling of marine
and coastal ecosystems
Waste, chemicals
Food,
agriculture
nutrition,
Regional sea conventions
UNCLOS Implementing agreement for
the conservation and sustainable use of
marine biodiversity in areas beyond
national jurisdiction
Illegal, unreported and unregulated
fishing
Follow up to Honolulu commitment on
marine litter
Resource Efficiency roadmap and EU
waste
legislation,
REACH
implementation
Diffusion of international
policies (WEEE, RoHs)
Preparation of Communication
Sustainable Food
on
Contribution to the Agricultural Market
Information System (AMIS)
Implement Markets in Financial
Instruments (MIFID) and Market
Abuse Directive (MAD)
Implementation of the Monitoring
Agricultural Resources (MARS) and
GEO-GLAM (Earth Observation)
Proposals on the reform of the
Common Agriculture Policy, including
promoting sustainable agricultural
production, addressing production
capacity and climate change.
Implementation
of
Voluntary
Guidelines on the Responsible
Governance of Land, Fisheries and
Forests
The European Innovation Partnership
"Agricultural
Productivity
and
Sustainability"
Organic food labelling
waste
Implement Basel, Stockholm and
Rotterdam Conventions, and SAICM
(Strategic Approach to International
Chemicals Management)
EU
Food
Security
Thematic
Programme Instrument (FSTP);
Implement
forthcoming
EU
Implementation plan Boosting food
and nutrition security through EU
action: implementing our commitments
Preparation
Nutrition
of
Preparation
Resilience
of
Communication
Action
Plan
on
on
Scaling-up
Nutrition
(SUN)
Movement; New Alliance for Food
Security and Nutrition
Implementation of the Food Assistance
Convention
Taxes, subsidies
Implement relevant actions
Resource Efficiency Roadmap
from
Follow up on subsidy reform through
G20
Clean industry and life
cycle accounting
Implement EU 2020 Industrial policy:
clean technology, bio economy
International Life-Cycle Data (ILCD)
Network
Preparation of Communication
Single Market for Green Products
on
European Life Cycle Database
EN
16
EN
Sustainable
consumption and
production and Green
public procurement
Revised
Procurement
including GPP
Directive,
Adopt the European Accessibility Act
Contribution to UNEP Sustainable
Public Procurement Initiative
Contribution to the implementation of
the 10 Year Framework Programme on
Sustainable
Consumption
and
Production
Implement the Communication the EU
approach to resilience: Learning from
Food Crises on Resilience, and
forthcoming Action Plan.
Resilience
Implement the SHARE and AGIR
initiatives.
Promotion of resilience in international
fora and as theme in partnerships with
organisations such as FAO, IFAD and
WFP, UNISDR, the World Bank, and
civil society organisations
Disaster risk
management
Implement EU disaster prevention
framework
Integration of disaster risk management
(prevention preparedness, response)
and disaster risk assessment in EU and
MS planning
European Flood Awareness System,
European Drought Observatory
Promote disaster proofing in EU
funding instruments
Cities, tourism,
transport
Enhance sustainability of EU cities as
part of the 7th EAP
Implementation
of
the
Hyogo
Framework for Action and elaboration
of a follow-up framework for disaster
risk reduction after 2015
Focus on main priorities outlined in the
EUs
disaster
risk
reduction
implementation plan
Support international initiatives such as
the World Bank-managed global
facility for disaster risk reduction
(GFDRR)
Promote sustainable,
accessible cities
resilient
and
Implement
actions
to
promote
sustainable and accessible tourism
EU Road Safety, Clean Fuels
Directive, promotion of affordable,
sustainable transport
Full and productive
employment and decent
work
Europe 2020: Employment Guidelines,
Joint Employment Reports, National
Reform
Programmes,
Youth
Employment package, Employment
and Social Developments in Europe
Review
Promote international labour standards,
through international organisations (in
particular the ILO) in the EU's bilateral
relations, as well as through
development and trade policies
Follow-up to the 2012 International
Labour Conference Resolution and
G20 youth employment strategy
Implementation of the thematic
programme Investing in People
Synergies with relevant EU thematic
programmes, such as Non State Actors
EN
17
EN
in Development, Migration
Asylum and Democratisation
Human Rights
Social protection, social
inclusion and
eradicating poverty
Promote the reduction of poverty,
social exclusion and more effective
social policies through Europe 2020
Assist Member States in structural
reforms through the Social Investment
Package
and
and
Promote social protection including
Social Protection Floors (SPFs) and
implement recommendations adopted
by the ILO in line with the plans and
policies of partner countries;
The European Platform against Poverty
and Social Exclusion: A European
framework for social and territorial
cohesion
Continue to support social protection,
including SPFs where relevant in
bilateral
relations
with
partner
countries, at international fora (ILO,
OECD, G20 and ASEM) and in
development cooperation.
The European
2010-2020
Implement
actions
of
the
Communication on Social Protection in
European
Union
Development
Cooperation
Disability
Strategy
Mainstreaming of the rights of the
child and indigenous peoples’ rights,
social inclusion and the rights of
persons with disabilities in EU
development policies
Implement the UN Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Corporate Social
Responsibility
Health
Implement Actions
Social Responsibility
on
Corporate
EU Health Strategy
Contribute to international CSR
guidance documents for business and
SMEs (incl. ILO, OECD) and to UN
guidelines
Implement Communication on the EU
Role in Global Health
European Health Indicators
Communication
on
Combating
HIV/AIDS in the European Union and
neighbouring countries
Strengthening of health systems,
improved health security and policy
coherence
through
geographic
instruments and thematic programmes
for better health outcomes and reduced
health inequalities.
Support to the Global Fund to Fight
Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the
GAVI Alliance and the Global
Programme to Enhance Reproductive
Health Commodity Security
European
Systems
Observatory
on
Health
Develop wellbeing indicators as part of
the Health2020 strategy
Education
Strategic framework for European
cooperation in education and training
Education and training in the
implementation of the Europe 2020
strategy.
EN
18
Promote quality education for all
through the Commission's geographic
and thematic programmes
Implementation of the Commission's
international co-operation programmes
EN
Gender equality and
women’s empowerment
European cooperation on schools for
the 21st century
in higher education and training
Mainstreaming of gender equality and
women’s rights through the EU Gender
Action Plan 2010-2015
Mainstream gender equality and the
empowerment of women in EU
development policies; implement the
2010-2015 EU Gender Action Plan in
development cooperation; contribution
to the UN programme increasing
accountability on financing for gender
equality
Follow up to Beijing Platform for
Action
Support global initiatives, such as
Global Partnership for Education and
policy dialogues such as Association
for the Development of Education in
Africa
Implement actions for women’s
economic empowerment through the
Investment in People programme
Implement
Actions
in
the
Communication Social Protection in
European
Union
Development
Cooperation
Justice, Human Rights,
fundamental freedoms,
democracy,
good
governance and the rule
of law
EU Charter on Fundamental Rights
Implement the Aarhus Convention
Implement actions set out in the
Communications on: EU Support for
Sustainable Change in Transition
Societies; Increase the impact of EU
Development Policy and the EU
Strategic Framework and Action Plan
on Human Rights and Democracy
Implement the EU DCI programme
Non-state Actors and Local Authorities
in Development
Promote application of Aarhus in
financial institutions, development
cooperation, trade agreements
Science, technology,
research and
innovation
Implementation of Horizon 2020
providing research support in areas
such as water, energy, agriculture,
transport, environment, social sciences.
Sustainable development will be an
overarching objective of Horizon
2020 with at least 60% of total
budget relating to this theme.
Enhance EU international cooperation
in research and innovation.
Contribute to the Global Earth
Observation System of System of
Systems (GEOSS)
Research under the Food Security
Thematic Programme (2011-2013) and
the Africa-EU Partnership
Implement EU 2020 Innovation Union
and Eco-innovation Action Plan
Statistics
EN
Further development of indicators on
GDP and beyond, advice on statistics
for overarching framework.
19
Cooperate
with
international
organisations and third countries, under
the lead of the UNSC, to improve
measurement of progress and ensure
comparability
EN
Negotiate and implement provisions on
trade and sustainable development in
trade agreements; promote elimination
of tariffs and non-tariff barriers on
environmental goods and services at all
levels
Trade
Continue to support “Everything But
Arms” initiative
Provide continued support to Aid for
Trade
EN
20
EN
ANNEX II
Public Consultation
The Commission held a public consultation6 in the summer of 2012. Around 120
organisations and individuals from public authorities and civil society, including the private
sector and academia, contributed. The consultation revealed a consensus that the MDGs have
rallied many and different actors behind the same development objectives and that the MDGs
have been valuable in raising public awareness, increasing political will and mobilising
resources to eradicate poverty, as well as being powerful monitoring tools.
Looking forward, some common views on future priorities emerged:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Focus on poverty within a wider and more comprehensive and sustainable vision of
development;
Integrate the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social and
environmental);
Ensure that the process of developing the post-2015 framework is inclusive, with strong
involvement from poor countries and civil society;
Design a universal framework, relevant for all countries and with responsibilities for all;
Foster the drivers for economic growth and job creation including by engaging with the
private sector;
Improve development financing and policy coherence for development.
Furthermore, the Commission launched a public consultation7 in October 2012 on Rio+20
follow up. The EESC supported feedback through a series of structured dialogues. Over 125
responses to the public consultation were received from individuals, public authorities,
businesses and business associations, NGOs, trade unions and consumer protection groups.
Based on this, a number of suggestions have been taken into account. A large number of
replies highlighted issues related to the inclusive green economy, in particular pointing to the
need for indicators beyond GDP, while others pointed out the need for a favourable trade
environment, eliminating environmentally harmful subsidies and environmental taxes.
The areas for possible SDGs mentioned by respondents included resource and energy
efficiency, waste and chemicals, biodiversity, sustainable consumption and production, water
and sanitation, protection of oceans and fisheries, sustainable transport, sustainable
agriculture, gender equality, poverty eradication, climate change and adaptation, health and
food security. Respondents also underlined the importance of clear and long-term targets on
making use of exiting targets and agreements. On the relationship between SDGs and MDGs,
there was consensus that one post-2015 development framework should be created that would
cover both.
An outreach exercise was also carried out through EU Delegations in third countries. More
than 50 responses were received from countries. Most countries indicated the need for a
coherent and coordinated way of bringing together the MDGs and SDGs.
Related consultations include those which took place on the Resource Efficiency roadmap and
the consultation on the 7th Environmental Action Programme. The Commission has widely
engaged with civil society, including by undertaking a public consultation prior to Rio+20,
and civil society also made important inputs during the conference itself.
6
7
EN
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/public-consultations/towards_post-2015-developmentframework_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/rio20_en.htm
21
EN
Aan de Voorzitter van de
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
Binnenhof 4
Den Haag
Directie Multilaterale
Instellingen en
Mensenrechten
Bezuidenhoutseweg 67
2594 AC Den Haag
Postbus 20061
Nederland
www.rijksoverheid.nl
Contactpersoon
Anne Poorta
T +31-70-3485428
F +31-70-3486167
anne.poorta@minbuza.nl
Datum 22 januari 2013
Betreft De Nederlandse inzet in de post-2015 ontwikkelingsagenda
Onze Referentie
DMM/SE-003/2013
Geachte Voorzitter,
Hierbij stuur ik u de Nederlandse visie op de ontwikkelingsagenda na de
Millennium Ontwikkelingsdoelen (MDGs) die in 2015 aflopen. In de Kabinetsreactie
van 1 november 2011 op het AIV-advies ‘Ontwikkelingsagenda na 2015’ werd een
dergelijke visie toegezegd. Op 28 september 2012 ontving u de Nederlandse
bijdrage aan de publieke consultaties van de Europese Commissie over dit
onderwerp. Hieronder volgt de stand van zaken m.b.t. de Millenniumdoelen en de
internationale discussie over de post-2015 ontwikkelingsagenda, evenals de
Nederlandse inzet op hoofdlijnen. Zoals toegezegd tijdens het Wetgevingsoverleg
op 17 december jl. ontvangt u in maart de beleidsnota Handel en
Ontwikkelingssamenwerking. Op basis hiervan volgt in de loop van het jaar een
uitgewerkte Nederlandse visie op de post-2015 ontwikkelingsagenda, na nadere
consultatie van onder andere het Nederlandse maatschappelijk middenveld. De
regering zal uw Kamer daarnaast op de hoogte houden van relevante
ontwikkelingen in deze.
1. Het succes van de Millenniumdoelen
In 2015 lopen de Millenniumdoelen (MDGs) ten einde. Deze doelen werden
geformuleerd op basis van de Millennium Verklaring van de Verenigde Naties
(2000). De MDGs bleken een succes. Ze vestigden de aandacht op bestrijding van
moedersterfte, kindersterfte, HIV-AIDS en verbetering van onderwijs en
gezondheidszorg. Zoals voormalig Secretaris-Generaal van de Verenigde Naties
Kofi Annan recent schreef: “de MDGs plaatsten mensen onherroepelijk in het
middelpunt van ontwikkeling”. De MDGs stelden zowel overheden als bedrijven,
maatschappelijk middenveld en burgers in staat concreet bij te dragen aan
ontwikkelingsinspanningen. Er werd dan ook veel vooruitgang geboekt:

Vier belangrijke subdoelstellingen – halvering van inkomensarmoede,
gelijke aantallen jongens en meisjes op de basisschool, verbetering van
toegang tot water en verbeterde leefomstandigheden in sloppenwijken –,
zijn op mondiaal niveau drie jaar voor het einddoel al gehaald.

Het percentage mensen dat leeft van minder dan $1,25 per dag daalde
wereldwijd van 47 procent in 1990 tot 24 procent in 2008 en zal naar
verwachting nog verder dalen in de komende drie jaar.1
1
Verenigde Naties, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012
Pagina 1 van 5


Het aantal nieuwe HIV infecties daalde sterk in Afrika en het aantal
malariagevallen is met de helft teruggebracht in landen waar de ziekte
veel voorkwam, zoals Rwanda en Zambia.
Doelen op het terrein van halvering van ondervoeding, universeel
basisonderwijs en verminderen van kindersterfte zijn met extra
inspanningen haalbaar in 2015.
Directie Multilaterale
Instellingen en
Mensenrechten
Onze Referentie
DMM/SE-003/2013
Wereldwijd hebben de Millenniumdoelen de levens van miljoenen mensen
verbeterd. Toch zijn in 2015 waarschijnlijk niet alle doelen gerealiseerd,
bijvoorbeeld op het terrein van moedersterfte en toegang van vrouwen en meisjes
tot reproductieve gezondheidsvoorzieningen. Er zijn grote verschillen in de
geboekte voortgang tussen en binnen landen. Vooral landen in conflict blijven
achter.
2. Hoe verder na 2015
Na de MDGs blijft een aanzienlijke uitdaging over op cruciale thema's als
armoede, duurzaamheid, veiligheid, gender en rechten. Daarbij is sprake van
veranderende verhoudingen: in de groep van arme landen is sprake van grote
vooruitgang in sommige landen, maar landen in conflict blijven achter. Nieuwe
partnerschappen tussen overheden, internationale organisaties, maatschappelijk
middenveld en bedrijfsleven zijn noodzakelijk geworden. Met andere woorden:
zowel de internationale agenda als de uitvoering zijn toe aan verandering.
De Secretaris-Generaal van de Verenigde Naties (SGVN) is tijdens de
Millenniumdoelentop in 2010 gevraagd met aanbevelingen te komen voor de
mondiale ontwikkelingsagenda na 2015. In juli jl. benoemde hij het High-Level
Panel on the Post 2015 Development Agenda, dat in mei 2013 een advies zal
uitbrengen. De covoorzitters van het panel van 27 leden zijn de Presidenten van
Indonesië en Liberia en de Minister-President van het Verenigd Koninkrijk. De
regering is verheugd over de benoeming van de Nederlander Paul Polman, Chief
Executive Officer van Unilever, als één van de twee vertegenwoordigers van het
bedrijfsleven in het Panel.
Het High-Level Panel is internationaal tot medio 2013 het belangrijkste forum voor
discussies rond de post-2015 ontwikkelingsagenda. De regering merkt op dat het
Panel pas onlangs met zijn werkzaamheden is begonnen en dat veel ideeën nog in
ontwikkeling zijn. Na publicatie van het adviesrapport van het High-Level Panel
volgt tijdens de 68e Algemene Vergadering van de Verenigde Naties in september
2013 een top, waarop de voortgang van de Millenniumdoelen en het nieuwe
raamwerk worden besproken. Naar verwachting wordt op deze top besloten hoe
de internationale onderhandelingen over het nieuwe raamwerk na 2015 gaan
verlopen.
Parallel aan de panelbijeenkomsten coördineert de VN elf thematische consultaties
en een reeks van nationale en regionale consultaties om verschillende
stakeholders te betrekken bij het proces, input te krijgen en draagvlak te creëren.
Bij de Rio+20 duurzame ontwikkelingsconferentie in juni jl. werd een
intergouvernementele werkgroep opgericht, die tijdens de 68e Algemene
Vergadering van de VN met een voorstel voor duurzame ontwikkelingsdoelen
(SDGs) zal komen. De werkgroep gaat begin 2013 van start. Het Rio+20
slotdocument stelt dat de duurzame ontwikkelingsdoelen coherent met en
geïntegreerd in de post-2015 ontwikkelingsagenda moeten worden. Het
Pagina 2 van 5
slotdocument stelt ook dat deze doelen universeel toepasbaar moeten zijn op alle
landen. Nederland steunt het samenbrengen van de twee agenda’s sterk, maar dit
is inhoudelijk en procesmatig een uitdaging.
3. De Nederlandse inzet
Nederland doet actief mee in internationale discussies over een post-2015
raamwerk voor ontwikkeling. Tijdens de intergouvernementele onderhandelingen
over de nieuwe ontwikkelingsagenda wil Nederland zo veel mogelijk samen met
de EU-lidstaten opereren. Op dit moment bereidt de Europese Commissie een
eerste positiedocument voor, waarbij de Europese inzet op terrein van de post2015 ontwikkelingsagenda en de duurzame ontwikkelingsdoelen gecombineerd
worden. Dit document zal als basis dienen voor discussie tijdens de informele
Raad Buitenlandse Zaken / Ontwikkelingssamenwerking van 12 februari 2013. De
Europese Commissie zal vervolgens in de eerste helft van 2013 met een
mededeling komen over de post-2015 ontwikkelingsagenda.
Directie Multilaterale
Instellingen en
Mensenrechten
Onze Referentie
DMM/SE-003/2013
Nederland zal ook deelnemen aan de intergouvernementele VN-werkgroep over
duurzame ontwikkelingsdoelen (SDGs). Ook geeft Nederland financiële steun aan
het secretariaat van het High-Level Panel en financiert en faciliteert het
thematische VN-consultaties op het gebied van water.
Inhoudelijk wordt de Nederlandse inzet bepaald door het algemene Kabinetsbeleid
op het terrein van ontwikkelingssamenwerking, met bijzondere aandacht voor de
prioriteiten (watermanagement, voedselzekerheid, veiligheid en rechtsorde,
seksuele en reproductieve gezondheid en rechten) en doorsnijdende thema’s
(gender, duurzaamheid en goed bestuur). De Nederlandse inzet wordt mede
gebaseerd op nieuw beleid op het gebied van internationale samenwerking op de
middellange termijn, dat ik voornemens ben dit jaar verder te ontwikkelen. Uw
Kamer zal hierover nog nader worden geïnformeerd. Het betreft vier sporen:
(1) Verdieping door de directe armoedebestrijding,
(2) Verbreding door grotere inzet op mondiale publieke goederen,
(3) Versterking van de economische samenwerking met ontwikkelingslanden, en
(4) Bevordering van buitenlandse handel.
Binnen deze kaders wordt ten aanzien van het post-2015 raamwerk vooral ingezet
op de volgende aspecten:
a. Armoedebestrijding: Nederland wil dat een hoofddoel van het nieuwe
raamwerk het uitbannen van extreme armoede en honger binnen één generatie
wordt (getting to zero). Een bestaansminimum waaronder geen mens zou moeten
vallen (social protection floor), biedt een geschikt kader voor het uitbannen van
extreme armoede. Dit kader wordt uitgewerkt in een multidimensionaal
armoedeconcept dat niet alleen naar inkomensarmoede kijkt, maar ook naar
toegang tot sociale diensten, gelijkheid en gelijke verdeling. De Millenniumdoelen
zijn bijzonder effectief gebleken als communicatiemiddel in het mobiliseren van
politiek draagvlak en middelen. Een nieuw raamwerk moet hier wat Nederland
betreft op voortbouwen en de eenvoud en helderheid van de Millenniumdoelen
bewaren.
b. Duurzaamheid en bescherming van mondiale publieke goederen: Deze
zijn integraal onderdeel van armoedebestrijding. Er moet één enkel raamwerk na
2015 komen, dat zowel de vernieuwde ontwikkelingsagenda als de in Rio
aangekondigde duurzame ontwikkelingsdoelen (SDGs) omvat. Het raamwerk dient
Pagina 3 van 5
een balans te vinden tussen de drie dimensies van duurzame ontwikkeling
(sociaal, economisch, milieu). Het nieuwe raamwerk moet alle landen er toe
aanzetten een nationale duurzaamheidsstrategie uit te werken, met aandacht voor
duurzame productie- en consumptiepatronen en internationale publieke goederen.
Sociaaleconomische ontwikkeling is immers begrensd door de beschikbaarheid van
natuurlijke hulpbronnen op onze planeet (planetary boundaries).
Directie Multilaterale
Instellingen en
Mensenrechten
Onze Referentie
DMM/SE-003/2013
c. Vrede en veiligheid: Ook dit thema moet een plaats een plaats krijgen
binnen het nieuwe raamwerk. In fragiele staten en landen in conflict werd tot nu
toe geen (enkel) Millenniumdoel behaald. “Vrede en veiligheid” is een belangrijke
aanvulling op de MDGs en de drie dimensies van duurzame ontwikkeling. Hierbij
wil Nederland aansluiten bij eerdere voortgang op dit terrein voortkomend uit het
Busan-proces, waar onder co-voorzitterschap van Nederland de ‘New Deal’ voor
fragiele staten werd afgesproken met de nadruk op veiligheid, gerechtigheid en
het scheppen van werkgelegenheid.
d. Gender, seksuele en reproductieve rechten en gezondheid: Deze tot nog
toe onderbelichte thema’s moeten een prominente plek in het raamwerk krijgen.
Terwijl steeds duidelijker wordt dat deze thema's cruciaal zijn voor mensenrechten
en ontwikkeling, is op deze gebieden sprake van schrijnende achterstand.
Internationaal liggen deze thema’s vaak gevoelig en daarom bestaat het risico dat
ze onderbelicht blijven.
e. Internationale samenwerking, vernieuwing ODA: Vanuit de gedachte van
gelijkwaardig partnerschap en gedeelde verantwoordelijkheid, moeten landen zich
verplichten om specifieke ontwikkelingsinspanningen te vergezellen met coherent
beleid op andere terreinen zoals handel, landbouw, (arbeids-)migratie, milieu en
financiële regulering. Daarbij is het uitgangspunt dat beleid op andere terreinen
tenminste ontwikkelingsinspanningen niet mag schaden. Hier ligt een rol voor het
Ontwikkelingscomité van de OESO (DAC) om meetbare indicatoren te
ontwikkelen. Ook moet er op een bredere, modernere wijze gekeken worden naar
de financiering van ontwikkeling. Daarbij staan de rol en definitie van Official
Development Assistance (ODA) ter discussie. De toekomstige ODA-definitie dient
innovatieve financieringsvormen te omarmen. ODA kan immers als hefboom
dienen voor andere geldstromen. Een positieve stap is dat de High-Level
vergadering van de OESO/DAC in Londen op 5 december jl. heeft besloten om in
de aanloop naar 2015 de ODA-definitie tegen het licht te houden.
f. Proces: Nederland is voorstander van een inclusief en breed gedragen proces
voor de totstandkoming van het nieuwe raamwerk na 2015. Dat de MDGs destijds
zonder brede inspraak zijn opgesteld, was immers één van de kritiekpunten.
Ontwikkelingslanden en opkomende economieën moeten het voortouw nemen in
de agendering van hun prioriteiten. Er moet wereldwijd gelegenheid zijn voor
inspraak door individuen, het maatschappelijk middenveld, experts, academici en
de private sector. Deze kunnen een belangrijke rol spelen, zowel inhoudelijk als
bij het mobiliseren van draagvlak en bij de uitvoering van een nieuw raamwerk.
De Minister voor Buitenlandse Handel
en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking,
Lilianne Ploumen
Pagina 4 van 5
Directie Multilaterale
Instellingen en
Mensenrechten
Onze Referentie
DMM/SE-003/2013
Pagina 5 van 5
European View
DOI 10.1007/s12290-012-0229-z
ARTICLE
The EU in 2030: a long-term view
of Europe in a changing world:
keeping the values, changing
the attitudes
Margaritis Schinas
Centre for European Studies 2012
Abstract Predicting future scenarios in EU politics is an important exercise that
allows policymakers to plan for future generations and scarce resources. The EU
has commenced this work through the ESPAS report Global Trends 2030—Citizens in an Interconnected and Polycentric World. This article surveys the challenges and opportunities identified in the report: the rise of a global middle
class, the emergence of a multipolar world, the diffusion of power from the
nation state to non-state actors, the paradoxical ‘less poverty but more new
poor’ and growing pressure for as well as growing resistance to global governance. Europe’s future success will depend on its ability to address the challenges of prosperity, democracy, demography, fairness and security in the next
20 years. Europe must ‘keep the values, but change the attitude’, while reevaluating the role of the state to create a more democratic EU that can act as a
broker between world powers.
Keywords Future scenarios Big picture ESPAS Report ‘Global Trends 2030’ Global middle class The next 20 years ‘Keep the values, but change the
attitude’
Introduction
How will the world look in 20 years? What will Europe’s place be in a world
shaped by unprecedented change?
M. Schinas (&)
Bureau of European Policy Advisors, Rue de la Loi 200, 1040 Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: margaritis.schinas@ec.europe.eu
123
The nineteenth-century Danish physicist Niels Bohr, Winston Churchill, Albert
Einstein and Bernard Shaw all claim rights to the now-famous maxim ‘It is
difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.’ If this assumption was
valid back in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it is more so in our age,
which is characterised by uncertainty, seemingly endless crises, technological
change and the globalisation of economic and media markets. A business
analyst was quoted recently in the social media as saying, ‘Nowadays, you can
predict the future in three steps. First: know the facts; second: understand your
space; and third: cross your fingers, because steps one and two don’t work!’
In fact, looking for reliable future scenarios in times of uncertainty and crisis is
a complex—yet not futile—exercise. It helps policymakers consider the big
picture, and it broadens the policy landscape to care for new generations, to
plan for scarce resources and ultimately to resist the temptation of considering
day-to-day problems as the safest tool for policy planning.
When it comes to forward-looking studies in modern European politics,
doomsayers still dominate the debate, as the intellectual appeal of pessimism
often seems more attractive and devoid of facts; the (few) sober analysts, opting
for a more rational (and often optimistic) view of things to come, find
themselves under tremendous scrutiny to prove their case. Somehow, for
someone to say, ‘Europe is declining, its economy will not recover and
Europeans will become irrelevant’ sounds more convincing than to claim that
‘Europe will rise again and come out stronger from the crisis.’ The former
assumption is accepted as a fact, while the latter needs to be proved and
documented.
This article, attempting to scan the world and the European horizon 20 years
from now, is therefore a delicate intellectual endeavour, one that will require
both a base of evidence and sufficient analytical tools. Emerging trends, already
visible around us, will also be a necessary—but certainly not sufficient—means
to look deep into the crystal ball. Rather than accurately predicting Europe’s
outlook by 2030, the aim of this article is to indicate the key determinants for its
future success or failure.
Establishing a methodology
Where to start? First, by identifying the major global trends likely to shape our
world in the next 20 years. Many states1 and individual researchers, think tanks
and research institutes2 have successfully launched such a process and are
already harvesting the first results.
Since 2010, the EU has engaged in a similar project (the European Strategy
and Policy System, or ESPAS), bringing together all institutions in its first serious
attempt to implement a comprehensive foresight activity. The first report has
1
2
Notably the US, Russia, Singapore, the UK and France.
For example, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, Centre for Security Strategy, Institute for Security
Studies and Centre d’E´tudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales.
European View
already been published (ESPAS 2012), shedding light on the basic components
of a future interconnected and polycentric world (see also the next section of
this article). Work is still ongoing, with a view to putting in place a permanent
inter-institutional system at EU level for forward-looking studies and policy
planning by 2014.
Second, once future trends are identified and properly analysed, a convincing
methodology should be tailored to promote understanding of emerging
challenges. For example, what will it mean, in practice, for Europe and the
world to have a globally emerging middle class? Will this trend bring more or
less friction and conflict?
The next logical, third step of the proposed methodology will be crucial to
allow for educated guesses and informed conclusions: it will consist of raising
the right questions about the best way to seize future opportunities and
minimise emerging risks.
To sum up, the methodology will be grounded in the logical sequence of
trends—challenges—opportunities/risks. After all, since the time of antiquity,
even the Priestess of the Oracle of Delphi herself could not foretell the future
without some help; in her case, it was the steamy spring water and the
hallucinatory herbs around the temple of Apollo that provided the methodology. Nowadays, even doomsayers will concede that a robust methodology is a
sine qua non condition for attempting any rational prediction.
Global trends 2030: towards an interconnected and polycentric world
All major forward-looking studies have found converging evidence on the global
trends likely to shape the world by 2030. Mapping out these strong currents of
influence leads to a surprisingly clear common denominator: a multipolar,
interconnected world with many more middle powers and empowered citizens
competing for influence and scarce resources. The emerging global trends
leading to such an outcome can be identified individually as follows:
•
•
3
The rise of a global middle class.3 Though the change may be geographically
uneven, the rise of the middle class will most likely lead to a sense of global
citizenship. Obviously, the biggest share of the rising global middle class will
be in India and China, thus contributing to more harmonised consumption
patterns and interdependence of cultural values.
The emergence of a multipolar world with fewer hegemonic powers or
superstates and many more middle powers claiming their share of influence in
global affairs. It is more likely that there will be an evolution from today’s G7/
G20 to tomorrow’s G50 framework rather than a consolidation towards a G2
arrangement. Countries like South Korea, Turkey, Mexico, Nigeria, Egypt and
(why not?) Iraq will enhance the spectrum of emerging actors currently
occupied by the BRIC countries.
For a definition of ‘middle class’, see ESPAS (2012, 28 n. 2).
123
•
•
•
The steady diffusion of power from the nation state to a polycentric web of hubs
of influence such as regions, megacities, networks of like-minded citizens and
civil society. The Tea Party and the Indignados movements are early signs of
this trend, which would entail dangers of fragmentation but at the same time
could also fertilise policymaking with novel ideas.
The somewhat paradoxical future tendency of ‘less poverty but more new poor’.
The decrease of abject poverty in Africa, Asia and Latin America will not
necessarily diminish the number of ‘new poor’ resulting from economic
policies, weak and unequal education systems and the migration of cheap
labour towards or around megacities. The increasing scarcity of resources
(unless redressed by spectacular technological change and sustainable global
policies) will contribute further to social inequality and to a growing gap
between the haves and the have-nots.
Finally, available studies point to a trend implying more pressure for global
governance but also more resistance to it. The empowerment of the citizen—
greatly facilitated by information technology and global media—will
continue to reinforce the autonomy of individuals and will create the need
for more democracy and better governance standards. Regrettably (and
paradoxically), such convergence of the world’s citizenry will at the same
time risk activating reactionary forces, namely extremist identity politics,
xenophobia and populism.
This will be a new world that will involve a higher degree of uncertainty, but
also interesting transitions fuelled by new drivers of change in the economy, in
governance, demography, management of resources, technological change and
democracy. It will be a world of transformation and paradox, which will
inevitably raise fundamental questions for Europe to answer. Potential responses
may carry great uncertainty for now, but the quest to explore Europe’s strengths
and weaknesses will remain a pressing necessity for policymakers in Brussels and
in the national capitals.
Europe 2030: the challenges
Today, the EU represents only 7 % of the world’s population but produces about
22 % of the world’s economic output. However, the enduring effects of the
ongoing financial crisis, Europe’s declining demography and the rise of the
global middle class of empowered citizens worldwide will logically—some time
in the 2020s—shift the centre of gravity in economic and human development
from the Atlantic to the Pacific. History is accelerating: it took 155 years for
Britain to double its GDP per capita, 50 years for the US and just 15 years for
China.
The study of global trends, as seen in the previous section, clearly points to
such an outcome, but it should be stressed that Europe’s decline resulting from
such a shift is not a foregone conclusion. Europe’s place in the world by 2030 will
European View
largely depend upon its ability to address effectively the following challenges,
which are already darkening its horizon.
The challenge of prosperity
Since the late 1950s, European integration has enabled the spectacular
improvement of living standards in all participating Member States. The
ongoing financial crisis highlighted the need for both deep reforms and quick
fixes to fill in the gaps of an asymmetric monetary union that still lacks a
meaningful economic policy component. For Europe to regain its economic
strength and international competitiveness, the battle is on: correcting excessive
sovereign debt, reigniting growth through structural reform, targeting investment towards innovation and pooling sovereignty to correct asymmetries can
still contribute to Europe’s economic revival. Delivery on all these priorities
should continue despite the considerable amount of pain inherent in any
adjustment process. There are two specific advantages that play in Europe’s
favour: first, we now know what went wrong; and second, Europeans will not
opt for decline if they see that there is a clear road from reform to growth and
jobs.
The challenge of democracy
Europe will not remain immune from the ever-increasing global demand of
empowered citizens to shape major decisions and to control central power and
government. If this trend is already obvious in countries having suffered from
dynastic and authoritarian politics, the advanced European democracies will not
escape such pressures either; in their case, the quest for more democracy,
participation and control will especially be felt in relation to the broadening and
deepening of EU competence, namely in areas like economic and fiscal policy. It
will no longer be reasonable to assume that Member States will continue
pooling sovereignty in jointly determining national budgets, controlling their
execution, subjecting themselves to multilateral surveillance (including sanctions) and conferring quasi-federal authority to supranational institutions like the
European Commission and the European Central Bank without greater direct
involvement by people in making decisions and enhancing democratic
legitimacy. Failure to establish the right regulatory and institutional channels
for broadening democracy in Europe will simply fuel even further the populist
and extremist phenomena present today across the EU.
The challenge of demography
The ageing of European societies will place great burdens on today’s young
people, with the combined demands of an active working life and increased
duty of care for the elderly. Active ageing will remain at the top of the political
agenda, but the lack of young mobile European professionals will become an
issue. In this context, migration is closely linked to demographics and may prove
123
Europe’s safety valve in rebalancing labour markets. On the one hand, economic
volatility may reduce in the short term migration flows to Europe; on the other
hand, the continent will again become attractive as a host once economic
growth returns and the need for young workers surfaces. The globalisation of
migration will continue to expand, and Europe should plan for policies that will
allow for a legal and orderly process of migration to compensate for the
important imbalances ahead.
The challenge of fairness
Despite the decrease of absolute poverty in Europe and throughout the world,
existing gaps between rich and poor will persist, and new categories of new
poor are likely to emerge. Europe will fail the globalisation adjustment test
unless it manages to reconcile its drive for competitiveness with its traditions of
fairness, income distribution and values of social economy. The challenge of
fairness should not only cover the most vulnerable groups in society (those on
low incomes or without jobs, people living in remote areas, immigrants, children
and women); it should also strive to address future issues of scarcity of resources
such as water, energy, commodities and raw materials, and related challenges of
climate change and biodiversity. Of course, fairness will not be achieved in a
vacuum; it will require substantial investment by EU institutions and Member
States’ capital in growth-enhancing policies, along with adequate regulatory
breakthroughs in governance and legitimacy.
The challenge of security
Internal and external security will remain key issues for Europeans in the period
leading up to 2030. Within Europe’s frontiers, armed violence (including
organised crime and terrorism), transnational criminality and a growing
proportion of crime linked to citizens feeling cut off from education and labour
opportunities will continue to test governments’ ability to deliver security for
their societies. Tackling such problems will require closer and deeper coordination between the EU Member States in Justice and Home Affairs policies, as
well as overcoming the traditional reluctance of certain governments to share
with others the tools and instruments at the heart of national sovereignty.
Beyond the EU’s external borders, state fragility and armed conflict in Europe’s
neighbourhood will constantly remind Europeans of their duty to secure
international peace and security. The Southern Mediterranean and Caucasus
may witness further instability and conflict. The EU should not undermine its
defence cooperation potential (‘pooling and sharing’), especially at times of
serious cuts in national defence budgets. The Libya experience last year offered
an illustrative example of the dangers of fragmentation and the benefits of
defence cooperation.
European View
Europe 2030: risks and opportunities
Over the past five decades, European integration proved the most suitable
model for rebuilding a war-torn continent through shared prosperity and
transnational cooperation. This pattern of development will have to adjust at the
dawn of a new era: an emerging reality of power shifts, fragmentation and new
drivers of influence, power and wealth. Many of the certainties of post–Second
World War society, centred on a relatively stable monetary order and a wellestablished system of international relations, power politics and trade will no
longer be in place to provide a comfort zone for Europe.
During the next 20 years the EU will have new opportunities, but will also face
important risks in this ‘thicker’ and far more complex global scene. Many
uncertainties will have to be dealt with and overcome, while ‘blue sky’ horizons
will be in short supply. Any attempt to scan the future standing of Europe in
2030 would not be complete without a closer look at risks and opportunities
ahead.
Among the opportunities to seize, Europe’s reputation as the world epicentre
of soft power is probably its best asset for exercising influence in the future. Soft
power is about appeal, attraction and persuasion. It stands for inclusiveness and
tolerance, for the protection of minorities and the full integration of women in
society and the workplace; for the constitutional protection of human rights,
universal access to health and social security and care for the elderly; for mobility
and fair access to education; for alleviating poverty in developing countries and
redressing global social and economic imbalances. The EU can market this ‘value
of values’ erga omnes in a more convincing way, as the US will continue to
prioritise hard power and the middle powers will be busy building up their
economic strength.
The rise of citizens’ empowerment and the universal spread of values such as
democracy, participation, human rights, the advancement of network societies
and universal concerns for the environment, climate and resource scarcity will
create more opportunities for Europe. The gradual emergence of an international public opinion will present the EU with many more possibilities to
influence world affairs, as it has excelled in defending precisely these same
values.
Finally, the radical rethink of European economic governance architecture will
offer better prospects for economic revival, as long-overdue reforms are in the
works and laxity in controlling sovereign debt and deficits are now in the process
of being corrected. Europe’s economic recovery may, after all, come as a result of
the fact that the crisis acted as a catalyst for change, growth and reform.
However, there will be significant risks, too. If the trend towards sound
economic recovery fails to consolidate, poverty will grow, the decline of Europe’s
middle class will accelerate, European firms will vote with their feet and invest
elsewhere and the feeling of discontent will rise. Populists and extremists will tap
into this potential clientele of disillusioned Europeans. Should these risks
materialise, not only will the perception of the EU as a problem-solving actor be
123
tarnished, but its soft power capacity to inspire and motivate citizens worldwide
will be hampered.
Last but not least, if this gloomy scenario materialises, some Member States
may feel tempted to re-nationalise key policies and prefer to engage as
autonomous players in the new international game of middle powers. For the
EU, this will indeed be the biggest risk of all.
Europe 2030: what works? Keep the values, change the attitudes
It is hardly surprising that an analysis of trends, challenges, risks and
opportunities fails to provide an accurate prediction of Europe’s place in the
world 20 years from now. Nevertheless, this sober prospect of what the future
may hold for Europeans does allow for the definition of a (probably the) key
determinant of Europe’s future success.
What will work, then? How can present and future policymakers in Brussels
and the national capitals proceed to bring about a stronger, more assertive
Europe with global reach instead of fatally waiting for the decline, stagnation
and paralysis scenarios to come true?
Keeping the values but changing the attitudes seems the most obvious
answer. Maintaining the values behind Europe’s undisputed success during the
last 50 years is more relevant than ever before: reforming and uniting to keep
the economy prosperous, maintaining fairness to and solidarity with the more
vulnerable, speaking out for democracy and human rights, continuing to project
soft power worldwide and contributing to world peace and security. However,
preserving Europe’s values will require a fundamental change of attitudes to
deal with the profound transition from old to new: revisiting the role and
structure of the state to optimise public services, adjusting regulation from times
of abundance to times of scarcity, redesigning a deeper, more democratic EU
and acting as an honest broker with the US, Russia, China and the middle
powers, beyond the confines of post–Second World War realities.
Returning to the Oracle of Delphi analogy, the Priestess of the Temple of
Apollo used to formulate her predictions as a way to influence the course of
future events, not to encourage enquiring dignitaries to simply wait for them to
happen. The jury is still out on the final verdict for 2030, but the outlook of a
continent struggling to adjust is rather clear. Preserving Europe’s values by
changing its attitudes emerges as the most practical advice a modern Oracle of
Delphi would have to offer to Europeans.
It might well work this time, too.
References
ESPAS (European Strategy and Policy Analysis System). (2012). In A´. de Vasconcelos (Ed.), Global trends
2030: Citizens in an interconnected and polycentric world. Paris: European Union Institute for
European View
Security Studies. http://www.espas.europa.eu/fileadmin/euiss/documents/ESPAS_Docs/ESPAS_
report_II_01.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2012.
Margaritis Schinas is Director and Deputy Head of the Bureau of European
Policy Advisers at the European Commission.
123
THE POST-2015 DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS IN PERSPECTIVE
No. 74, April 2011
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
ADVIESRAAD INTERNATIONALE VRAAGSTUKKEN
AIV
Members of the Advisory Council on International Affairs
Chair
F. Korthals Altes
Vice-chair
Professor W.J.M. van Genugten
Members
Ms S. Borren MA
Ms L.Y. Gonçalves-Ho Kang You
Dr P.C. Plooij-van Gorsel
Professor A. de Ruijter
Ms M. Sie Dhian Ho
Professor A. van Staden
Lt. Gen. M.L.M. Urlings (retd.)
Ms H.M. Verrijn Stuart
Professor J.J.C. Voorhoeve
Executive Secretary
T.D.J. Oostenbrink
P.O. Box 20061
2500 EB The Hague
The Netherlands
Telephone + 31 70 348 5108/6060
Fax + 31 70 348 6256
E-mail aiv@minbuza.nl
Internet www.aiv-advice.nl
Members of the Joint Post-2015 Development Agenda Committee
Chair
Professor R. van der Hoeven
Members
Professor K.C.J.M. Arts
Dr B.S.M. Berendsen
Ms. S. Borren MA
Dr N. Tellegen
A. van der Velden
External Expert
F.A.J. Baneke
Executive Secretary
Ms. D.E. van Norren
Contents
Foreword
Summary and main recommendations
A
Lessons learned
8
13
A.I
The Millennium Declaration and the MDGs
A.I.1
Declarationsintherun-uptotheMDGs 13
A.I.2
FromDeclarationtoGoals 14
A.I.3
MDGsummitsin2005and2010 16
A.I.4
TowhatextenthavetheMDGsbeenachieved? 17
A.II
Have the MDGs proved to be a workable concept?
A.II.1
13
20
Generalcriticism 21
A.II.2 Measuringpoverty 24
A.II.3 Indicatorsandotherpitfallsofresults-basedmanagement 25
A.III
What the MDGs fail to address
26
A.III.1 Themesthatarenotaddressed 27
A.III.2 Themesthatshouldhavebeenorshouldbeaddressedin
A.III.3 Missingtargetgroups 31
A.III.4 TheUN’sresponsetocriticismoftheeightgoals 33
A.IV
What have the MDGs meant for policy in developing and donor
countries?
34
A.IV.1 HowhavetheMDGsbeenusedindevelopingcountries? 34
A.IV.2 HavetheMDGshadanimpactondonorpolicies? 36
A.V
The MDGs after 2015?
A.V.1
greaterdetail 29
38
Conclusionsandlessonslearned 38
A.V.2
MDGsinperspective:shouldtheybeabolished? 40
A.V.3
ShouldwecontinuewiththecurrentMDGsystem? 41
A.V.4
Apost-2015systemforinternationalcooperation 42
B
Towards a different approach: a global development agenda
Introduction
45
B.I
Current developments
45
B.I.1
Globalisationatacrossroads 45
B.I.2
Tradeandfinancialsystems 46
B.I.3
Newtechnology 47
B.I.4
Demographicdevelopments 48
B.I.5
Conclusions 49
45
B.II
Themes and challenges for development
B.II.1
Capabilitiesapproach 51
B.II.2
Sustainabilityandclimate 52
B.II.3
Measuringwellbeing 54
B.II.4
Growthandinequality 55
B.II.5
Conclusions 56
51
B.III
Underexposed themes: What (other) priorities?
B.III.1
Gender 57
57
B.III.2
Securityanddevelopment:acoherentapproach 60
B.III.3
Foodsecurity 61
B.III.4
Infrastructure 62
B.III.5
Conclusions 63
B.IV
Conceptual basis for global cooperation
B.IV.1
Humanrightsapproach 64
B.IV.2
Globalpublicgoods 67
B.IV.3 Globalcommons 70
B.IV.4 Conclusions 72
63
B.V
Towards renewed global governance
B.V.1
Globalgovernanceandthenetworksociety 73
B.V.2
Globalfinancing 75
B.V.3
Conclusions 77
I
II
III
IV
Requestforadvice
Listoffrequentlyusedabbreviations
OfficiallistofMDGs
G20SeoulDevelopmentConsensusforSharedGrowth
Annexe
Annexe
Annexe
Annexe
73
Foreword
InNewYorkin2000theMillenniumDeclarationwasunanimouslyadoptedby
theUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly.OnthebasisoftheDeclaration,aseriesof
measurableMillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs)wereagreed,tobeachievedby
2015.
On18November2010,thegovernmentrequestedtheAIVtodrawupanadvisory
reporttoenableittodetermineitspositioninthedebateonthepost-2015
developmentagenda(therequestcanbefoundinannexeI).Initsrequest,the
governmentexplicitlyspecifiesthatthereportshouldnotgointotheNetherlands’
policyontheMDGsinthe2011to2015period.Instead,theAIVwasaskedto
explorethecurrentapproach,thusprovidingthegovernmentwithaninsightinto
itsstrengthsandweaknesses,andtotracetheoutlinesofapossiblenewapproach,
insofarasoneisemergingfromnationalandinternationaldiscussionsand
publications,fromtheperspectiveofbothdevelopingcountriesanddonors.The
governmentmaydecide,afterthisexploratorystudy,torequestamoredetailed
follow-upreport.Duringtheprocessofdrawingupthecurrentreport,however,
theAIVconcludedthatitneededtotakeafewinitialstepstowardselaboratinga
proposednewapproachfortheperiodafter2015.
Thegovernment’scorequestionis:What has been the value for development of
the Millennium Declaration and the concept of the MDGs?Itdividesthisupintothe
followingsubsidiaryquestions:
A1. HastheMillenniumDeclarationprovedsufficientlysuccessfulinaddressingthe
problemsthathinderorblockdevelopment?
A2. HastheMillenniumDeclarationcontributedtothefocusonpoverty?
A3. Whataretheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthewayinwhichthetargetshave
beenformulated?Withrespecttothedisadvantages,isitpossibletoexamine
issuesthatmayhavebeenneglectedinthepasttenyears?
A4. TowhatextenthastheconceptoftheMDGsinfluenceddonorpolicyintermsof
decisionsontheallocationofresourcesandchoicesofthemesandsectors?To
whatextenthavedevelopingcountriesbeenabletoinfluencedecision-making
bydonors?TowhatextenthavetheMillenniumDeclarationandtheMDGsbeena
commonenterpriseofthestatesthatsignedtheDeclaration?
A5. Thegoalsareformulatedingeneralterms.Hasthatbeenanobstacletocountryspecificaction?Hasitaffecteddevelopingcountries’ownershipoftheirown
development?
A6. HastheconceptoftheMillenniumDevelopmentGoalscontributedtogreater
policycoherencefordevelopmentandcoordinationofaid?Ifso,howsignificant
wasthecontribution?
A7. HowdidtheconceptoftheMillenniumDevelopmentGoalsinfluencethe
evolutionandimplementationofthedevelopmentagendaindonorandpartner
countries?
A8. TowhatextenthastheMillenniumDeclarationprovedtobeacatalystin
increasingdonorcountries’financialcommitment(towardsthe0.7%norm)?
Thegovernmentnotesthattheinternationalbalanceofforceshaschanged
considerablyinthepasttenyearsandvariousinterconnectedcriseshaveoccurred.
Itaskswhetherdevelopingcountrieseachcarryenoughweightatinternationallevel
topursuetheirownpoliciesinatimeofcross-bordercrises.Somecountries’policy
spaceseemstobeshrinkingratherthanincreasing.Thegovernmentquestionswhy
thedevelopmentgoalsarenotseenmoreofteninrelationtoglobalchallengessuch
assecurity,theinternationallegalorder,health,environment,waterandclimate,
tradeandknowledgedevelopment.Withthisinmind,itaskedtheAIVtocarryout
anobjectivestudyofemergingthemesininternationalthinkingaboutdevelopment,
inordertogivethegovernmentabetterunderstandingofthepossiblecontoursofa
newinternationaldevelopmentagenda:onethatinspires,mobilisesandisbasedon
consensusbetweenNorthandSouth.
Tothisendthegovernmentposedthefollowingsubsidiaryquestions:
B1. Whatideasarecurrentlyshapinginternationalthoughtaboutdevelopmentand
developmentprocesses?DoestheAIVbelievethattheycouldserveasastarting
pointforanewglobaldevelopmentagenda?(Ifso,why;ifnot,whynot?)Or
doestheAIVbelievethatthecurrentapproach(possiblywithsomeadjustments)
shouldbecontinued?
B2. Couldissuesthatarelinkedtointerdependence,suchasthedistributionofand
accesstoglobalpublicgoods,formthebasisfordevelopmentgoalsafter2015?
Ifso,whatrolewilldevelopmentcooperationplay?
ThisreportwaspreparedbyajointcommitteeconsistingofProfessorR.vander
Hoeven(COS,chair),ProfessorK.C.J.M.Arts(CMR),F.A.J.Baneke(externalexpert),
S.Borren(AIV/COS),DrB.S.M.Berendsen(COS),DrN.Tellegen(COS)andA.vander
Velden(COS).ThesecretariatcomprisedMsD.E.vanNorren(secretary)andT.D.J.
Oostenbrink(inthefinalphase)supportedbyMsS.R.Airoldi,MsJ.McCall,MsL.M.
vanPaaschenandMsD.Zevulun(trainees).ProfessorW.J.M.vanGenugten(AIV/
CMR),ProfessorN.J.Schrijver(CMR)andvariousmembersoftheCOSprovided
usefuladviceatvariousstages.TheCommitteealsospoketoanumberofexternal
experts,includingProfessorB.deGaaijFortman,ProfessorI.Kaul,K.VanKesteren,
L.vanTroost,DrJ.Vandemoortele,ProfessorM.Sent,C.Rhebergen,R.Swinkelsand
H.vanderVegt.
Inlightofthequestionsposedbythegovernment,thisreporttakesaslightly
differentformthanthatofotherAIVadvisoryreports.Besidesthisforeword,it
consistsofasummaryofferingabriefindicationofhowthegovernment’squestions
wereanswered,andtwosubstantivesections:AandB.
PartAaddressesthegovernment’squestionaboutlessonslearned.Thefirstchapter
looksatthebackgroundtotheMDGsandhowtheycameabout,andwhatthey
haveachieved.Thesecondchapter,inresponsetoanumberofthegovernment’s
questions,examineswhethertheMDGshaveproventobeaworkableconcept.
ChapterIIIdiscussesalargenumberofthemeswhichmanypeopleconsidertohave
beenneglectedorunderexposedintheMDGs.ChapterIVlooksatwhattheMDGs
havemeantforpolicyindevelopingcountriesanddonorcountries,whilechapterV
explorestheoptionsforafter2015,whenthecurrentMDGperiodexpires.
PartBexaminesthegovernment’squestionaboutanewapproachtodevelopment.
InchapterI,theAIVprovidesanoutlineofrecentglobaldevelopmentsthatare
relevanttodevelopmentpolicyandthepositioningofdevelopmentgoalsafter2015.
InchapterII,theAIVlooksatthemesandchallengesfordevelopment.ChapterIII
focusesonanumberofneglectedthemes,whilechapterIVoutlinesaconceptual
basisforglobaldevelopment.Lastly,chapterVexploresnewformsofglobal
governanceandthediscussiononglobalpublicgoods.
Summar y and main recommendations
In this report the Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) answers the questions
posed by the Dutch government and formulates the core of the analysis of the strategic
value of the 2000 Millennium Declaration and the advantages and disadvantages of
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).1 Part A addresses the lessons learned
and what these should mean for a post-2015 system. Part B explores a new approach
to development. The AIV advises the government to strive for a renewed international
consensus on the strategy for development and development cooperation for the period
after 2015, provisionally the final year of the MDGs.
The AIV believes that the Millennium Declaration is still relevant and specifies a number
of important conditions for achieving development. The reviews of 2005 and 2010 added
a number of significant issues in areas like gender and social security (question A1).
The Millennium Declaration was operationalised in the form of a number of quantitative
goals (MDGs) to be achieved by 2015. These goals are subdivided into targets with
measurable indicators. The agreed goals refer to income (MDG1), universal participation
in primary education (MDG2), equal participation for girls and boys (MDG3, later
expanded to embrace gender equality), child mortality (MDG4), maternal mortality
(MDG5), infectious diseases (MDG6) and a sustainable environment (MDG7). Lastly,
under pressure from developing countries, a final goal was added: a global partnership
(MDG8) on Official Development Assistance (ODA), debt relief, a fair trade and financial
system, extra attention for vulnerable countries, and access to medicines and new
technologies. A number of themes were not expressed in terms of quantitative goals,
including peace and security, human rights and good governance, the special position of
Africa and global governance (questions A1 and A3).
The MDG system has been successful in communicating a complex development problem
to a wider public, but has in many cases not led to achievement of the goals themselves.
This is partly because of the limited operationalisation of the goals for developed
countries (MDG8) and a failure to comply with international pledges, in relation to ODA
and reform of the trade and financial system, for instance.
One of the MDGs’ strong points is that they can give rise to a substantial discussion on
why certain goals have been achieved and others not, and who can be held responsible
for that.
The AIV attaches great importance to the Millennium Declaration and, with others,
concludes that the process in which the declaration was translated into concrete goals
failed to operationalise a number of important themes, either because there was no
international consensus or because it was difficult to express the problems in question in
these terms.
Besides not including a number of important themes, the MDG system is often criticised
for not being based on an underlying economic theory of development processes and
structural change, and that the choices made therefore have no theoretical basis. In
addition, the goals were not formulated or interpreted correctly for deprived parts of the
world that need to do more to achieve them without extra financial resources. Criticism
is also levelled at the lack of any reference to the role that achieving human rights plays
1
See annexe II for a list of abbreviations.
8
in efforts to fulfil the MDGs. Both civil and political rights, and economic, social and
cultural rights (education, work and gender equality) are important in achieving the MDGs.
The goals do no justice to a holistic view of sustainability. The indicators attached to
the goals and targets are also subject to criticism, because they measure only quantity
and not quality. Nor do the indicators take account of inequality (particularly income
inequality) within and between countries (question A3).
The progress reports on the MDGs offer mixed accounts of the progress made. On one
goal (access to safe drinking water) there has been more progress than planned; poverty
has also declined since 2000, but the number of people suffering from hunger has
increased to a billion. The question whether all progress since 2000 can be attributed to
the MDG strategy cannot be proven scientifically. It can be concluded that, in the majority
of countries, only 20% of the trends aimed at achieving the goals have speeded up since
the introduction of the MDGs in 2000. The other 80% have remained constant or have
even slowed down (question A1).
The extent to which the MDGs have contributed to a reduction in poverty is unclear.
Studies show that achievement of the MDG target to halve poverty can largely be
attributed to the reduction of poverty in China and to a lesser extent in India, trends that
had started before the MDGs were formulated. The MDGs have certainly contributed to
greater attention for the various dimensions of poverty, but have also eroded the concept
of poverty by compartmentalising policy and ignoring the structural changes and social
processes required to escape poverty (question A2).
The impact of the MDGs on actual donor policy also presents a varied picture. Donors list
the MDGs alongside their own priorities instead of adopting them as guiding principles,
aid has not increased significantly and donor coordination does not operate along the
lines of the MDG system. The link is seldom made between the resources required for
development and the MDGs. The MDGs are seen more or less in isolation from the 0.7%
norm, despite it being explicitly mentioned in MDG8 (question A4).
It is difficult to determine what the MDGs have meant for policy development in
developing countries. Donor-dependent countries tend to say what their donors wish
to hear. Some developing countries have adapted the MDGs by, for example, adding
targets for human rights or extra relevant indicators such as diseases that occur in their
part of the world. The Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSPs) that still dominate policy in
poor countries generally refer selectively to the MDGs but, despite reforms, they are still
considered by many to be donor-driven (questions A5 and A7).
Changes in global governance, such as a greater role for the G20, are the result of
the financial crisis, rather than being initiated by the MDGs. Negotiations on a nondiscriminatory trade system have also been at stalemate since the world summit in
Doha. Some progress has been made in mitigating the debt burden of some countries.
The climate problem demands much closer cooperation than has currently been agreed
in the post-Kyoto regime. All in all the desired global partnership is still a long way off
(questions A6 and A7).
One goal that has certainly not been achieved is the agreed increase in development
aid. Although aid increased as a percentage of GNP until 2005, it has fallen again since
then, and is now lower than in 1990 and far from the international target of 0.7% of GNP
(question A8).
9
Since 2000 there have also been great changes in the form of economic, financial and
food crises, which have shaken the international order to its foundations. In addition
international power relations are shifting and we are seeing the emergence of economies
that are manifesting themselves as donors, while a large part of their own populations
still live in poverty. A significant percentage of the ‘poor’ live in middle-income countries
and not in ‘poor’ countries. The AIV considers it important to consider more recent
insights on development in order to examine the completeness and contemporary
relevance of the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs (question B1).
After studying the advantages and shortcomings of the current MDGs on the basis of
important developments in society since 2000 and of newer insights into development
thinking, the AIV concludes that the MDG system needs to be redesigned. At the same
time, the Council believes that it would be irresponsible to make a radical break with the
current system, which was based on a major international consensus on a development
agenda.
In this report the AIV therefore makes suggestions for a post-2015 system for
international cooperation (referred to below as the ‘post-2015 system’) that tries as far
as possible to preserve the positive aspects of the MDGs. However, the Council would
like to note directly that one of the main shortcomings of the current MDG system
is that it has been primarily a donor-driven process. Obligations for the developed
countries, as in MDG8, were only added at a later stage, but without the clear indicators
that typified the other goals.
Perhaps the most significant recommendation in this report is therefore, in the run-up
to a post-2015 system, to promote a consultative process with countries in different
stages of development, and with civil society and the private sector. In such a process
the roles and responsibilities of all those involved must be made clear and they must be
held accountable for fulfilling them. For this reason the AIV is reluctant to propose an allembracing blueprint for a post-2015 system and believes that the Millennium Declaration
should be preserved as the basis of a future strategy. It should, however, incorporate the
new elements of the reviews of 2005 and 2010.
A consultative process on the post-2015 system should preferably be led by a prominent
individual from an emerging country. This is of great importance for the global acceptance
and success of the follow-up to the MDGs in an improved system. The Netherlands can
play an active role in this.
Taking this into account the AIV summarises below the main themes and identified
shortcomings of the current Millennium Declaration and MDG system, together with the
outlines of a possible post-2015 system.
The AIV observes a somewhat ambivalent attitude towards the MDGs. Because no
dominant theoretical basis underpins the MDGs, they were never intended as a ‘one
size fits all’ policy. Nevertheless, for many people, the MDGs have become a mantra for
an all-encompassing development ideology. They have become absolute targets backed
up with the reasoning that whatever is not in the MDGs is no longer important. As a
consequence, every self-respecting group has tried to get its area of activity included
within the MDGs. This fixation with bringing everything under the umbrella of the MDGs
has resulted in too much attention to detail, sometimes at the expense of the realisation
that sustainable and participatory economic growth with a conscious policy of structural
change and redistribution can just as easily contribute to social progress as direct
attention to the social sector.
10
To achieve a better post-2015 system the AIV considers it important take the criticisms
of the current MDGs and recent global developments into account, and to consider the
extent to which a number of newer themes that have until now received insufficient
attention in development thinking make changes necessary (question B1). Ongoing
globalisation, recent global developments and, especially, the financial and economic
crisis of 2008-2009 call for improvements to the international trade and financial system
after 2015.
In the context of new forms of development thinking, the AIV would first of all like to
note that a post-2015 system would have to be based more firmly on the capabilities
approach of Nobel Prizewinner Amartya Sen, which also underpinned the Millennium
Declaration. Sen’s theory equates development with more freedom. Sen identifies
five essential freedoms: (1) political and civil freedoms, (2) social and (3) economic
opportunities, (4) transparency in governance and economic life, and (5) protective
freedoms (social security and the rule of law).
The AIV endorses Sen’s approach, especially as subjective welfare theory shows that, when
asked, people specify these freedoms as crucial to their happiness. A post-2015 system
can contribute to this, by improving ways of measuring prosperity, striving to reduce
inequality within countries and giving more attention to human rights principles, peace
and security, and effective state institutions – elements that are lacking in the current
MDGs.
In a post-2015 system a basic level of security will have to be included as a condition for
development. Security sector development or reform (SSR) is essential in strengthening
security levels, and should therefore constitute an inseparable element of a post-2015
system for fragile states. A peace and security goal cluster could also contain indicators
for early warning of conflicts.
The discussions on sustainability must lead to a post-2015 system that contains longterm targets for a sustainable model with a rolling agenda that measures progress
every five or ten years and uses these measurements to make regular modifications to
the strategy. In this way, the post-2015 system will be a ‘dashboard’ with indicators for
sustainability, for this generation and the next.
Three principles from the human rights approach are especially relevant and should be
incorporated in a post-2015 system: non-discrimination, participation and accountability.
It is also important to refer to general human rights conventions to ensure compliance
with other relevant human rights obligations. Although, in an ideal world, an explicit and
globally endorsed human rights approach should be in force, the AIV sees this, as yet, as
politically unfeasible in a post-2015 MDG system. Yet there are opportunities to do some
justice to the rights-based approach. The AIV therefore proposes that:
1) the run-up to a post-2015 strategy should be as participatory as possible, including a
role for marginalised groups with the greatest stake in the system;
2) the above-mentioned three principles be incorporated in the methodology for pursuing
each component of the post-2015 strategy, and:
3) globally endorsed human rights remain firmly embedded in the strategy through
explicit reference to agreements made at global summits and in UN human rights
conventions, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
11
The gender approach, according to which equality between men and women is
indispensable to balanced development, requires indicators for all goals as well as a
separate heading for gender. We also consider it necessary to specify gender-specific
dimensions in new goal clusters for, for example, peace and security (violence against
women) and effective governance (participation of women in running society).
One of the tasks of global governance lies in the area of global public goods: goods
that are relevant to everyone and from which no one can or may be excluded (question
B2). However, the concept of global public goods touches on matters of responsible
sovereignty. Emerging and developing countries are concerned about erosion of their
national sovereignty, while developed countries are afraid that they will have to finance
many of the global public goods. The AIV believes that, although the debate on global
public goods should be conducted with the utmost care, it is important to establish a
clear link between the MDGs and global public goods, because no one can or may
be excluded from either. In this way, the MDGs can also contribute to the creation of a
‘global social floor’ – in other words, a minimum level of existence that is worth pursuing
and on which there is a global consensus. The need for such a minimum was once again
demonstrated during the recent global crisis, as was recognised at the MDG summit in
2010.
In funding global public goods, a distinction should be made between socially oriented
global public goods (with the 0.7% ODA norm as guiding principle) and other public goods,
for which national resources other than ODA and innovative international funding methods
will have to be mobilised.
Recent theories – such as Nobel Prizewinner Elinor Ostrom’s analysis of commons, which
identifies seven principles for effective local governance (‘common resource pools’) – can
play a role in the management of global public goods and, if these ideas are extended to
apply to global governance, offer a good guideline for a post-2015 system.
The (renewed) debates on global governance offer a good guideline for the post-2015
system. The AIV considers it important that preparations for the post-2015 period link
up with the development agenda proposed by the G20, as expressed in the 2010 Seoul
Declaration. It is also essential to take account of the new, rapidly growing network
society, which operates horizontally and does not allow itself to be controlled vertically
(‘top down’). International cooperation has become a multi-actor affair and multilateral
institutions could perhaps play a more prominent role in focusing and coordinating it.
More detailed recommendations for a post-2015 system can be found in chapter A.V
and specifically in section A.V.4.
12
A
Lessons learned
Chapter A.I describes the background to the Millennium Declaration and the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) and the current situation. A.II examines whether the
MDGs have proved to be a workable concept and chapter A.III focuses on a number
of omissions. In chapter A.IV, the AIV looks at what the MDGs have meant for policy
in developing and donor countries, and in chapter A.V. the Council draws a number of
conclusions from the lessons learned.
A.I
The Millennium Declaration and the MDGs
A.I.1
Declarationsintherun-uptotheMDGs
In 2000, the international community, united in the UN, adopted the Millennium
Declaration to address the problem of global poverty. A year later this led to the
formulation of eight Millennium Development Goals.
The MDGs represent the crystallisation of goals agreed earlier at international
conferences in the 1990s, most of which were not achieved.2 These conferences
include the World Conference on Education for All (Jomtien, 1990), the World Summit
for Children (New York, 1990, based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child), the
UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), the World
Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, 1993), the International Conference on Population
and Development (Cairo, 1994), the World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen,
1995), the World Conference on Women (Beijing,1995), the UN Conference on Human
Settlements (Habitat II)(Istanbul, 1996) and the World Food Summit (Rome, 1996).3
In its 1996 publication ‘Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development
Cooperation’, the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) made an initial
attempt to formulate development goals by synthesising the goals agreed at the various
world summits. Established by the rich countries meeting in the OECD/DAC (unlike
the world summits, which were more global in nature), these goals focused mainly on
measurable criteria for poverty (less than a dollar a day), social development and a
sustainable environment, and distanced themselves from the rights-based approach and
emancipatory development.4 The list is less comprehensive than the later MDGs. Gender
was omitted, on Japan’s insistence, and changed to equal education for all. The United
Kingdom in particular, with the support of Sweden, Norway, Germany and the Netherlands
(the ‘Utstein’ group of female development ministers), ensured that development goals
for gender remained on the global agenda. However, they initially provoked little response
2
For a full overview, see M. Loewe, ‘The Millennium Development Goals: Chances and Risks’, German
Development Institute, discussion paper 6/2008, Bonn 2008, p. 3.
3
The goals also refer back to earlier international human rights conventions, like the International
Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), the OECD target of 0.7% GNP for
development cooperation (1970), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women (1981), and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
4
A. Saith, ‘From Universal Values to Millennium Development Goals: Lost in Translation’, Development and
Change 37 (6), Institute of Social Studies, 2006, pp. 1169-1170.
13
from developing countries, the World Bank or the IMF.5
The UN secretariat, seeing the initiative as an attempt by the rich countries to control the
UN agenda, devised its own list. As the new Millennium approached, many civil-society
networks (like the women’s and peace movements, the churches and Jubilee 2000)
called on world leaders at the 2000 Millennium Summit to develop a global development
vision. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s draft version again omitted gender equality, this
time due to an ‘unholy alliance’ between the Vatican and conservative Islamic countries,
including Sudan, Iran and Libya. Other themes that were ignored were reproductive
health and maternal mortality. Health goals were included only summarily, because of the
political struggle surrounding reproductive health rights – an issue to which the UNDP had
in fact devoted considerable attention in a 1997 report. The focus came to lie primarily
on HIV/AIDS. Economic growth – though not an explicit theme in the declarations
issued at the world summits – received considerable attention, as did technological
development. Pressure from developing countries and civil society led to goals for the
rich countries relating to trade access, debt relief and ODA, and to an appeal to the
pharmaceutical industry to make AIDS medicines cheaper. A separate section devoted
attention to Africa and the development of agricultural productivity.6
In 2000, in an unprecedented display of unity, the leaders of the IMF, OECD, UN and World
Bank published the document ‘A Better World for All: Progress towards the International
Development Goals’, based on the OECD development goals mentioned above. This
document was largely in line with Kofi Annan’s draft declaration, with the addition of infant
and maternal mortality. Fearing that health budgets might otherwise become unbalanced,
the passage on combating HIV/AIDS was expanded to include other diseases. A section
was added on the special needs of small island states and landlocked developing
countries, after earlier conferences on these issues.7
On 8 September 2000, the Millennium Declaration was adopted. The Declaration is
based on six fundamental values – freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for
nature and shared responsibility8 – and is clearly divided into eight chapters: 1) Values
and principles, 2) Peace, security and disarmament, 3) Development and poverty
eradication, 4) Protecting our common environment, 5) Human rights, democracy and
good governance, 6) Protecting the vulnerable, 7) Meeting the special needs of Africa,
8) Strengthening the United Nations.
A.I.2
FromDeclarationtoGoals
In September 2001, the UN Secretary-General’s report ‘Roadmap Towards the
Implementation of the Millennium Declaration’, which contained eight MDGs, was
approved by the UN General Assembly. The new American president George Bush was
sceptical about the initiative, but 9/11, the need for ‘soft power’, and his relationship
5
D. Hulme, ‘The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): A short history of the world’s biggest promise’,
BWPI Working Paper 100, September 2009, pp. 15-25.
6
Idem, pp. 25-31. Reference is made to ‘We the Peoples: The role of the United Nations in the 21st Century’.
7
Idem, pp. 32-36.
8
A. Sumner, M. Tiwari, ‘After 2015: International Development Policy at a Crossroads’, Rethinking
International Development series, Palgrave McMillan, 2009, p. 47.
14
with the host of the next summit (the Mexican president), made him change his mind.9
Consequently, the MDGs were not adopted by the US until 2002, at the summit on
financing for development in Monterrey, Mexico. This is now known as the Monterrey
consensus. In practice, however, the US continued to resist the MDGs until 2005.10
One important outcome of the Millennium Declaration was the adoption of the Paris
Declaration on the effectiveness of aid in 2005.
It is important in understanding the process that led to the MDGs to be aware that they
are grounded in the Western trend towards results-based management and accountability
in development policy, as reflected in the OECD development goals. This was coupled to
a more visionary objective of human development, originating in the UNDP corner and laid
down in the Millennium Declaration.11
In substantive terms, the UN was faced with the problem of how to reconcile the OECD’s
development goals with its own Millennium Declaration. After all, the UN SecretaryGeneral was a signatory to the former, but also had to take all 189 member states
into account. At a meeting of donors, developing countries and multilateral institutions
in 2001, led by the World Bank, the two sets of goals were integrated. They were
elaborated by a joint working group representing the OECD/DAC, World Bank, IMF and
UNDP. The goals on climate (MDG7) and the contribution of the rich countries (MDG8:
global partnership), which were still the subject of fierce political negotiation, proved
especially difficult. The goal on a sustainable environment (MDG7) was extended to
include biodiversity and a number of other new indicators.12 MDG8 was eventually
finalised with seven targets and 17 indicators, but without a deadline, making it the most
comprehensive, yet least specific or measurable goal.
Reproductive health was once again excluded, this time at the instigation of the US
President. As a compromise, the contraceptive prevalence rate was included as an
indicator under maternal mortality (MDG5). However, pressure from the women’s
movement and the broader gender lobby paid off with MDG3 being referred to as
gender equality and – although MDG2 continued to call for universal access to primary
education – two indicators were added to MDG3 that did not appear in the Declaration: the
participation of women in economic life (outside the agricultural sector) and in politics (in
terms of seats in parliament). This explains the somewhat illogical structure of MDG3.
For technical reasons, a number of issues were changed from targets to indicators, including
safe drinking water (with the addition of sanitation under MDG7) and AIDS orphans (MDG6).13
9
D. Hulme, ‘The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); A short history of the world’s biggest promise’,
BWPI Working Paper 100, September 2009, pp. 42-43.
10 Idem, p. 42. The American position was that they were ‘a UN Secretariat product which member states
never formally ratified’.
11 D. Hulme, ‘Governing Global Poverty? Global Ambivalence and the Millennium Development Goals’,
Brooks World Poverty Institute, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of
Manchester, May 2009.
12 D. Hulme, ‘The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); A short history of the world’s biggest promise’,
BWPI Working Paper 100, September 2009, p. 10.
13 Idem, pp. 36-43.
15
The main other difference between the MDGs and the Millennium Declaration lies in
the fact that the following themes from the Declaration were not included in the MDGs:
peace, security and disarmament; human rights, democracy and good governance; the
vulnerable (not explicitly); the special needs of Africa; and reform of the UN (see chapter
A.III What the MDGs fail to address).
Ultimately the following main goals were identified:
1. eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;
2. achieve universal primary education;
3. promote gender equality and empower women;
4. reduce child mortality;
5. improve maternal health;
6. combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases;
7. ensure environmental sustainability; and
8. develop a global partnership for development.
In addition to these main goals, the MDGs have subsidiary goals (targets) and indicators,
the latter being the subject of continual heated debate as statistics – and thereby the
feasibility of achieving the goals – can be interpreted differently. The MDG1 targets, for
example, have been gradually adjusted, in respect firstly of the Millennium Declaration,
secondly of an earlier universal declaration on the reduction of poverty (at the World
Food Summit in Rome in 1996), which called for poverty to be halved in absolute terms
(by only talking of halving the proportion of poor people in MDG1), and thirdly of the time
span (by measuring the results from 1990 instead of 2000). All these changes produce
a more positive picture, allowing for example the favourable developments in relation to
poverty in China in the 1990s to be included. Furthermore, by taking account of growth in
China in 1999, East Asia achieved MDG1 a year before the MDGs were finalised.14 Yale
philosopher Thomas Pogge has estimated that, as a result of all of these adjustments,
the goal of reducing the number of people living in poverty by 50% in 2015 amounts to an
actual reduction of only 19%.
A.I.3
MDGsummitsin2005and2010
At the world summit in 2005, the governments of both donor and developing countries
reiterated the ambition to achieve the MDGs in 2015. They also agreed that, in 2006,
all countries would formulate national development strategies for achieving the goals.
The following issues were addressed: development, terrorism, peacebuilding and
enforcement, the responsibility to protect, human rights, democracy and the rule of law,
reform of the UN, environment, international health, humanitarian aid, and updating the
UN Charter.15
A number of the MDGs were also expanded, including MDG5 (maternal mortality) to which
reproductive health was added (this was a compromise, because of opposition to the
inclusion of reproductive rights).16 This meant a victory over the earlier, fierce opposition
from the US, thanks to vigorous lobbying that recalled the International Conference on
14 T. Pogge, ‘The First United Nations Development Goal: A cause for celebration’, Journal of Human
Development and Capabilities, vol. 5(3), November 2004, pp. 337-397.
15 UN General Assembly, Resolution 60/1 2005 World Summit Outcome, 24 October 2005.
16 MDG5b reads: ‘Achieve by 2015 universal access to reproductive health’.
16
Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, where 179 countries agreed that universal
access to reproductive rights had to be achieved by 2015.17 Other additions included
targets for employment and decent work (MDG1), universal access to treatment for HIV/
AIDS (MDG6) and the reduction of biodiversity loss (MDG7) (see table in Annexe III).18
The 2010 Declaration is more of a progress report on the MDGs and is therefore less
important in terms of strategy. With its rather uncritical, optimistic introduction, it makes
no urgent appeal to achieve better results nor does it address the shortcomings of the
developed countries in areas like trade policy, policy coherence and aid pledges (ODA).
This means that the original 2000 Millennium Declaration is still relevant and the
cornerstone of policy for the future. However, it could have been translated much more
fully in the MDGs; in reality, the MDGs reflect only section 19 of the Declaration. The
Declaration itself also neglects a number of important issues, some of which were added
in the 2010 version, albeit cursorily. These issues are examined in chapter A.III.
A.I.4
TowhatextenthavetheMDGsbeenachieved?
According to the UN,19 important advances have been made in the fight against poverty
initiated by the MDGs, as the above score card of the Centre for Global Development
(CGD) in Washington shows.20 The results must, however, be put into perspective. The
number of people living in extreme poverty fell from 1.8 to 1.4 billion between 1990 and
2005 (MDG1).21 This is, however, mainly due to developments in China.22 A majority
of children also now enrol in primary education (MDG2), but not all of them complete it
and 72 million children worldwide, especially girls, still do not go to school. Only in 53
countries do as many girls as boys attend primary and secondary school (MDG3).23
Women are disproportionately affected by poverty. The number of women in paid work
outside the agrarian sector had risen to approximately 41% of all women worldwide in
2008.24 Yet it remains difficult for women to achieve higher positions. Worldwide only
17 F.G. Abrejo, B.T. Shaikh, S. Saleem, ‘ICPD to MDGs: Missing links and common grounds’, Reproductive
Health Journal, vol. 5(4), September 2008, p. 3.
18 Annexe III contains an overview of the MDGs and the indicators used to measure progress (those in
italics were added after 2001).
19 UNSG, ‘Keeping the Promise; A forward-looking review to promote an agreed action agenda to achieve the
Millennium Development Goals by 2015’, Report by the Secretary-General, UN General Assembly 64th
session, February 2010, pp. 4-9.
20 See map of the Centre for global Development, Washington, <http://www.cgdev.org>, consulted on
16 March 2011.
21 Extreme poverty is defined as living on less than $1.25 a day.
22 In Africa, the number of people living on a dollar a day rose by 92 million; in West Asia, this was 8 million
(1990-2005).
23 Of the 171 countries for which data is available.
24 In North Africa and South and West Asia, the statistics are less positive: only 20% of paid jobs outside
agriculture are taken up by women. UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, p. 22.
17
one in four senior officials or managers are women. The number of women in national
parliaments rose from 11% in 1995 to 19% in 2010.25
The number of children who die before the age of five has fallen from 12.5 million to 8.8
million per year (MDG4).26 Other sources even suggest a fall to 7.7 million.27
Very little progress has been made with maternal mortality (MDG5). Almost as many
women still die during pregnancy and childbirth as 15 years ago.28 There has been some
progress in the number of births attended by a professional.
The fight against AIDS has been successful: 200,000 fewer people died of the disease
between 2004 and 2008, and 800,000 fewer became infected between 1996 and 2008
(MDG6).29 There are no statistics to show whether this also applies to malaria, which
claimed 800,000 lives in 2008.30
Results were slightly better for care of the planet. Deforestation declined, with 3.3 million
hectares less forest being felled and 31% of the land still forested (32% in 1990, MDG7).
Biodiversity continues to decline, and 17,000 animal and plant species are threatened
with extinction.31 Climate change also threatens to exacerbate poverty, through drought,
flooding, etc.. Carbon dioxide emissions increased by 35% between 1990 and 2007.32
As far as access to safe drinking water is concerned, the world is ahead of schedule. If
current trends continue, around 86% of the population in developing regions will have
25 Idem, pp. 24-25.
26 From 99 to 72 per 1,000 (1990-2008). UN Secretary-General, ‘Keeping the Promise; A forward-looking
review to promote an agreed action agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015’,
Report by the Secretary-General, UN General Assembly 64th session, February 2010, pp. 4-9.
27 J. Knoll Rajaratnam, J.R. Marcus, A.D. Flaxman, H. Wang, A. Levin-Rector, L. Dwyer, M. Costa, A.D. Lopez,
C.J.L. Murray, ‘Neonatal, Postneonatal, Childhood, and Under-5 Mortality for 187 Countries, 1970-2010:
A Systematic Analysis of Progress Towards Millennium Development Goal 4’, 375 The Lancet no. 9730,
5 June 2010, pp. 1988-2008.
28 Maternal mortality remains high, at 450 to 100,000 births in 2005. This is almost the same as in 1990,
when it stood at 480 to 100,000.
29 Two million people died of AIDS (2008; the peak was in 2004, with 2.2 million); 2.7 million people were
infected with HIV in 2008 (compared to 3.5 million in the peak year, 1996). UN, The Millennium
Development Goals Report 2010, New York, p. 40.
30 ‘Keeping the Promise; A forward-looking review to promote an agreed action agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015’, Report by the Secretary-General, UN General Assembly 64th session,
February 2010, p. 8.
31 Deforestation is alarmingly high (5.2 million hectares a year in the last ten years, compared to 8.3 million
in the previous ten years); UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, pp. 52-57.
32 UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, pp. 52-57.
18
access to improved water sources by 2015.33
By contrast, there has been less progress in providing access to elementary sanitation.
2.7 billion people are expected still to have no access to improved sanitation by 2015
(this was 2.6 billion in 2008).34 In the past ten years, the number of people living in
slums in developing countries has fallen from 39% to 33% of the urban population
(2010). In addition, 200 million slum-dwellers have acquired access to better housing,
water and sanitation. In absolute terms, however, the number of slum-dwellers is rising:
the number of urban-dwellers living in slum conditions is estimated at 828 million,
compared to 657 million in 1990 and 767 million in 2000.35
These results are also overshadowed by the fact that the number of very poor people
suffering from hunger also continues to rise, that CO2 emissions are not falling, and that
at least half a million people a year lose their lives through the use of small weapons.36
The majority of donors still fail to reach the agreed 0.7% GNI target for financial aid
(MDG8).37 Aid from non-DAC donors and private funds has, however, increased, though
estimates vary.38
In the past ten years developing countries have acquired better access to the markets
of rich countries. In 2008 almost 80% of imports from least developed countries (LDCs)
were tariff-free (compared to 70% in 2000).39 In addition the debt burden of developing
countries was relieved through debt control, trade expansion and, in some cases, debt
cancellation. The global financial crisis, however, had a negative effect on trade for almost
all developing countries. The fall in income increased the external debt burden but it will
very probably remain below the historical high point of the year 2000.40
Alongside absolute poverty, relative poverty is also important. There has been a
spectacular growth in inequality worldwide: the ratio of average income in the richest
countries to that in the poorest rose from 60:1 to 116:1 between 1980 and 2007
33 There is, however, a great disparity between access to safe drinking water in rural and urban areas:
eight out of 10 people worldwide without access to water live in the countryside. UN, The Millennium
Development Goals Report 2010, New York, pp. 58-59.
34 See the Statement on the Right to Sanitation, adopted by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights on 19 November 2010 in UN Doc. E/C.12/2010/1.
35 UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, p. 63.
36 J. Voorhoeve, Negen plagen tegelijk , Contact, 2011.
37 The 0.7% GNI target was achieved by only five countries in 2009: Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Norway and Sweden. UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, p. 67.
38 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2010,
Retooling Global Development’, New York, May 2010, pp. 54-55.
39 Excluding oil and weapons. UN, ‘MDG 8 The Global Partnership for Development at a Critical Juncture’,
MDG Gap Task Force Report 2010, New York, p. 36.
40 UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, pp. 68-70.
19
($43,503 versus $ 374 per capita GNI in 2007).41 Progress in this area has been made
even more difficult by the financial and economic crises of recent years. The number of
people suffering from hunger, for example, has risen to a billion since 2005, its highest
level ever, and the number of undernourished people to more than two billion. Since
the financial and economic crisis, around 28% of people in paid work earn less than
the poverty line level (MDG1).42 One in four children under the age of five in developing
countries is underweight; in South Asia this is even higher, at 46% (MDG4).43 The number
of young people with no chance of finding work and of people working in precarious
conditions has increased since the crisis.44
Can all progress that has been made be attributed to the MDG strategy? The
question whether there would have been just as much progress without the MDGs
is understandable and legitimate, but cannot, unfortunately, be answered wholly
scientifically. In the majority of countries it is only possible to observe an improved trend
in 20% of the MDGs compared to the pre-MDG period.45
The MDGs do, however, encourage discussion on why some goals have been achieved
and others not, and who can be held responsible for those that have not been achieved.
This will be examined in the following chapters.
A.II
Have the MDGs proved to be a workable concept?
The Millennium Declaration played a leading role in the development debate. It generated
a new consensus between the IMF/World Bank and the UN, and the former incorporated
poverty dimensions in their structural adjustment programmes. The emphasis shifted
from a one-sided focus on growth to ‘human development’. Development policy became
more results-driven with measurable goals. Coherence was placed on the agenda, in
terms of better coordination with other donors and their policy areas and prioritising the
policies of developing countries. The principle of joint responsibility was accepted, as was
the need for a worldwide framework for development (MDG8). The growing importance of
civil society was recognised through its participation in international conferences.46
Nonetheless, opinions on the importance of the MDGs vary widely.
41 T. Pogge, ‘Politics as Usual: What lies behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric?’, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010,
p. 96.
42 21.2% in 2008 plus an estimated 7% extra in 2009. UN Secretary-General, ‘Keeping the Promise; A
forward-looking review to promote an agreed action agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals
by 2015’, Report by the Secretary-General, UN General Assembly 64th session, February 2010, p. 5.
43 UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, New York, p. 13.
44 ILO, Global Employment Trends 2011, Geneva 2011.
45 S. Fukuda-Parr, J. Greenstein, ‘How should MDG implementation be measured: Faster progress or meeting
targets?’, International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth, No 63, May 2010, p. 11.
46 M. Loewe, ‘The Millennium Development Goals: Chances and Risks’, German Development Institute,
discussion paper 6/2008, Bonn 2008, pp. 12-13.
20
A.II.1 Generalcriticism
There are basically four schools of thought regarding the MDGs: the optimists, who see
the goals as a vehicle for transforming the human condition (including Jeffrey Sachs,
leader of the Millennium Project, Pronk, Vandemoortele), the strategic realists, who see
the MDGs as essential to achieving political commitment (e.g. Fukuda-Parr, Jolly), the
sceptics, who find the MDGs well intentioned but badly thought out (such as Clemens,
Easterly and the Dutch Advisory Council on Government Policy), and the radical critics,
who see the MDGs as a diversionary manoeuvre to draw attention away from the ‘real’
issues of growing global inequality and gender disparity (including Antrobus, Eyden, Saith,
Pogge, UNCTAD).47 These four schools are described in brief below.
Optimists
Former Dutch development minister Jan Pronk identifies six advantages of the MDGs as
the culmination of 40 years of development cooperation.48 According to Pronk, the goals:
1. represent nearly all the relevant dimensions of poverty rather than having a one-sided
focus on income poverty;
2. concern the world as a whole, but are specific enough to be implemented at national
level;
3. are result-oriented (output rather than the 0.7% input discussion);
4. aim at direct poverty reduction rather than indirect measures like trickle-down from
economic growth or safety nets intended to compensate the poor for the negative
effects of growth;
5. are precise and quantified rather than making vague promises; and
6. are ambitious: the world has never seen poverty halved in the relatively brief period of
15 years (even though this is not compatible with the right of all to a minimum level of
existence).
Another advantage of the MDGs, according to Pronk, is that there is no excuse for not
achieving them; goals call for action and accountability.49
Markus Loewe adds that the MDGs have generated more aid in the new millennium.50
This may be because the goals are easy to understand for the public at large, increasing
their appreciation for development cooperation. The main argument for pursuing the
goals, however, is that all actors agree on a single set of objectives (William Easterly,
however, sees this as a fundamental weakness of the MDGs).51
Jan Vandemoortele, UNDP negotiator during the talks on shaping the MDGs, still finds
them a good concept that should be maintained after 2015, albeit with a number of changes
47 D. Hulme, ‘The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): A short history of the world’s biggest promise’,
BWPI Working Paper 100, September 2009, p. 4.
48 J. Pronk, ‘Collateral damage or calculated default? The Millennium Development Goals and the Politics of
Globalisation’, Inaugural address as Professor of the Theory and Practice of International Development at
the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, 11 December 2003, pp. 3-4.
49 Idem, pp. 44-45.
50 M. Loewe, ‘The Millennium Development Goals: Chances and Risks’, German Development Institute,
discussion paper 6/2008, Bonn 2008.
51 W. Easterly, ‘The Tragedy of the Millennium Development Goals’, Aidwatch, July 2009.
21
in structure and implementation.52 The main change is that monitoring of the MDGs should
take account of inequalities within countries (giving greater priority to improving the situation
of the worst-off segments of the population). Including the distribution of prosperity within
countries is a response to the criticism that national indicators say little about the position
of the poorest groups. Others argue that measurement by target group (gender, ethnicity,
rural-urban divide, regional variations) should be an added indicator.53 Vandmoortele rejects,
however, the more fundamental criticism that the MDGs have no theoretical basis, since in
his view that was never the intention.
Strategic realists
Sakiko Fukuda-Parr believes that the Millennium Declaration has led to partnerships with
civil society and has put the private sector on the development cooperation agenda. She
is, however, less enthusiastic about the impact this has had.54 With her colleague Joshua
Greenstein, she has also criticised the focus on achievement of the MDGs: given that
some countries have a worse starting position than others, 100% achievement of the
goals is not as important as the progress each has made since 2000 compared to the
period before.55 Based on trends since 1990, Fukuda-Parr and Greenstein conclude that
only five of the 24 indicators for which sufficient data was available showed accelerated
improvement in over half the countries in question after 2000. In 80% of cases,
therefore, the MDGs did not lead to accelerated improvements.56 In other words, in most
countries the trends are continuing at the same pace as before 2000, or have even
slowed down. Accelerated progress is greater in the least developed countries (on 13
indicators) and in Sub-Saharan Africa (on 16 indicators).
Leo and Barmeier have devised a progress index that gives a realistic picture of the
development of the MDGs.57 The index shows that LDCs perform better in terms of
progress on selected MDG indicators than middle-income countries. There is also a
negligible positive correlation between progress on the MDGs and economic growth
(GNP), growth in per capita GNP and per capita aid (ODA). The correlation with countries’
institutional development is also only slightly positive: some countries are making good
progress despite having weak institutions; however, every country that performs badly on
the MDGs has weak institutions.58
52 J. Vandemoortele, ‘Taking the MDGs Beyond 2015: Hasten Slowly’, DSA/EADI/Action Aid Policy Forum,
June 2009.
53 S. Jahan, ‘The Millennium Development Goals Beyond 2015’, New York, April 2009.
54 S. Fukuda-Parr, ‘Are MDGs priority in development strategies and aid programmes? Only a few are!’,
International Poverty Centre, Working Paper 48, October 2008, pp. 7 and 12. The Millennium Declaration
resolves: ‘To give greater opportunities to the private sector, non-governmental organisations and civil
society, in general, to contribute to the realisation of the goals’ (section 30).
55 S. Fukuda-Parr, J. Greenstein, ‘How should MDG implementation be measured: Faster progress or meeting
targets?’, International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth, No 63, May 2010.
56 Idem, p. 11.
57 B. Leo, J. Barmeier, ‘Who are the MDG Trailblazers? A new MDG Progress Index’, Center for Global
Development, Working Paper 222, Washington, August 2010.
58 Statistics from the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessments (CPIA).
22
Sceptics
Although Easterly sees the MDGs as a success in ‘global consciousness raising’, he
argues that they have failed in terms of translating that new awareness into achieving
the goals. Even before the economic crisis, the trends were negative. In fact, the latest
global crisis or recession has exposed a fundamental weakness in the MDGs, i.e. that
achieving them depends on global and national growth prospects. The question is how
can you hold someone accountable for something over which they have no control, and
how can you hold anyone accountable for something for which 189 governments are
collectively responsible? Easterly’s position is that an agreement that everyone agrees
on has no teeth. Social changes – like universal franchise, the emancipation of minorities
and women’s rights – could only come about by identifying who was responsible for the
injustice, why the situation was unjust, and what had to be done to rectify it. This analysis
is lacking in the MDGs.59 Easterly also considers the goals unfair on many countries in
Africa and other low-income countries, because they are primarily formulated in terms of
the gap between the current and target situations, instead of the starting position.60
In its report published last year, the Advisory Council on Government Policy (WRR) says
the following about the MDGs:61 ‘However, the MDGs are largely static goals which are
strongly oriented around alleviating emergencies. They say nothing of the resources,
the strategy and underlying mechanisms required to achieve the goals, nor about the
capacities of societies to develop, and from a macroeconomic perspective they are
rather vacuous. In that sense they are not very development-related. Economic growth
is not included as a final or intermediary goal in the MDGs, and important issues like
transformation of the productive sectors are not even referred to. Although MDG8 does
refer to the need for a fair trade system, this can only make a very limited contribution
to the creation of productive national economic sectors. The MDGs are inspiring but
also problematic in that they detract attention away from structural changes and the
strengthening and transformation of agriculture and other productive sectors. They have
other drawbacks as well. The targets are not only arbitrary, they are also global goals
which are directly applied to each individual country. […] This problem has everything
to do with the fact that donors imposed their mark heavily on how the goals were
formulated. As yet, no clear answer has been provided to the question of how that links
up with the broad related idea of ‘ownership’ in the field of development.’
Radical critics
Perhaps the greatest criticism of the MDGs is that they have no socioeconomic
underpinning. Some critics go even further, claiming that the MDGs leave the unbridled
market economy intact and simply take palliative measures against a number of
undesired side effects, including poverty. They do nothing to address fundamental
power relations around the world, or distribution issues, and the voices of the poor and
poor countries are hardly heard, if at all. According to these critics, the phenomenon
of spectacularly widening income differences between and within countries as a
consequence of market liberalisation is completely denied and ignored. In this view, the
MDGs lead to distortion and are not as innocent as they appear. After all, who can object
59 W. Easterly, ‘The tragedy of the Millennium Development Goals’, Aidwatch, July 2009.
60 W. Easterly, ‘How the MDGs are Unfair to Africa’, Brookings Global Economy and Development, Working
Paper 14, Washington, November 2007.
61 Advisory Council on Government Policy (WRR), ‘Less pretension, more ambition; Development policy in
times of globalization’, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2010, p. 122.
23
to less poverty, or reduced infant and maternal mortality? Focusing on these limited goals
distracts attention from the more important systemic causes of poverty. The MDG agenda
determines what kind of progress is measured in the world and thereby silently changes
the course of development thinking and development cooperation. In short: aid +
technological means + local good governance = poverty reduction. This equation replaces
the transformation of unjust economic structures.62
According to Ashwani Saith, the MDGs have narrowed the definition of poverty to
absolute poverty,63 and exchanged the concept of relative poverty, which gained ground
in recent decades, for an extremely simplistic interpretation.64 From this perspective,
the MDGs reduce the poor to helpless recipients who cannot achieve emancipation by
demanding their rights. The MDGs are ‘Minimum Development Goals’, a weak dilution
of the many declarations of the 1990s and international achievements of the past 40
years. They actually help maintain structural poverty by supporting the foundations of
society, including their dark side. The MDGs imply that underdevelopment is a problem
for developing countries that is in no way related to the economic dynamics of developed
countries.
This criticism has also been expressed by UNCTAD, which describes the fundamental
problem of the MDGs as ‘the lack of a more inclusive strategy of economic development’.
UNCTAD calls for national development programmes with economic diversification,
employment and technological development and a renewed emphasis on productive
investment, taxation, socioeconomic policy and reform of the international governance
architecture.65
Many human rights experts also see the omission of human rights as a missed
opportunity. A prominent figure among them is Philip Alston, the former UN Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.66
A.II.2 Measuringpoverty
The criterion for poverty provokes much discussion and criticism. Thomas Pogge, for
example, considers the ‘dollar a day’ norm introduced by the World Bank as insufficient
to guarantee a minimum level of existence. This is because the World Bank does not
base the norm on nominal exchange rates but on purchasing power parity (PPP) in 2005.
Someone in India living on $0.40 a day in 2005 would not be considered poor: in that
62 A. Saith, ‘From Universal Values to Millennium Development Goals: Lost in Translation’, Development and
Change 37 (6), Institute of Social Studies, 2006, p. 1189.
63 Idem, p. 1197.
64 Amartya Sen: ‘In a generally opulent country, more income is needed to buy enough commodities to
achieve the same social functioning’, in ‘Development as Freedom’, Oxford University Press, 1999.
65 UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ‘Follow-up to the Millennium Summit and
preparations for the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly on the Millennium Development
Goals: New development paths. Reconnecting the Millennium Development Goals to the Development
Agenda: an UNCTAD perspective’, Geneva, June 2010.
66 See for example P. Alston, ‘Ships passing in the night: The current state of the human rights and
development debate seen through the lens of the Millennium Development Goals’, Human Rights
Quarterly 27(3), August 2005, pp. 755-829.
24
year, PPP was equal to $1.25. According to Pogge, food prices in all poor countries are
on average more than 50% higher than the PPP suggests.67 He shows that purchasing
power of $1.25 a day is not sufficient to buy the minimum food required, not to mention
clothing, shelter, water, etc.
Pogge also objects to the poverty line and the method used by the World Bank to
update it. His analysis shows that the poverty criterion has been successively adjusted
downwards. The $1 criterion from 1985 was equal to $1.85 in 2005 PPP. This resulted
in an ‘absurdly low’ figure that does not cover even a quarter of the food requirement.68
Updating the poverty criterion also has the effect of making the change measured in
global poverty appear more positive than it is in reality: the lower the poverty line, the
better the result. Pogge shows that, if the poverty line is set at $2.50, there was no
improvement at all between 1981 and 2005.69
A.II.3 Indicatorsandotherpitfallsofresults-basedmanagement
Besides these fundamental criticisms of the MDGs a number of general objections can
be made to results-based management: goals that focus on quantity do not measure
quality and can undermine it (e.g. children might attend school but teaching is below par).
At the same time, narrowly defined indicators can, for example, encourage governments
to send people to school without making sure there are good teachers or teaching
materials, purely to achieve the MDG concerned. This is not the intended outcome of
results-based management, but is certainly a possible one, leaving it open to abuse. Nor
do the indicators take account of inequality, which is increasing worldwide both within and
between countries. It is possible, for example, to achieve MDG1 by ignoring the poorest
of the poor and helping people who live just below the poverty line. Or China can achieve
MDG1 for the whole of Asia on its own, while other Asian countries still have large
numbers of people living in poverty.
What is more, short-term planning to achieve the goals can undermine their sustainability
(who will pay for children to attend school after 2015?). Focusing on the goals ignores the
extent to which they are interconnected, which was precisely the major achievement of
the world summits. In other words: what effect does achieving one goal have on others,
or on parameters that have not been formulated as goals? Not achieving the goals can
undermine support for development cooperation (whose fault is it?). To put it in another
way, were the goals realistic? Countries facing the severest problems may make progress
and still not achieve the goals, thus harming their image; the starting situations vary too
widely.
Richard Jolly argues that it is better not to look at whether goals have been achieved, but
how they have functioned as a catalyst for change and awareness-raising, and why some
countries have not achieved them (due to both internal and external factors, e.g. global
crises).70
67 T. Pogge, ‘Politics as Usual: What Lies Behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric’, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010, p. 68.
68 Idem, pp. 65-66.
69 Idem, p. 62 and table 3.2.
70 R. Jolly, ‘Global Goals: The UN Experience’, Background Paper, Human Development Report, 2003.
25
In the context of the MDGs, responsibility for achieving results lies with developing
countries, while MDG8 does not demand that the rich countries provide any measurable
support or ensure fair trade rules.71 In this respect, setting global goals and pursuing
them at national level is not effective. Other dangers are planning on the basis of
incomplete statistics and irrelevant statistics that do not measure impact (e.g. the
proportion of land set aside as nature reserves).72 Measuring progress per country is
deceptive in the sense that countries like India with large numbers of people living in
poverty count the same as small countries like the Maldives; this means that someone
living in India is accorded relatively less weight than an inhabitant of the Maldives; this
conflicts with the principle that all people are equal.73
Lastly, it has not been shown conclusively that results-based management provides
sufficient incentives for the political establishment of recipient countries to promote
development. Research based on a number of Poverty Reduction Strategies identified
no significant influence on national objectives; in the case of worldwide goals it is
even more difficult to show that they have a positive effect on national politicians.74
A study by the Institute of Development Studies of the impact of transparency and
accountability initiatives concludes that greater transparency does not necessarily
improve accountability, because the initiatives are very complex and many factors that
can determine their success, including power relations, need to be taken into account.75
A.III
What the MDGs fail to address
The MDGs are intended as an overarching concept for all dimensions of poverty, a
crystallisation or summary of the global problem as a whole. One group of critics has,
however, insisted from the start that the MDGs were worded wrongly. Although the goals
have since been extended and new ones added at a series of international conferences
and meetings, this has not changed. Essential themes like sustainability, growth and
employment, inequality, knowledge and technology, demography, peace and security,
infrastructure and human rights are not explicitly addressed by the MDGs, while others
– including food security, climate, gender and global governance – are not given sufficient
attention. Critics believe that these important issues can obstruct achievement of the
MDGs. Some segments of the civil society movement have even rejected the MDGs
completely, because they feel they ignore gender analysis and the environmental impact
71 UN, ‘MDG 8 The Global Partnership for Development at a Critical Juncture’, MDG Gap Task Force Report
2010, New York.
72 M. Loewe, ‘The Millennium Development Goals: Chances and Risks’, German Development Institute,
discussion paper 6/2008, Bonn 2008, pp. 14-18.
73 S. Alkire, M. Santos, ‘Acute Multidimensional Poverty: A new index for developing countries’, OPHI working
paper no 38, July 2010, p. 8.
74 David Booth, Director of the Africa Power and Politics Programme (APPP), Overseas Development Institute
(ODI), Society for International Development SID lecture, 13 December 2010.
75 Institute of Development Studies (IDS), ‘Review of Impact and Assessment of Transparency and
Accountability Studies’, prepared by Gregory Barrett, Richard Calland, Ruth Carlitz, Anuradha Joshi,
Rosemary McGee, Andrés Mejía Acosta and the Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA),
October 2010.
26
of economic growth. They call for an agenda of transformation. The themes that are not
addressed in the MDGs and those that critics would like to see given greater attention
are considered in brief below.
Part B will examine how the themes that are not addressed or given insufficient attention
in the MDGs can play a role in new development thinking, partly in the light of recent
ideas on development and global governance.
A.III.1 Themesthatarenotaddressed
Sustainability, growth and employment
Charles Gore calls for a new development paradigm which has the productivity of the
individual and sustainability at its centre.76 He argues that the financial crisis heralds the
end of 60 years of development theory and the ‘winter’ of the Kondratieff curve (a period
of creative destruction due to deflationary depression). This will be followed by the ‘spring’
of innovative breakthroughs. The crisis must not be seen only as the consequence of
flaws in the financial system but also as an expression of systematic unbalanced global
growth: increasing inequalities within and between countries,77 a lack of democracy in
international relations and ecological limits to growth. The financial bubble has partly been
caused by a shortage of aggregated demand; in other words, consumers have too little
purchasing power. The solution cannot be found only in terms of poverty reduction through
the MDGs, but must be embedded in a worldwide socioeconomic transformation, which
places employment and the productivity of the individual at the centre. Energy transition
and the struggle to achieve sustainability must also be taken into account, as it looks as
though we will soon reach the point of ‘peak-oil’.78
Inequality
The MDGs devote no attention to inequalities within countries. However, reducing
income inequality and increasing access to essential social services can help speed
up achievement of the MDGs.79 UNICEF has shown in a recent study, for example, that
focusing on the poorest groups is a cost-efficient way of achieving the goals, contrary
to claims that this is more expensive. It has also been calculated that this is a cheaper
way to achieve the health goals.80 UNDP has concluded that countries where income
inequality has decreased and where strong national growth has occurred in sectors in
which the poorest are concentrated, had the greatest success in reducing poverty.81
76 C. Gore, ‘The Global Development Cycle, MDGs and the Future of Poverty Reduction’, 12th EADI General
Conference, Geneva, June 2008.
77 Idem, p. 11: 50 million rich people (1% of the population) have the same income as 2.7 billion of the
lowest earners (57%). Only 17% of people fall into the middle-income category.
78 Idem, p. 13.
79 J. Vandemoortele, ‘Taking the MDGs Beyond 2015: Hasten Slowly’, DSA/EADI/Action Aid Policy Forum,
June 2009.
80 UN Girls’ Education Initiative (UNICEF), ‘Narrowing the Gaps to meet the Goals’, New York, September
2010, p. 7.
81 UN Development Group (UNDG), ‘Beyond the Midpoint, Achieving the Millennium Development Goals’,
New York 2010, p. 25 and Annex 2.1.
27
MDG architect Vandemoortele even claims that, as long as growing inequalities within
countries are ignored, the MDGs will remain a ‘mission impossible’.82
The question is whether we should be looking at the poorest countries in the world or the
position of the poorest groups within those countries and globally. As Andy Sumner and
others have pointed out, a new development situation has emerged with large groups of
poor people in middle-income countries (960 million people, or 72% of the world’s poor).83
Knowledge and technology
Knowledge is a good example of a public good, given that it can be shared by many
people at the same time and it is difficult to acquire exclusive rights to it. It is also a
global public good, as its distribution does not stop at national borders. Intellectual
property and common knowledge, comprising existing and publicly available knowledge,
have important cross-border consequences. Knowledge is crucial to acquiring other
global public goods (GPGs). It can, for example, help in controlling infectious diseases,
managing global commons, creating an open trade system and achieving financial
stability.84 However, the knowledge gap between rich and poor countries is widening
largely due to the incapacity of the latter to absorb knowledge, and this reduces
opportunities to close the development gap. What is more, due to the functioning
of the intellectual property rights mechanism some knowledge is unavailable for the
development of other GPGs, so that elements of it change from being a public to a
private good.85 New information technology offers new opportunities and challenges for
knowledge transfer.
Demography
Demographic changes become visible in the long term and present a serious challenge to
humanity and development in the twenty-first century. An unevenly structured population,
caused by falling death rates and high birth rates, can hamper achievement of the MDGs.
Rapid changes in the composition of the population, such as the dependency ratio or
ageing, can affect economic growth, negatively or positively (the demographic dividend).
In addition, demographic trends can affect employment, peace and security, urbanisation,
the environment and poverty in a country.86
Peace and security
Conflicts and violence are important reasons for failure to achieve the MDGs. No lowincome fragile state has yet achieved a single MDG and progress is slow. In countries
in conflict more people are undernourished and fewer attend school, child mortality
is higher and there is less clean water, etc. Social tensions and the enormous influx of
small weapons are leading to an increase in domestic violence. Effective action in fragile
states calls not only for money but also for reliable data on employment, public security
82 J. Vandemoortele, 201i, ‘The MDG Story: Intention Denied’, in Development and Change, Vol. 42, no. 1,
pp. 1-21.
83 A. Sumner, ‘The New Bottom Billion’, The Broker, issue 23, December 2010.
84 International Taskforce on Global Public Goods, ‘Meeting Global Challenges: International Cooperation in
the National Interest’, Stockholm 2006, p. 65.
85 Idem, pp. 67-68.
86 AIV, ‘Demographic Changes and Development Cooperation’, advisory report no. 66, The Hague, July 2009.
28
and access to the rule of law. Some commentators are therefore calling for indicators for
these issues. Others demand indicators for peacebuilding, institution building (including
security sector reform) and the prevention of violence.
Infrastructure in Africa
For Africa it is crucial to tackle the lack of physical infrastructure (roads, railways,
electricity, ports, telephones, internet, etc.). Critics are of the opinion that investment in
the social sectors is of little use unless the conditions to allow economic activity are first
in place. They claim that the MDGs have diverted attention from crucial infrastructure.
Besides water and sanitation, the MDGs only devote attention to information and
communication technology (ICT), an area in which progress has been made, thanks to
private investment.
Human rights and good governance
Human rights and the MDGs should be closely related.87 Chapter five of the Millennium
Declaration refers to the importance of human rights, but in the end they were not
mentioned at all in the MDGs. As poverty is often the result of discrimination, various
critics believe that non-discrimination and the principle of equality should be included in
a post-2015 system. In their view this would benefit the most vulnerable and poorest
groups.88
Global public goods
Although the MDG literature does not refer directly to global public goods, some argue
that this would be a better approach than the MDGs. Chapter B.IV.2 will examine this
issue in more detail.
A.III.2 Themesthatshouldhavebeenorshouldbeaddressedingreaterdetail
Food security
One of the targets of MDG1 is to reduce hunger. Food security plays a prominent role
in the fight against hunger. According to the FAO, one billion people worldwide are
undernourished and two billion lack sufficient essential nutrients.89 The World Bank is
concerned about higher food prices, which is pushing more people below the poverty line.
Target 1c of the MDGs devotes attention to hunger (underweight children and people who
are deprived of nutrients), but this does not suffice since it does not address the causes
of these problems. With the growth of world food production, the issue has increasingly
become one of distribution and regional food security. The neglect of agriculture in many
developing countries has resulted in the supply of food being unable to keep track with
the rising demand resulting from population growth and changing consumption patterns.
Food insecurity has also increased because more countries have started importing food
and because the price of grain and other staple foodstuffs is subject to considerable
87 Nearly all the MDGs have some overlap with internationally recognised human rights. For example, the
right to education (art. 25(1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and MDG2. For an overview of this
overlap, see UNDP, ‘Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals, Making the Link’, New York
2007, p. 11. See also section B.IV.1.
88 Report of the Seminar on Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals, held at the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs in The Hague, 25-26 May 2009, p. 26.
89 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), ‘The State of Food Security in the World: Addressing food
insecurity in protracted crises’, Rome, 2010, p. 9.
29
fluctuations. According to some commentators, this price volatility is due not only to
drought or flooding, but also to increased speculation on the commodity markets.
Climate
Changes to the climate are directly impacting on poverty. If action is not taken to combat or
mitigate climate change and its consequences, poverty cannot possibly be eradicated. That
is why it is often argued that both problems should be tackled simultaneously.90 Small-scale,
labour-intensive activities in the field of water, energy, sustainable agriculture and production
can present positive prospects and a win-win situation: people living in poverty are assured
a sustainable income and they also promote solutions to these problems. As it brings more
extreme drought, floods and storms, climate change is expected to hit developing countries
particularly hard, and especially the most vulnerable groups.91
Gender
Although MDG3 aims to promote gender equality and empower women, critics emphasise
that the goal is incomplete. According to Amnesty International, the MDGs do not
currently fulfil all the obligations agreed by states to combat discrimination against
women.92 Themes missing from the MDGs are the Convention on the Elimination of
all Forms of Discrimination against Women, drawn up in 1981 and one of the most
important international documents in the fight to stop discrimination against women,93
and the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action, which included twelve points for action,
including sexual and reproductive rights and eradicating violence against women.94
The choice of the three indicators to measure the progress of MDG3 (promoting equality
between men and women) is fairly random: participation in education, access to paid
employment outside the agricultural sector, and the number of parliamentary seats
held by women. The quality of education or the extent to which pupils complete it, for
example, is not measured. Girls in particular often leave school early.95 The indicator
‘wage employment in the non-agricultural sector’ makes no distinction between the
different types of work that women do. What is more, in many developing countries,
90 E. Solheim, ‘Climate, Conflict and Capital’, in: Poverty in Focus; The MDGs and Beyond: Pro-Poor Policy in a
Changing World, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, No. 19, January 2010, p. 24.
91 N. Stern, ‘The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review’, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
92 Amnesty International, ‘From Promises to Delivery. Putting Human Rights at the Heart of the Millennium
Development Goals’, London, 2010, p. 16.
93 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (1981). Countries that
are party to the convention must take active steps to combat discrimination, for example by removing
discriminatory legislation and establishing a protective mechanism.
94
See point 3 on access to health care and related services, and point 4 on eradicating violence against
women.
95
N. Jones, R. Holmes, J. Espey, ‘Progressing Gender Equality Post-2015: Harnessing the Multiplier
Effects of Existing Achievements’, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 41, No. 1, January 2010, p. 115.
30
the non-agricultural sector only accounts for a small percentage of total employment.96
The number of seats in parliament has not always proved effective in initiating women’s
empowerment.97
Global governance
MDG8 aims ‘to develop a global partnership for development’. This eighth goal was
added at a later stage in the process, largely at the insistence of developing countries,
which also wanted to see some form of accountability for the donor countries in terms
of ODA and trade, finance and debt policy so as to bring a degree of coherence to the
international system. MDG8 has never, however, achieved the necessary forms of global
governance. It has become a cluster containing a wide variety of goals and targets
added at the last minute. Consequently the original objective that some countries, and
especially developing countries, had in mind for MDG8 – a goal to enforce coherence in
the policies of developed countries and to develop a measurable form of accountability
for these countries in achieving the MDGs – has never got off the ground. If there has
been any improvement at all in global governance, it is more a response to the financial
crisis than the result of any great effort to achieve MDG8.
A.III.3 Missingtargetgroups
Generally speaking, with the exception of women, the MDGs are not specifically directed
at the most vulnerable groups in society. Yet a number of other groups can be considered
vulnerable because they are also often disproportionately affected by poverty.
The World Bank has indicated that people with a functional impairment make up
around 10% of the global population and 20% of the world’s poor.98 The second Special
Rapporteur on Disability of the Commission for Social Development has noted that poverty
and functional impairment often go together.99 This group of people merit extra attention
– which is currently minimal – in national and international development agendas on
poverty reduction.100 Nor do the MDGs devote specific attention to people with functional
impairments, while programmes and policies based on the MDGs often ignore this group
completely.101 In recent years, however, the UN – and the Special Rapporteur in particular –
has devoted attention to the importance of taking full account of the interests of people
96
UN, Inter-Agency and Expert Group on MDG Indicators, 6th Gender Indicators Sub-group meeting, New
York, 2005, <http://www.wiego.org/IAEGGenderSubgroupMinutes26Sep2005.doc>.
97
R. Johnson, ‘Not a sufficient condition: The limited relevance of the gender MDG to women’s progress’,
Gender and Development, Vol. 13 (1) 2005, p. 60.
98
A. Elwan, ‘Poverty and Disability: A Review of the Literature’, Social Protection Discussion Paper
No. 9932, 1999, World Bank.
99
Report by the UN Secretary-General, ‘Mainstreaming Disability in the Development Agenda’, ECOSOC,
20 November 2009, UN doc. E/CN.5/2010/6, p. 4.
100 Idem, pp. 17-18.
101 UN General Assembly, report by the Secretary-General, ‘Realizing the MDGs for persons with disabilities
through the implementation of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons and the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, 27 July 2009, UN doc. A/64/180, p. 3.
31
with a functional impairment within the MDGs.102 The greatest problem facing these
people is that they are often the victims of stigma and prejudice.103
The Millennium Declaration calls on states to respect the rights of minorities.104 In
reality, however, indigenous people and minorities are invisible within the MDGs, due to a
lack of data on their development and situation.105 Desk reviews by the United Nations
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues show that indigenous peoples are included to
only a very limited extent in national MDG reports and evaluations.106 The same applies
to minorities.107
Indigenous peoples suffer deprivation through loss of land and natural resources by
colonisation, multiple discrimination, marginalisation and the incapacity to lead their own
lives.108 It is therefore not surprising that they make up 15% of the poorest segment
of the world’s population, but only 5% of the global population as a whole.109 Access to
adequate care and education is below national averages and these groups are especially
vulnerable to the effects of environmental degradation.110 Many of the richest mineral
deposits are found on the territories of indigenous peoples, and dispossession of their
lands is a serious problem.111 Other minorities based on nationality, religion, language
102 Important resolutions have been adopted on this issue, including ECOSOC Resolution 2008/21.
103 J.E. Groce, J-P. Trani, ‘Millennium Development Goals and People with Disabilities’, The Lancet, Vol. 374,
28 November 2009, p. 1800.
104 Millennium Declaration 2000, Part V: ‘…strengthen the capacity of countries to implement the
principles and practices of democracy and respect for human rights, including minority rights’.
105 C. Doyle, ‘Indigenous Peoples and the Millennium Development Goals: “Sacrificial lambs” or equal
beneficiaries?’, The International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 13, No. 1, February 2009, p. 44. UN
Human Rights Council, Report by the Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Gay MacDougall,
2 February 2007, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/9, p. 17.
106 The desk reviews can be found at: <www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii>.
107 UN Human Rights Council: Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Gay McDougall,
2 February 2007, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/9, p. 7.
108 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples’, UN
doc. ST/ESA/328, p. 21.
109 W.J.M. van Genugten, ‘Protection of Indigenous Peoples on the African Continent: Concepts, Position
Seeking, and the Interaction of Legal Systems’, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 104, No. 1,
2010, pp. 29-65.
110 UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, ‘Indigenous People and the MDGs: Inclusive and Culturally
Sensitive Solutions’, UN Chronicle: Partnership for Development, Vol. XLV, No. 1, 2008.
111 R. L. Barsh, ‘Is the Expropriation of Indigenous People’s Land GATT-able?’, Review of European
Community & International Environmental Law, Vol. 10, Issue 1, April 2001, pp. 13–26.
32
and ethnic origin are also disproportionately poorer as a result of discrimination, violence
and exclusion.112
The 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognises both individual
and collective rights. Guaranteeing the right to self-determination and the subsequent
right to full and effective participation in decision-making processes are key elements in
achieving sustainable progress for indigenous peoples.113 The UN Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Peoples states that, if the MDGs are to be achieved by 2015, these elements
must be supported through a human-rights-based approach to development, centred on
universality, equality, participation and accountability.114 Working with indigenous peoples
on the MDGs also calls for an approach based on respect for their culture, world view,
experiences and viewpoints on development. The Forum therefore proposes allowing
indigenous people to participate fully and effectively in designing, implementing and
monitoring MDG programmes and projects relating to them.115
A.III.4 TheUN’sresponsetocriticismoftheeightgoals
The final report by the UN Secretary-General in 2010 does not address the fundamental
criticism of the MDGs. The report states that the goals are achievable and that the
shortcomings in progress can be fully explained by a lack of political will, insufficient
funds, a lack of focus and sense of responsibility, and insufficient interest in sustainable
development.116 The report does, however, discuss themes not specifically mentioned in
the MDGs, including violence against women, poverty among indigenous peoples, refugees,
inequality, equitable growth, peace and security, agricultural production, good governance
and human rights, climate, and the role of civil society organisations and the private sector.
It does not question the concept of the MDGs as such (as unrealistic, unfeasible goals with
an emphasis on achieving quantitative targets), but the UN does seem to have taken steps
in the direction of an MDG-plus agenda by incorporating themes in the report that are not
mentioned explicitly in the goals.
112 UN Human Rights Council: Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Gay McDougall,
2 February 2007, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/9, p. 7.
113 UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, ‘Indigenous People and the MDGs: Inclusive and Culturally
Sensitive Solutions’, UN Chronicle: Partnership for Development, Vol. XLV, No. 1, 2008.
114 See also chapter B.IV.1, Human rights approach.
115 UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Report of the International Expert Group Meeting on the
Millennium Development Goals, Indigenous Participation and Good Governance, fifth session, New York
2006, par. 62.
116 UN Secretary-General, ‘Keeping the Promise; A forward-looking review to promote an agreed action
agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015’, Report of the Secretary-General, UN
General Assembly 64th session, February 2010, par. 5 and 116.
33
A.IV
What have the MDGs meant for policy in developing and donor countries?
A.IV.1 HowhavetheMDGsbeenusedindevelopingcountries?
To what extent have the MDGs been embraced by all developing countries that receive
aid? Many regional organisations devoted attention to the MDGs, especially in the run-up
to the 2010 summit.117
Kersalla Yansane identifies a certain scepticism among African countries, regarding the
MDGs.118 For them, the goals are just another donor strategy, the latest in a long series
of failed initiatives intended to support development in Africa, including the UN’s Systemwide Special Initiative for Africa, dating from 1996, and various pledges made by the UN,
G8 and G20 in the past decade. Enthusiasm for the goals in Africa was dampened by
the fact that it is impossible to achieve them at the continent’s current rate of economic
growth (7% growth is required to reduce poverty by half) and the current level of aid
(according to the Commission for Africa and the Millennium Project, aid would have to be
doubled between 2005 and 2010 for the goals to be achieved).119
Others claim that the MDGs push national priorities into the background; for example,
Rwanda wanted to give priority to secondary and tertiary vocational education, and
Tanzania to small-scale irrigation to improve the situation of its farmers. In the latter
case, donors insisted on building large-scale dams, as this would have a positive effect
on GDP and therefore bring the country closer to achieving MDG1.120
In some cases, developing countries have manipulated the statistics relating to the
MDGs or interpreted the goals in their own way. In a number of Latin American countries,
for example, deprived indigenous groups were excluded from household surveys and
interviews to produce more positive statistics on poverty.121 Several Latin American
countries also relate MDG6, combating HIV/AIDS, exclusively to homosexuality, so that
women who are the victims of violence and become infected with HIV are not taken into
account. Sometimes the MDGs themselves lead to erroneous policy decisions (or justify
existing choices): in Honduras, for example, violence against women is the second most
common cause of death, but the ministry of health only has a programme for maternal
mortality (MDG5).122
117 For an overview of all regions see, for example, the regional reports of the Economic Commission for
Latin America and the Caribbean at:<www.eclac.org>.
118 K. Yansane, ‘An African Perspective of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): From scepticism to
leadership and hope’, Committee for Development Policy, March 2005.
119 Idem, p. 8.
120 Y. Subasat, ‘After 2015: Promoting Pro-Poor Policy after the MDGs’, EADI Conference, June 2009, p. 3.
121 Idem, p. 3, with reference to S. Damman, ‘Indigenous Vulnerability and the Process Towards the
Millennium Development Goals: Will a Human Rights-Based Approach Help?’, International Journal on
Minority and Group Rights, Vol. 14, no. 4 2007, pp. 489-539.
122 Idem, p. 4.
34
Many countries adapt the MDGs to their local circumstances by adding goals, targets or
indicators.123 For example, by 2000 Thailand had already achieved the goal of halving the
number of people living in poverty compared to the base year of 1990. The government
therefore decided to set up an MDG-Plus agenda addressing the main problems affecting
the country’s development. This agenda contains more ambitious goals than the
international MDGs. The goal to halve poverty, for example, was adjusted: the aim was
now to reduce the number of people living in poverty to less than 4% in 2009.124
In practically all countries where the UN has a presence the MDGs are mentioned in
planning documents, but it is often unclear how adequately they are implemented. The
UN concludes, for example, that in eight out of ten countries the MDGs are mentioned in
the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, but that many of them – especially the poorest
countries – see the PRSPs as a donor-driven process. In around half of low-income
countries, more funding has been allocated or pledged to the MDG sectors. Awareness of
the MDGs is highest in the least developed countries.125 They receive the most attention
in Africa, as witness publications by ministries of finance and debates in parliaments.
A more detailed analysis of the 22 PRSPs in developing countries shows that the
MDGs have a strong normative effect.126 This applies, however, to selected targets,
with an emphasis on economic growth (‘pro-poor’ in a minority of cases), the social
sectors (primary education, health and sanitation) and governance (the rule of law,
decentralisation and anti-corruption measures: not included in the MDGs). The MDGs
on hunger, gender equality (education, political representation), reproductive rights and
decent work receive less attention, while equity (income equality), violence against
women, human rights (minorities, migrants), participation, democratic governance and
partnerships with civil society organisations and the private sector (none of which are
referred to in the MDGs) are ignored completely. Ethical themes, like human dignity and
equality, which underpin the Millennium Declaration but are not explicitly mentioned in
the MDGs, are not addressed in the PRSPs. This leads Fukuda-Parr to conclude that the
PRSPs are primarily based on the thinking of the 1980s, with its focus on income growth
and poverty reduction as a secondary goal, and that they ignore modern approaches
that focus on multidimensional poverty caused by a lack of both voice and access and
vulnerability to external shocks.127 The PRSPs also tend to focus on specific budgets and
avoid making total cost estimates, as these needs assessments are controversial.128
123 UN Development Group (UNDG), ‘Beyond the Midpoint: Achieving the Millennium Development Goals’,
New York, January 2010, Annex 1.2, p. 135.
124 UN Development Programme (UNDP), Thailand Millennium Development Goals Report 2004, New York,
p. 7.
125 UN Development Group (UNDG), ‘Making the MDGs Matter: A Country Perspective’, Report of UNDG
Survey, New York, June 2005, pp. 4-5.
126 S. Fukuda-Parr, ‘Are the MDGs priority in development strategies and aid programmes? Only a few are!’,
International Poverty Centre, working paper 48, October 2008.
127 Idem, p. 13.
128 Idem, p. 10.
35
A.IV.2 HavetheMDGshadanimpactondonorpolicies?
To what extent have donors allowed themselves to be led by the MDGs? Multilateral
institutions, with UNDP at the forefront but also including the World Bank, UNICEF, WHO,
FAO and others, have contributed considerably to the conceptualisation, implementation
and monitoring of the MDGs.
However, aid from traditional donors has not increased since the introduction of the
MDGs. On the other hand, aid from non-DAC donors and private funds has risen,
although estimates of the scale of this increase vary.129 DAC donors fall way short of
the 0.7% norm; on average, they gave less than half of this amount (0.31% of GNI). That
also includes aid to Afghanistan ($4.8 billion) and Iraq ($9.9 billion), by far the largest
recipients. Ethiopia was the third largest recipient ($ 3.3 billion in 2008). Aid to the least
developed countries was only 0.09% GNI (2008).130 Nevertheless, it could be said with
some caution that the MDG agenda has helped maintain the level of aid, even during
times of crisis.
An analysis of 20 policy documents of bilateral aid organisations shows that, to differing
degrees, donors have gradually adopted the MDGs.131 Little priority is given to infant
and maternal mortality. Employment, hunger, gender and related Millennium themes like
social integration and technology are also underrepresented. In contrast to the PRSPs,
129 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2010:
Retooling Global Development’, New York, May 2010, pp. 54-55.
130 UN, ‘Millennium Development Goal 8: The Global Partnership for Development at a Critical Juncture’,
MDG Gap Task Force Report 2010, New York 2010, p. x.
131 S. Fukuda-Parr, ‘Are the MDGs priority in development strategies and aid programmes? Only a few are!’,
International Poverty Centre, working paper 48, October 2008, pp. 11-13.
36
considerable attention is devoted to environmental protection (but not to sanitation),
democratic governance and, in more recent donor policy documents, climate change.
Peace and security also receives a lot of attention, reflecting the need – at any rate
among donor countries – to include this theme from the Millennium Declaration in policy,
despite its not being part of the traditional development agenda.
MDG8 goals are primarily mentioned in MDG reports referring to international
negotiations like Doha (trade), the Paris Declaration (donor coordination) and the HIPC
(Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) initiative (debt cancellation). The needs assessment for
the MDGs – the estimate of available and required resources to achieve the goals – is
drawn up per individual country. As part of their development policies, countries
themselves calculate their needs and resources, often in consultation with the donor
community. Calculating how much it costs at global level to achieve the MDGs is a
tough challenge, which can be approached in different ways: by income group, theme or
region.132 The UN Millennium Project, for example, has calculated that the estimated
MDG funding deficit for all low-income countries was $73 billion in 2006 and $89 billion
in 2010, and that it will be $135 billion in 2015.133
The European Union
Some people feel that the European Union (EU) should take the lead in formulating a
new development paradigm.134 The European Commission has formulated a 12-point
action plan to support the MDGs.135 The EU is the largest donor and has committed
itself to improving the effectiveness of aid.136 In addition, the Union itself is a model of
regional cooperation and support for weaker member states, even though there is often
a degree of friction. The MDGs were developed by the UN, primarily UNDP. If the EU were
to take it upon itself to formulate a follow-up policy, the AIV considers consultation with
its development partners essential, right from the start. Another option is for like-minded
European states to form a group with a number of important development partners. The
Netherlands could play a prominent role in this group and should call on the UN to set up
a commission or task force to this end.
The Netherlands
A recent report by the Netherlands Court of Audit on accountability for development
spending concludes that the Netherlands’ policy priorities, its budget articles and the
MDGs are largely addressed separately. The MDGs are accounted for in the annual
132 UN, Millennium Development Goal 8: ‘The Global Partnership for Development at a Critical Juncture’,
MDG Gap Task Force Report 2010, New York 2010, pp. 3-4.
133 UN Millennium Project, ‘Investing in Development: A practical plan to achieve the Millennium
Development Goals’, New York 2005.
134 F. Bourguignon et al, ‘Millennium Development Goals at Mid-point: Where do we stand and where do
we need to go?’, Summary of paper for the joint European Commission initiative ‘Mobilising European
Research for Development Policies’, European Report on Development, September 2008.
135 European Commission, ‘A Twelve-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals’,
communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, 21 April 2010.
136 EU Code of Conduct on Complementarity and Division of Labour.
37
report on development cooperation, but this cannot be translated directly in terms of
the budget and policy.137 There is therefore a certain tension between donors’ national
policy priorities and international goals. The Court of Audit recommends making a sharp
distinction between themes that are results-based, and the strategy, channels and
conditions that determine the framework for cooperation. The Court also notes that
results-based and input-based commitments are not the same, and that it is necessary to
distinguish between internal monitoring (to increase learning capacity) and accountability
to parliament (and the public).
In the interest of country specificity and ownership, the AIV advises the Dutch government
to account to parliament for the budget by recipient country and to include a statement of
expenditure by theme, specified per MDG.
A.V
The MDGs after 2015?
In this chapter the AIV presents a number of recommendations for a possible contribution
by the Netherlands to the process of achieving international consensus on a development
agenda after 2015. Its arguments are based on the assessment and criticism of the
MDGs as analysed in the previous chapters and summarised briefly below in section
A.V.1. They also take account of current global developments, new themes and the
requirements of global governance, all of which are addressed in more detail in part B
of this report. Three options are examined more closely: abolition of the MDGs (A.V.2),
continuation of the current system (A.V.3), or reform and introduction of a renewed MDG
system (A.V.4).
A.V.1
Conclusionsandlessonslearned
The Millennium Declaration that preceded the MDGs is still relevant in specifying a
number of important conditions for achieving development. The progress reviews of 2005
and 2010 added a number of significant issues in areas like gender and social security.
Some of the elements in the Millennium Declaration were translated into quantitative
goals and targets: the Millennium Development Goals. The main advantages of the MDGs
are that they expand the concept of poverty, focus on output (results) and not input
(financing), provide a worldwide normative framework for the different actors involved in
development cooperation, and promote international consensus.
The MDG system has been successful in communicating a complex development problem
to a wider public, but it must be accepted that the majority of the goals will not be
achieved by 2015. This is partly because of the limited operationalisation of the goals
for developed countries (MDG8) and a failure (with a number of exceptions, including
the Netherlands) to comply with international pledges, in relation to Official Development
Assistance (ODA) and reform of the global trade and financial system.
A number of countries never entirely embraced the MDG concept because they felt
that the process of formulating and setting the goals and targets was driven in the first
instance by the donor countries. Some African countries saw the MDGs as just the
latest in a series of initiatives for the continent that had mainly failed and not resulted in
increased aid flows.
137 Netherlands Court of Audit, Basis voor een goede verantwoording over ontwikkelingssamenwerking,
The Hague, March 2010, p. 18.
38
A number of themes in the original Millennium Declaration of 2000 were not included in
the MDGs, or not to a sufficient extent (some have since been incorporated in the followup declarations of 2005 and 2010), but are certainly relevant in a post-2015 system.
These include food security, demography, infrastructure in Africa, peace and security,
inequality, sustainability, growth and employment, human rights and knowledge. On a
number of goals – including climate, gender and global governance – input has been
totally inadequate.
A major criticism of the MDG system is that it has no underlying economic theory or a
theoretical basis for the choices made. Furthermore, the MDGs take no account of what
deprived parts of the world need to do more or less than others to achieve them, nor
do they provide much insight into progress made by individual countries. Setting global
goals and then implementing them per country has proved insufficiently effective and
inspirational.
The choice of 1990 as the benchmark year for the MDGs provides an overly positive
image of what has been achieved. The effects of the 2008 financial and economic
crisis are difficult to estimate. While the crisis has made it more difficult to implement
the MDGs, it was itself the outcome of a failing global financial system. The question
of whether just as much progress would have been made without the MDGs is
understandable and legitimate, yet difficult to answer scientifically. An accelerated trend
since 2000 can only be observed in 20% of the MDG indicators.
Despite this criticism the AIV believes that indicators are useful as a policy instrument,
and that benchmarks like those used by the MDGs, should be maintained. The AIV also
believes that some of the existing indicators, such as those for education and water,
need to be extended so that they also measure quality. It recommends broadening the
scope of the indicators to include themes like inequality, wellbeing, sustainability and
human rights principles, and target groups such as women.
It is difficult to determine exactly what the MDGs have signified for policy development
in developing countries. Donor-dependent countries often tend to say what their donors
wish to hear. Some developing countries have adapted the MDGs in their own way
by, for example, adding targets for human rights or extra relevant indicators, such as
specific diseases. The Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) that still dominate
policy in poorer countries generally refer selectively to the MDGs but, despite reforms,
they are still considered by many to be donor-driven and not focused sufficiently on the
multidimensional aspect of poverty. To date, the MDGs have been unable to prevent
certain issues from being underrepresented, including hunger, gender inequality,
employment and reproductive rights. In addition, setting unrealistic goals, e.g. in Africa,
does not promote ownership.
To do greater justice to developing countries’ own policies, it is equally important to
measure progress made in pursuing national priorities and achieving the MDGs. Flexibility
in establishing clusters of goals for each country can help to achieve this. It is also
important to aggregate national goals and set them off against the global MDGs. A clear
link should be established between national policy and the MDGs.
Generally speaking it will not be possible to dictate the levels of effort required to pursue
the MDGs though there is peer pressure on those who fail to meet the indicators (naming
and shaming). A bottom-up strategy is a more effective way of acquiring support for the
MDGs, and today’s better informed network society can play a prominent role in this.
39
To improve linkage between national policy and the MDGs, it is important for developing
countries and the emerging economies to play a prominent role in the development of a
new strategy. The success of the post-2015 system depends largely on this consultative
process.
The MDG agenda and the Paris Agenda on aid effectiveness merit closer coordination
to promote donor harmonisation; the number of coordination mechanisms in the Paris
Agenda should be limited; implementation at partner country level is the most important.
The AIV therefore calls for a link to be made between the Paris Agenda and donor
harmonisation around the country-specific MDG themes. There should be an international
division of labour by country and theme; it is important to investigate what partner
countries feel about this.
If the EU were to take it upon itself to formulate a follow-up policy, consultation with its
development partners is essential right from the start. The AIV recommends that likeminded European states form a group with a number of important development partners.
Although, as noted previously, the EU is the largest donor and a joint EU standpoint
would probably carry more political weight, a group of like-minded countries would have
the advantage of being more flexible, increasing opportunities for developing countries
to be involved at an early stage. The Netherlands could play a prominent role here and,
together with other countries, call for the UN to set up a commission or task force to this
end, in which developing countries would also participate.
One point that is important for a number of donor countries, including the Netherlands, is
how to coordinate the MDGs, which are grouped by theme, with a country-specific policy.
In line with its advisory report no. 69, the AIV recommends that, when accounting to
parliament on the budget, the government should specify by aid-recipient country (in the
interests of country specificity and ownership) and include a statement on theme-based
expenditure per MDG.
A.V.2
MDGsinperspective:shouldtheybeabolished?
The MDGs have initiated a broad international discussion, generating greater awareness
and clarifying standpoints in the development debate. There has been considerable
fundamental and detailed criticism, chiefly that the MDGs are an example of donorship
rather than ownership. The AIV finds this criticism justified in some cases.
The AIV also believes that the MDGs lack both a solid basis and a vision of a
development process that requires structural change. While some consider that a
weakness, others see it as a strength: precisely because they lack any theoretical
basis, the MDGs do not have to lead to the kind of ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy which the
WRR, for example, has correctly objected to. Despite the fact that the MDGs were never
intended as a one-size-fits-all approach, many – especially in the donor community –
have embraced them as a mantra for development, sometimes through lack of a better
alternative. The goals have come to be seen in such absolute terms that anything that
falls outside them no longer matters. As a consequence, every self-respecting group
has tried to get its area of activity included within the MDGs. A number of examples
have been given in previous chapters. The fixation with bringing everything under the
MDGs has resulted in many people forgetting that sustainable economic growth with a
conscious policy of structural change and redistribution can just as easily contribute to
social progress as direct attention to the social sector.
40
Should we then abolish the MDGs? The AIV does not believe we should, for a number of
important reasons. The main one is that the MDGs were intended as a global consensus
to make development efforts more focused and multidimensional by setting targets and
thus creating accountability. If we were now to abolish the MDGs we would be getting
off too lightly, especially the developed countries which have had far less to do with
accountability. There is general agreement that MDG8 (global partnership), which was
added to the process at a later stage, demands very little of the developed countries. The
AIV therefore believes that an important element of the evaluation of the MDGs in 2015
should address the question of how the global partnership has developed in reality and
what lessons should be learned with a view to improving it.
Where the other goals are concerned, the AIV notes that the MDG system has certainly
had a positive impact in certain areas, especially in more recent years. Its main assets
have been initiating a global consensus, communicability, universal indicators and the
accumulation of statistical data in the form of benchmarks and measurable results. The
fixed period, with 2015 as the target year, has undoubtedly exerted additional pressure
on donors and local governments to increase their efforts. Unfortunately, it is not
possible to determine clearly whether this has simply led to priorities being shifted or to
an absolute increase in the aid effort, or at least steps to prevent it being reduced.
A.V.3
ShouldwecontinuewiththecurrentMDGsystem?
The AIV therefore finds that, on balance, it is not advisable to abolish the MDG system
completely. That is, however, not a recommendation to continue the present system
unchanged. It would be a highly undesirable scenario if, in 2015, we were to conclude
that not all the MDGs have been achieved and that a new period needs to be set in which
to achieve them. The criticism, as presented in the previous sections, is too serious to
continue on the same footing. Perhaps one of the most important factors supporting a
change of approach is that the world is now a different place than it was at the end of the
last century, when the MDGs were formulated.
The world has recently emerged from a serious recession and a financial crisis, which
were caused in the industrialised countries but led to increased poverty in parts of many
developing countries, and made it even more difficult to achieve a number of social goals.
The World Bank speaks of a setback of several years. The global crisis, together with the
rapid growth of a number of developing countries, has produced radical changes in the
global balance of power. At the time of writing, events are unfolding in the Arab region the
consequences of which we cannot yet foresee, but which will possibly also influence a
new consensus on development.
In short, it is no longer the G7 of Western countries – or the G8 with Russia on board –
that meet to discuss international coordination, but the G20, which also includes a
number of developing countries, in which attempts to reach a global consensus are being
made. This is a completely different configuration than in the run-up to the Millennium
Declaration at the end of the 1990s, when the OECD DAC secretariat was one of the
institutions driving formulation of the Declaration and the MDGs based on it. The
Netherlands, too, is in a somewhat different position than it was then, partly because it is
not a permanent member of the G20. In addition, a growing percentage of development
financing now runs outside the DAC.
The G20 has recently reached agreement on a new development agenda (the Seoul
Development Consensus for Shared Growth, see annexe IV). The consensus contains six
(G20) Development Principles. Principle 6 on ‘outcome orientation’ focuses on ‘targeting,
41
monitoring and accountability’. The AIV believes that engaging as far as possible with this
consensus can considerably increase the chances of reaching a global consensus on a
post-2015 system.
Another consideration is the growth of India, China and other developing countries, which
is changing the division of poverty in the world.138 Poor people do not live only in poor
countries; a large proportion of the world’s poor now live in middle-income countries or
emerging economies.139
A situation is emerging with, on the one hand, poor people in poor countries, largely in
Africa, and on the other, poor people alongside an emerging middle class in countries
with rapidly growing economies. This implies that if we are serious about setting a global
goal on reducing poverty and improving access to social services, we can no longer
ignore issues of how income and access to services are distributed. There are therefore
important arguments not to jettison the current MDG system, but to change it radically.
A.V.4
Apost-2015systemforinternationalcooperation
The AIV advises the government to advocate a strongly modified system. It is equally
important to take a different approach in trying to achieve international consensus and
ownership of the international development agenda. The AIV attaches great importance
to the proposal that developing countries should themselves determine their own
development within a framework of internationally agreed human dignity. Like the WRR, the
AIV has argued that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model of development is now a thing of the past.
Taking all this into account, the AIV finds that, in preparing the post-2015 agenda, a
process must be set in motion which allows ample scope for different development
models and for developing countries – and especially the people in them (who, after all,
are what poverty reduction is about) – to fully participate. This is different to the run-up to the
Millennium Declaration and the MDGs, which was largely donor-driven. The Netherlands
and other donors must, however, identify the contribution they can make to this process.
That is one of the aims of this report.
The AIV is therefore of the opinion that an international process of consultation and
consensus building must be set in motion forthwith. After all, one of the achievements
of the MDGs that deserves to be protected and strengthened is the creation of an
international consensus on development. Precisely what indicators are used is less
important than the participatory process itself. The AIV recommends setting up an
international commission as soon as possible that will, through a participatory process,
work on a future system to succeed the current Millennium Declaration/MDG system,
possibly with a renewed set of MDGs, and ensuring that this participatory approach
continues after 2015.
The original intention of the existing MDGs was to formulate them in the spirit of Amartya
Sen’s capabilities theory, which is based on the tenet that ‘freedom is progress’ and a
multidimensional view of what constitutes poverty (see section B.II.1). Unfortunately, not
all freedoms are incorporated consistently in the current MDGs. To measure development,
as many of the freedoms identified in Sen’s theory as possible should be included in the
138 R.J. van der Veen, Waarom Azië rijk en machtig wordt, KIT Publishers, Amsterdam, 2010.
139 A. Sumner, ‘The New Bottom Billion’, The Broker, issue 23, December 2010.
42
new MDG system. Besides including social security, this means measuring security and
incorporating the human rights approach to development (including participation, nondiscrimination and accountability) in all activities aimed at achieving the goals. Because
political rights will be a sensitive issue in a global consensus approach, the focus
could be placed on institution building; after all, an effective state is indispensable to
development, especially in fragile states.
The AIV considers it desirable that new ideas, like the ‘global social floor’ – an
internationally recognised minimum level of subsistence proposed in the 2010 MDG
Review – play a role in this process and in reviewing the MDGs. The Netherlands can
actively promote this. The crisis has shown just how much a global social floor is needed.
Rapid growth in some developing countries and the speed with which financial institutions
have recovered from the crisis, have convinced a large group of people that a global
social floor is possible and may not be rejected for purely financial reasons.140 The AIV
therefore recommends that a new system of MDGs should, if possible, contain a clearly
defined and internationally recognised minimum level of subsistence. This might be a
task for a subcommittee of experts.
The AIV sees its recommendations as the Netherlands’ contribution to a discussion in
which the voice and opinions of people in developing countries and of their governments
must also be clearly heard. After all, if we see development aid in terms of ownership
and the right to a social minimum, it is up to the recipient – under certain conditions – to
determine how it is used.
A number of practical recommendations – some of which have already been mentioned
above and others that can be seen as anticipating part B of this report – for the
Netherlands’ input in the process of designing a post-2015 system.
1. Focus on the process approach to achieving a new post-2015 system.
2. Do not set new target dates (no new ‘2015’), but measure progress every five to
ten years. Review the strategy in a ‘rolling’ process on the basis of the results. Set
sustainable targets.
3. There is no need to retain the ‘M’ for Millennium. This is no longer relevant after
2015. Where possible, use the terminology of the G20 and the Seoul Declaration to
facilitate international consensus.
4. Refer to actions, strategies and indicators, rather than goals.
5. Limit the current eight goals to a maximum of four or five clusters of goals, for
example by grouping health goals together; maintain the indicators and benchmarks
agreed so far.
6. Add a maximum of two or three goals or goal clusters, such as peace and (social)
security or effective governance, to do justice to themes that are widely considered
to be missing from the current system, especially the objective capabilities approach
and global public goods, and establish a link between the MDGs and the latter.
7. Embed human rights and gender issues by i) incorporating them throughout as
cross-cutting issues by, for example, measuring results according to gender, ethnicity,
rural-urban, regional, ‘bottom-top quintiles’ (principle of non-discrimination) and so
on; ii) by including references in the post-2015 system to key globally endorsed
conventions on human rights and agreements such as Cairo and Beijing; iii) by
establishing that all programmes of action must comply with the principles of
participation, non-discrimination and accountability.
140 Social Protection Floor Advisory Group (ILO), <www.ilo.org/public/english/protection>.
43
8. Make sure that donors organise themselves around a new system based on the
efficiency principles of the Paris Agenda (division of tasks and fewer national
priorities) and, if possible, establish a clear link with MDG themes.
9. In each new goal, describe action to be taken by donor countries, recipient countries
and other actors, and specify the roles and responsibilities of the various actors
(governments, parliaments, the private sector, trade unions and NGOs).
10. Include a number of indicators of demographic development to support the regular
analysis and monitoring of the progress made with development processes, but do
not express demographic developments as a goal. Preserve goals and indicators
relating to the use of contraceptives, and devote attention to ageing.
11. Ongoing globalisation, recent global developments and the financial-economic crisis
of 2008 and 2009 call for a post-2015 system that will introduce improvements to
the current international trade and financial systems.
44
B
Towards a different approach: a global
development agenda
Introduction
In part B of this report, in response to the government’s question whether the
development goals should not be seen more in relation to global challenges, and to
provide the government with the possible contours of a new international development
agenda, the AIV offers an overview of a number of important development themes that
have received national and international attention and considers their relevance for a
post-2015 system. The first chapter briefly examines current worldwide developments
in globalisation, trade and financial systems, technology and demography, which impact
on the context for a post-2015 system. This is followed by a chapter on themes and
challenges relating to what development is (or should be), and which can serve as a
basis for a post-2015 system. The subsequent chapter examines underexposed themes
that should be given priority in a post-2015 system. One of the conclusions that emerges
from the discussion on these themes is that greater global cooperation is required to
confront future challenges. Chapter four therefore addresses a conceptual basis for
global cooperation, looking at issues like human rights, global public goods and the need
to devote attention to global commons management. The final chapter examines the new
challenges for global governance.
B.I
Current developments
This chapter takes a brief look at global developments and their consequences, to
place the discussion on global governance and the future of the MDGs in a broader
perspective. A clear overview of these developments can be found in the UN’s World
Economic and Social Survey 2010 (WESS),141 the World Bank’s Global Monitoring Report
2010,142 and the UN World Urbanization Prospects report.143 As well as analysing trends,
this chapter also presents recommendations for achieving a new global consensus.
B.I.1
Globalisationatacrossroads
Globalisation is at a crossroads. The promise of peace and prosperity after the end of the
Cold War has not materialised and, instead, we are struggling with food, energy, financial
and climate crises and many conflicts (although the number of armed conflicts has fallen
since 1992, from 50 per year to around 30. Fewer people are also dying per conflict).144
141 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2010,
Retooling Global Development’, New York, May 2010.
142 World Bank, ‘Global Monitoring Report 2010: The MDGs after the Crisis’, Washington 2010.
143 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Urbanization Prospects 2009 Review’,
New York, 2010.
144 This refers to conflicts that claim more than 1,000 battle deaths every year. See the Human Security
Centre, ‘The Human Security Report: War and Peace in the 21st Century’, www.humansecurityreport.info
(University of British Columbia, Canada), 2005. An update of this report, which originally contained data
from 1946 to 2002, was published on 20 December 2006, with additional figures up to 2005.
45
With fragile states a widespread problem, most of today’s conflicts are civil wars.
The UN has observed five trends: a significant shift in the global economy due to the
rapid growth of developing countries in Asia, resulting in ‘multiple engines of growth’;
increasing income inequality (but with reduced poverty, especially in China); population
growth and urbanisation; heavy pressure on the natural environment and biodiversity;
and an economic process consisting of non-regulated global value chains, dominated by
international companies. Management of the global system is weak. There is tension
between decision-making at national and global level, which will only intensify if adequate
measures are not taken.145 The AIV endorses the UN’s analysis.
The Millennium Declaration stated that market growth strategies alone are not sufficient
to combat poverty and that good public and other institutions and social policy are
indispensable. The MDGs refocused attention on human development and poverty
reduction, often by increasing budget allocations to the social sectors. However, donor
policies continued to contain core elements of the structural adjustment policies of the
late 20th century, making it impossible to compensate for the impact of external shocks
on employment and incomes. As a result, many countries are no longer on track with the
MDGs. The scope for many countries to determine their own policies on industry and
other matters also remained limited through, for example, intellectual property provisions,
international trade rules, the increased role of foreign investments and non-public money
flows, which made it difficult to achieve macroeconomic stability.146
B.I.2
Tradeandfinancialsystems
International trade has increased in recent decades, largely due to the rapid growth of
intermediate products, often within the global value chains of multinational companies. In
addition, trade flows have displayed great volatility. Trade negotiations ran aground at the
Doha round of the WTO, exposing the organisation’s institutional weakness. The poorer
developing countries found themselves facing WTO-imposed restrictions on subsidies to
their own industries as well as trade tariffs and protected intellectual rights, leaving them
little scope for their own policies. More room needs to be created for a ‘common but
differentiated approach’.
The UN’s MDG8 Gap Task Force therefore advises completing the Doha round
negotiations as quickly as possible, with sufficient flexibility and aid to strengthen trade
and production in developing countries and prevent the expansion of protectionism as a
response to crises.147 The task force’s report also calls for the abolition of all agricultural
subsidies by 2013, as agreed earlier, and full ‘duty-free and quota-free’ market access for
the least developed countries to create employment, as well as simplification of ‘rules of
origin’.148 The AIV endorses not only these recommendations but also the importance of
encouraging both trade between developing countries and increased regional integration,
145 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2010:
Retooling Global Development’, New York, May 2010, chapter 1.
146 Idem.
147 UN, ‘Millennium Development Goal 8: The Global Partnership for Development at a Critical Juncture’,
MDG Gap Task Force Report 2010, New York 2010.
148 Idem, pp. xii-xiii.
46
for example by removing reciprocal tariffs and infrastructural obstacles.
In recent years, rather than promoting development, financial markets have further
restricted developing countries’ policy space by, for instance, lifting restrictions on capital
flows and integrating into the global market, resulting in greater volatility. Financial
instruments (derivatives) have become increasingly separated from ‘real’ production
sectors, fuelling short-term capital movements and speculation, leading to volatility in
capital markets. Self-regulation has not worked and has resulted in costly crises. The
G20 has only come up with a partial answer to that problem. Capital flows are much
more volatile than trade flows. The policy of liberalisation of capital markets in developing
countries, initiated by the IMF, has exposed them to too great risks. They may have
acquired better access to financing sources, but macroeconomic management has
become more difficult. The large dollar reserves that had to be accumulated for this
purpose have in fact led to a flow of capital from developing to developed countries.149
The AIV agrees with the analysis of the UN and the World Bank and observes that, in
addition to a greater influx of foreign capital, the international financial system has
resulted in greater volatility which mainly affects developing countries and the people
who live in them. A new financial structure is therefore urgently needed as an important
condition for development, and should therefore be part of a post-2015 system.
B.I.3
Newtechnology
Despite the crisis, the spread of information and communication technology (ICT) has
continued: 68% of the world’s population now has a mobile telephone (57% in developing
countries). The use of the internet has also increased in recent years: at the end of 2008
23% of the global population (1.6 billion people) used internet, but the percentage is
much higher in developed countries.150 The crisis has, however, had a negative impact
on investments and access to fast internet remains a problem in developing countries.
Liberalisation of the ICT market can make the use of telecommunications and ICT
significantly cheaper.
The AIV is of the opinion that a post-2015 system must devote attention to developing
countries’ absorption capacity for and access to new technology and to improving
knowledge transfer, something which the current MDG system barely touches on.
The AIV is aware that access to and transfer of knowledge raise important questions
relating to intellectual property. These include the complexity of many rules and the legal
infrastructure required to allow the system of intellectual property rights to function,
despite the fact that many specific arrangements have been made for developing
countries. The system of intellectual property rights must be allowed to function in a way
that does justice to the notion of knowledge as a global public good.151
149 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2010,
Retooling Global Development’, New York, May 2010, chapter 5.
150 UN, Millennium Development Goals report 2010, New York, p. 72.
151 See the project on the Millennium Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights and Development
conducted by seven researchers from North and South with funding from NWO-WOTRO Science for
Global Development and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The final report will be published in the summer
of 2011.
47
The International Task Force on Global Goods endorses two initiatives in this respect.
Firstly, strengthening the ‘common knowledge’ platform through international
partnerships aimed at improving worldwide opportunities for research and information.
Secondly, the task force is working to mitigate the disadvantages of TRIPs (Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) for developing countries.152 One way to achieve
this would be to conclude a new international agreement to make it easier to transfer
scientific knowledge and technological information.153 In addition, under the agreement,
rich countries would help poor countries improve their capacity to process, distribute and
generate knowledge, thus making up for shortfalls in the latter’s absorption capacity.
B.I.4
Demographicdevelopment
By the end of 2011, there will be around seven billion people living on Earth.154 That
will probably increase to eight billion by 2025, with 4.8 billion in Asia and 1.4 billion in
Africa.155 If these trends continue, the global population will have reached 9.15 billion
by 2050, with 5.2 billion in Asia and around 2 billion in Africa. Throughout this period,
developed regions will remain stable at or around 1.3 billion.156 This means that, in
2050, developed countries will account for only 14% of the world’s population. The
scale the population in some countries will have reached by then is already a cause for
concern: Niger 58.2 million (now 15.9), Ethiopia 173.8 (now 84.9), Nigeria 289 (now
158.2), Pakistan 335.2 (now 184.7) and Afghanistan 73.9 million (now 29.1).157
The birth rate is falling in almost all countries of the world, including the poorest,158
but in the least developed countries it will still be 2.4 more than the replacement rate
in 2050, generating population growth. More than 200 million women wish to use
contraceptives but have no access to them. Of 190 million pregnancies more than 50
million end each year in abortion, often conducted illegally and in unsafe conditions,
posing an enormous threat to health.159 Full access to contraception for all who
152 International Task Force on Global Public Goods, ‘Meeting Global Challenges: International Cooperation
in the National Interest’, Stockholm 2006, p. 68. The amount that developing countries will have to pay
every year in copyright under TRIPS is estimated at $60 billion. The original idea was that some of these
costs would be compensated by the advantages ensuing from the protection of intellectual property,
such as increased trade, supplementary technology transfer and higher foreign investments. These
expected benefits are, however, not enforceable.
153 Open access to basic science and technology (ABST).
154 World Population Foundation, Wereldbevolking 2010, sociale and demografische gegevens over de
wereldbevolking, Utrecht, 2010.
155 UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Population Division, ‘World Population
Prospects: The 2008 Revision’, <http://esa.un.org/unpp>.
156 Developed regions include Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
157 UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Population Division, ‘World Population
Prospects: The 2008 Revision’, <http://esa.un.org/unpp>.
158 The current birth rate in the poorest countries is approx. 4.08.
159 United Nations Population Fund, <http://www.unfpa.org/rh/planning.htm>.
48
currently want it would lead to a reduction in abortions and a further reduction in the
number of unwanted births, and to a substantially lower peak in the global population in
2050 (some demographers believe that the peak need be no higher than eight billion).
Education for girls also lowers the fertility rate.
The inactive percentage of the population (under 15 and over 60) will rise in the rich
countries to 48% (now 38%), and in Asia to 42% (now 36%), as a result of the falling
birth rate there, but will decrease to 38% in Africa (now 46%).160 This promises to be an
economic dividend for Africa, if sensible advantage is taken of the situation. Policy can be
based on it, and it can be reflected in the goals for Africa. In Asia, policy will need to take
account of ageing.
Urbanisation will rise to 55% in the least developed countries in 2050 (now 29%) and in
Sub-Saharan Africa to 60% (now 37%). In rich countries, it is currently 75% and will rise
further to 86%.161 Today, urbanisation is not seen as a negative development that should
be curbed. Cities have proved to be very good at generating prosperity. Measures to
combat urbanisation lead to slums, preparedness to controlled growth of cities and urban
prosperity.
There are 214 million international migrants worldwide, 128 million of whom live in
developed countries.162
The AIV’s July 2009 advisory report entitled ‘Demographic Changes and Development
Cooperation’ (report no. 66) notes that demographic trends only become visible in
the long term and bring about very far-reaching changes in the field of development
cooperation. They are also determinant for global public goods and have a great impact
on a number of elements in the MDGs, including economic growth, employment and
unemployment, peace and security, food security, environment, water, climate and poverty.
B.I.5
Conclusions
Current developments (and analysis of them) are an important guideline for a post-2015
system.
Globalisation
With a view to a coherent post-2015 system, the AIV shares the UN’s observation that
it is time for a new consensus, for which successive crises have created both the need
and the political space. This consensus will have to encompass success factors for
development, a number of which will be discussed in more detail later in this report. The
most important of these factors – in line with the WESS report – are as follows:
· industry and infrastructure policy aimed at sustainability, employment and poverty
reduction, and reducing CO2 emissions;
· attention to the development of sustainable agriculture;
· development-oriented macroeconomic policy: in addition to controlling inflation, fiscal
160 Idem.
161 UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (DESA), ‘World Urbanization
Prospects: The 2009 Revision’, <http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup>.
162 UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Population Division, ‘Trends in International
Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision’, <http://esa.un.org/migration/>.
49
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
restraint and export promotion, also scope for anticyclical policy with priority for
essential investment in development and focused on preserving employment and
income;
social policy aimed at human development, access to land and financial markets;
universal access to social security through structural transformation of the economy
and labour market policy;
a more equal distribution of income and capital resources (including land);
investment in human capital (education);
social policy as an integrated part of economic policy (and not as target group policy);
a properly functioning state (institutions, legislation);
space for country-specific policy; and
policy coherence both within countries and internationally (stable aid flows, financial
markets and a fair trade system).163
Trade and financial system
A full analysis of a new global trade and financial system is beyond the scope of this
report but, in the context of a post-2015 system, the AIV considers the following
elements to be important:
· multilateral macroeconomic monitoring with the aim of promoting capital flows to
developing countries; the developing countries themselves should ensure a secure
environment for investments;
· regulation of financial markets to prevent excessive risk acceptance, and a new global
financial authority;
· international cooperation to coordinate taxation of multinational companies;
· re-introduction of mechanisms for compensatory financing (protection against external
shocks by providing access to international funding sources);
· better monitoring by the IMF of the consequences of the national economic policies
of developed and developing countries for the international economy, especially for
countries with reserve currencies; and
· democratisation of the governance of the IMF and the World Bank, and reform of these
institutions.164
Technology and knowledge transfer
· The AIV is of the opinion that a post-2015 system must devote attention to developing
countries’ absorption capacity for and access to new technology and to improving
knowledge transfer, which the current MDG system barely touches on.
· The AIV is aware that access to and transfer of knowledge raise important questions
relating to intellectual property. These include the complexity of many rules and
the legal infrastructure required to allow the system of intellectual property rights
to function, despite the fact that many specific arrangements have been made for
developing countries. The system of intellectual property rights must be allowed to
function in a way that does justice to the notion of knowledge as a global public good.
Demography
· The AIV advises against including demographic goals in a post-2015 system, as
this can have undesirable consequences, including compulsory contraception and
abortion.
163 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2010,
Retooling Global Development’, New York, May 2010, chapter 2.
164 Idem, chapter 5.
50
·
It does, however, strongly recommend that the new system include both an indicator
of the availability of contraceptives and a number of demographic indicators to make
policymakers aware of these trends, which mostly have very radical impacts in the
slightly longer term.
B.II
Themes and challenges for development
There are several theories about what wellbeing development entails. Traditional
economics looks at rational choices (‘rational choice theory’) and defines utility as a
ranking of preferences. Wellbeing is thus defined as the extent to which these preferences
are fulfilled.165 Because this definition often contrasts strongly with personal experience,
others have been proposed: objective criteria for what is good, such as capability
development (objective wellbeing) and a mental state determined by the measurement of
happiness (subjective wellbeing).166 In addition, it is often said that development must be
sustainable, i.e. it must not be achieved at the expense of the wellbeing of current and
future generations. In the debate on what development is, these arguments often overlap.
B.II.1
Capabilitiesapproach
The capabilities approach merits separate consideration, as it lay at the basis of the
Millennium Declaration and the thinking of UNDP. Nobel Prizewinner Amartya Sen argues
that progress is more than just a higher income. Progress means acquiring more
freedom and income is only one way of achieving that. He calls for a different approach
to economics: ‘The discipline of economics has a tendency to move away from focusing
on the value of freedoms to that of utilities, incomes and wealth. This narrowing of focus
leads to an underappreciation of the full role of the market mechanism.’167
Sen defines development in terms of people’s capabilities to overcome their ‘unfreedoms’
(capability approach). The economics of wellbeing therefore means the freedom to foster a
valuable state of ‘beings and doings’. Sen identifies five basic freedoms:
1. political and participatory freedoms and civil rights: freedom of expression, free
elections, etc.;
2. economic facilities: participation in trade and production, a fair labour market;
3. social opportunities: adequate education and healthcare provision;
4. transparency guarantees: openness of government and economic life; and
5. protective security: law and order, social security.168
If we look more closely at these five freedoms, which Sen presents as essential for
human development, we see that a number of them can be found in the MDGs (e.g.
economic and social opportunities), while others cannot (such as political freedoms,
transparency, security and social security). The latter are addressed in a variety of UN
statements that determine its development strategy, but are not translated into concrete
goals. The AIV recommends incorporating them as much as possible in a post-2015
165 A. van Hoorn, R. Mabsout, E.M. Sent, ‘Happiness and Capability: Introduction to the symposium’,
Journal of Socio-Economics 39, 2010, pp. 339-343.
166 See E. Angner, ‘Subjective Wellbeing’, Journal of Socio-Economics 39, 2010, pp. 361-368.
167 A. Sen, ‘Development as Freedom’, Oxford University Press, 1999.
168 A. Sumner, M. Tiwari, ‘After 2015: International Development Policy at a Crossroads’, Rethinking
International Development series, Palgrave McMillan, 2009, p. 46.
51
system. This is discussed in greater detail in the sections on human rights, and peace
and security. The notion of the global social floor also has its roots in these freedoms.
Devoting more attention to them in a post-2015 system also responds to the concerns
expressed by civil society, for example in the Global Call for Action against Poverty.169
Incidentally, the OECD referred to Sen’s five freedoms in its guidelines as early as
2001.170 In addition, UNDP’s Human Development Report has also played an important
role and, in 2010, presented an overview of human development in the past twenty years.
B.II.2
Sustainabilityandclimate
How many natural resources and sources of subsistence will present generations leave
for those that follow? That is an important question and it will remain so in the future.
The debate dates back to the renowned report ‘The Limits to Growth’, published by
the Club of Rome in 1972, the outcome of the Cocoyoc conference in Mexico in 1974,
and the Dag Hammarskjöld report a year later. The broad definition of sustainable
development given in the Brundtland report (1987) includes issues like education
and health care, which are considered investments in human capital to ensure that
the following generation can enjoy the same standard of living as the current one. The
four dimensions of sustainability, as laid down at the Rio conference in 1992, are the
institutional dimension (good governance), social justice, environmental protection and
economic efficiency.171
The Earth is too small to achieve all the current international goals at the same time,
and certainly given the international climate goal agreed at Cancún in 2010, that the
Earth must not be permitted to warm up by more than 2o Celsius. Development has
been achieved at the expense of the natural environment; the erosion of biodiversity
and climate change are the ecological price we have paid for social and economic
development. Further development of the Earth will be accompanied by a substantial
loss of biodiversity, which is also threatened by the production of food and biofuels for
energy.172 Technological progress has not compensated for the growth in population and
consumption. The trend is more people, more consumption and more competition for
natural resources. Sustainability is not yet the determining factor in policy at national,
European or global level. Citizens and companies, however, expect government to take
the lead. Hard international agreements are necessary, with compensation for developing
countries. The EU can play a pioneering role here by acting as a forceful intermediary.
There is an enlightened self-interest in pursuing development policy.173
169 Global Call for Action against Poverty (GCAP), ‘The World We Want. Civil Society Mobilization at the
MDG+10 Review’, New York, 19-25 September 2010.
170 Idem, p. 3.
171 J. Martens, ‘Thinking ahead, Development models and indicators of wellbeing beyond the MDGs’,
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Berlin, November 2010, pp. 9-10.
172 N.J. Schrijver, ‘Development Without Destruction: The UN and Global Resource Management’,
Bloomington/New York: Indiana University Press/UN Intellectual History Project, New York, 2010.
173 Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, ‘The Netherlands in a Sustainable World: Poverty,
Climate and Biodiversity’, Second Sustainability Outlook, November 2007.
52
The report by Stiglitz and Sen mentioned above distinguishes four ways to measure
sustainability: (1) large and eclectic dashboards, (2) composite indices, (3) indices that
consist of correcting GDP in a more or less extensive way, and (4) indices that essentially
focus on measuring how far we currently ‘overconsume’ our resources (including the
ecological footprint).174 Each of these indicators has its own limitations. The report
concludes that it is, as yet, not possible to devise a single indicator for sustainability,
because it comprises too many uncertainties. For example, it is difficult to know what
the value of a ‘good’ like the environment will be in the future, there is much discussion
about the relative importance of the various indicators, and CO2 emissions are a
dominant component that can also be measured separately. It is therefore better to use
several indicators, and to record both quantitative and qualitative changes in issues
that are of importance for the future. The Sen-Stiglitz commission is a proponent of
sustainability indicators alongside subjective welfare and economic indicators.
For the management of natural resources, information at both aggregated and local
level is of great importance (because this can lead to different conclusions), as well
as information on uncertainties and social values. Science never provides exhaustive
knowledge of the interaction between mankind and biophysical systems, and cannot
weigh direct local interests against global benefits. Enforcing rules is not always an
adequate solution because of a lack of willingness or resources, or sources of pollution
that are difficult to trace. Sometimes it is more effective to encourage innovative
solutions in behaviour or technology. Financial instruments to promote this, such as
tradable environmental allowances, have certain weaknesses, which are the reverse of
those of shared solutions (‘commons’, see below). It might therefore be useful to seek
a favourable combination of the two. Technical infrastructure is of great importance in
determining whether shared resources are used and ensuring effective communication
and in establishing links between local and global systems. Complex systems call for
layered solutions and institutions that adapt easily to change.175
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) indicates that people who live in
poverty are the most seriously affected by the loss of biodiversity (which some see as a
Western preoccupation), as well as by drought and flooding caused by climate change.
The degradation of ecosystems has negative effects on agriculture, livestock breeding
and forestry, sectors in which the poorest are often employed and on which they depend.
It is important that policymakers acknowledge this in analyses and policy on climate
change and increasing pollution. Secondly, an energy transition is required, in which the
interests of the oil and gas industry – which are legitimate in themselves – must not take
precedence. The costs of growth for the environment must be calculated. Thirdly, effective
regulation is required to promote investment in a ‘green economy’; without this,
the private sector will be unable to commit itself. The crisis presents an opportunity to
achieve this.176
174 J. Stiglitz, A. Sen, J. Fitoussi, Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance
and Social Progress, Paris, 2009, chapter 3.
175 T. Dietz, E. Ostrom, P. Stern, ‘The Struggle to Govern the Commons’, Science Magazine, Vol. 302, 1907,
December 2003.
176 UN Environmental Program (UNEP), Green Economy Report, prepared for the UN summit on MDGs,
New York, September 2010.
53
B.II.3
Measuringwellbeing
There appear to be considerable differences between the assumptions of economic
theory (rational choice theory) and experience in the ‘real’ world (‘subjective wellbeing’).
These differences cannot be explained purely in terms of psychological misperceptions.
The recent report by Stiglitz and Sen therefore recommends not measuring production,
but consumption and income (net national income, NNI).177 It also recommends looking
at household incomes instead of per capita GDP, including public services like health
care and education. This must be combined with an estimate of the capabilities (savings
and possessions) per household, taking account of possible ‘bubbles’ in the economy
(such as overly high house prices). Average income figures per household should then
take account of distribution between income, consumption and savings and between
households. Lastly, they must take account of activities per household. This includes,
for example, growing vegetables, but also the amount of free time available to the
members. After all, the same income with more free time means a higher standard of
living.178 Altogether, this provides a better yardstick of economic performance. The report
notes – as stated earlier in this report – that the MDGs do not take account of economic
growth factors, with the exception of MDG1 (the poverty indicator of a dollar a day). The
report offers useful starting points for including economic income and consumption
measurements in a post-2015 system.
Happiness theory (subjective wellbeing) and capabilities theory (objective wellbeing)
In addition to a better method for measuring economic performance, the Stiglitz and Sen
report recommends taking account of multidimensional wellbeing factors. It states that
subjective methods for measuring wellbeing provide core data on which it is possible to
acquire objective information, which should then be included in the statistics (cognitive
evaluations on life, happiness, contentment, and negative and positive emotions).179
Happiness theory is gaining ground, including in emerging economies (e.g. China, which
keeps a record of happiness statistics).180
Besides subjective wellbeing indicators, the report specifies eight objective indicators
(not including economic utility): health, education, environmental conditions, political
voice, personal activities, social connections and relationships, personal insecurity (crime,
natural disasters) and economic insecurity. Clear indicators still have to be developed
for the last five. Further research should expose a number of other indicators, including
inequality (in gender, age, specific groups), the accumulation of various shortcomings, and
the relationships between them.181
To what extent do the subjective and objective theories of wellbeing (happiness and
177 J. Stiglitz, A. Sen, J. Fitoussi, Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance
and Social Progress, Paris 2009.
178 Idem, pp. 11-14.
179 Idem, pp. 58-59 and chapter 2.
180 The Economist, ‘Don’t worry, be happy’, The Economist, 19 March 2011, p. 49.
181 J. Stiglitz, A. Sen, J. Fitoussi, Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance
and Social Progress, Paris 2009, pp. 58-59 and chapter 2.
54
capabilities theories) differ from each other? Research concludes that there is a large
degree of synergy between policies aimed at developing capabilities and those that
focus on happiness (in the sense of general contentment with life).182 Nevertheless,
measuring subjective wellbeing can supplement the capabilities theory, in that it can
confirm policy choices (feedback) or identify problems by, for example, exposing a lack
of opportunities. Happiness research also shows that, if a government were to base its
policies on subjective wellbeing they would probably be different. There would be less
focus on maximising individual gain and more on meaningful social relationships and
participation.183
B.II.4 Growthandinequality
In the period from 1985 to the mid-1990s, income inequality increased considerably in
most countries in the world, especially the larger ones.184 According to the World Bank,
it then remained almost constant at that higher average level from the mid-1990s to the
mid-2000s. Although no reliable data are yet available, there is general agreement that
income inequality has increased even further as a result of the 2008 crisis. Reports by
Oxfam and others confirm this impression.185
Pogge observes that the global trade system has largely benefited the world’s richest
people. If growth in per capita GNP only benefits the elites in a country and does not
generate employment, it is inaccurate to speak of progress. It often leads to a form of
regression, since it further marginalises the poorest groups, at least in the opinion of
those who believe that economic growth is not an end in itself and that progress means
that basic human needs are fulfilled. Pogge therefore considers explicit attention to
income distribution crucial.186
Rapid economic growth in a number of large developing countries has also led to a
situation in which the majority of poor people in the world no longer live in low-income
countries, as was the case before 2000, but in emerging countries. To combat poverty
around the world effectively, a post-2015 system will therefore have to devote more
attention to the need for national measures to reduce income inequalities within
countries.187
One argument against taking account of inequality within countries is that it could slow
182 R. Veenhoven, ‘Capability and happiness: conceptual difference and reality links, Journal of SocioEconomics 39, 2010, pp. 344-350.
183 W.L. Tiemeijer, Hoe mensen keuzes maken, de psychologie van het beslissen, Advisory Council on
Government Policy (WRR), Amsterdam University Press, 2011, p. 111.
184 R. van der Hoeven (ed.), ‘Employment, Inequality and Globalization: A Continuous Concern’, Routledge,
2011.
185 Green, D. and R. King, ‘How Have Poor Women and Men Experienced the Global Economic Crisis’,
chapter 3 in Bergeijk, P., A de Haan and R.van der Hoeven (eds.), The Financial Crisis and Developing
Countries, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 2011.
186 T. Pogge, ‘Politics as Usual: What Lies Behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric?’, Polity Press, 2010.
187 A. Sumner, ‘The New Bottom Billion’, The Broker, issue 23, December 2010.
55
down economic growth and therefore frustrate poverty reduction in the long term. Recent
research has shown, however, that greater income equality is not always achieved at the
expense of economic growth.188 Extremely unbalanced growth does, however, undermine
democracy, as it gives rich elites the power to put their own interests first and make
politicians listen to them. Large income differences are easy to create and very difficult to
eliminate.189 UNDP concludes that countries where income inequality declined and where
there was strong economic growth in sectors in which the poorest were concentrated had
the greatest success in reducing poverty.190
The AIV therefore believes that a post-2015 system should devote attention to inequality
and make it explicit in the indicators.
B.II.5 Conclusions
The AIV considers it important, in the run-up to a post-2015 system, to consider a
number of newer or still relevant development theories and the extent to which they can
give a post-2015 system a stronger foundation.
Capabilities approach
The MDGs were based on the Millennium Declaration, which many intended as a concrete
expression of Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach. According to Sen, development
means more freedom and freedom is progress. The AIV considers it desirable in a post2015 system to devote more attention to Sen’s concept of freedoms, which remains
relevant today. The AIV also endorses this approach because the subjective theory of
wellbeing shows that people specify these freedoms as decisive for their happiness. This
can mean:
1. including, in line with the final declaration of the MDG summit in 2010, indicators for
social security (and the social protection floor);
2. including a cluster of goals on peace and security, with a report on the number of
conflicts in the world and indicators that show whether a state is capable of offering
its citizens physical protection;191
3. including statistics on violence against women under MDG3 or under a new MDG on
peace and security; and
4. including indicators on the quality of political institutions, for example on corruption,
the rule of law, voice and accountability, and the effectiveness of the civil service.
Such indices already exist, e.g. in the World Bank’s Governance Matters studies.192
These indicators would address the degree of freedom of expression, freedom of
assembly and democratisation.
188 For an overview, see R.van der Hoeven (ed.), ‘Employment, Inequality and Globalization: A Continuous
Concern’, Routledge, 2011.
189 T. Pogge, ‘Politics as Usual: What Lies Behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric?’, Polity Press, 2010, p. 102.
190 UN Development Group (UNDG), ‘Beyond the Midpoint: Achieving the Millennium Development Goals’,
New York, 2010, p. 25 and Annex 2.1.
191 S.E. Rice and S. Patrick, ‘Index of State Weakness in the Developing World’, Brookings Global Economy
and Development, The Brookings Institution, Washington, 2008, p. 8.
192 Idem, pp. 8-9.
56
Sustainability and climate
A special form of wellbeing is that of future generations, i.e. the sustainability prospect.
This problem is relevant not only in the future; now too, drought and flooding, and the
hunger and high food prices they cause, impact hardest on the poorest groups. Time is
pressing, as climate problems, economic, financial and food security crises, and serious
social unrest as a consequence of too few socioeconomic opportunities and political
freedoms, combined with population growth in certain parts of the world, are already
having an impact on the international order. The AIV recommends taking account of the
sustainability prospect. This can mean:
1. seeing a post-2015 system as a dashboard of indicators that express sustainability.
These indicators measure the progress made by countries in various dimensions; and
2. drawing up benchmarks of desirable indicators and the period in which they should
be achieved (sustainable targets) with a view to a sustainable society, with a rolling
agenda that measures and updates progress every five or ten years.
Measuring wellbeing
More modern theories of wellbeing now also look at subjective wellbeing, how utility
is experienced (instead of the traditional ‘fulfilling preferences’). The data gathered
by psychologists on this subject are, however, still rarely used in economics. The AIV
recommends taking account of the conclusions of the Sen and Stiglitz report in the post2015 system. This can mean:
· better expression of economic performance than with the current indicators;
· measuring subjective wellbeing in opinion polls on household incomes; this would only
require adding a set of questions to the standard questions on income, consumption
and possessions;
· including alternative economic indicators under MDG1, which express the state of
society more clearly and align more closely with people’s experiences.
Inequality
As a result of the growing inequality in many countries and the consequences for both
the reduction of poverty and economic and social development, together with the fact
that the majority of the poor in the world now live in emerging countries, the AIV urges
more attention for income and other forms of inequality in a post-2015 system and
incorporation of aspects of inequality in national progress indicators.
B.III
Underexposed themes: What (other) priorities?
Part A of this report mentions a number of themes that are underexposed or completely
omitted in the current MDG system. The AIV is of the opinion that a post-2015 system
should devote more attention to these themes and issues.
B.III.1
Gender
The question is whether gender should be more strongly emphasised in the MDGs by
modifying and broadening the indicators for MDG3, or by focusing on it as a theme in all
MDGs. In 2005 the UN Millennium Project Task Force on Gender Equality identified seven
57
strategic priorities to achieve MDG3.193 These are strongly related to the outcomes of
the Beijing and Cairo conferences on gender.194
New indicators for gender
An important indicator for MDG3 could be violence against women, which is internationally
acknowledged (e.g. in the Beijing Plan of Action) as a major obstacle to sustainable
development. Although violence against women continues to have a great impact on
the outcomes of the MDGs, its elimination is not an integral part of the goals.195 It
is estimated that one in five women worldwide is a victim of rape at some time in her
life.196 WHO reports that women who are the victims of physical, psychological or sexual
violence are usually long-term users of healthcare services.197 Outside the household
– and especially during armed conflicts – women are also frequent victims of violence.
In Sierra Leone, between 50,000 and 64,000 female refugees were sexually abused by
combatants.198 There are calls for a separate MDG or indicator to address the problem of
violence against women.199 To enable women to develop fully, they must also have better
access to financial and other means of production (e.g. credit, land ownership registration
and inheritance rights). Investments in water supply and other infrastructure are important
in this respect. Improvements are also called for in relation to childcare and discrimination
against women in the law (e.g. in divorce law), while studies are needed of the obstacles
facing young women who seek suitable employment.200
193 The seven priorities specified by the Task Force are: 1) strengthen opportunities for postprimary
education for girls while simultaneously meeting commitments to universal primary education;
2) guarantee sexual and reproductive health rights; 3) invest in infrastructure to reduce women’s
time burdens; 4) guarantee girls’ and women’s property and inheritance rights; 5) eliminate gender
inequality in employment by decreasing women’s reliance on informal employment, closing gender gaps
in earnings and reducing occupational segregation; 6) increase women’s share of seats in national
parliaments and local governmental bodies; 7) combat violence against girls and women. In: C. Grown,
G.R. Gupta and A. Kes (2005), ‘Taking action: Achieving gender equality and empowering women’,
UN Millennium Project, Task Force on Education and Gender Equality, London and Sterling, Virginia:
Earthscan, 2005, p. 29.
194 UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), ‘Making the MDGs work better for women; Implementing
gender-responsive national development plans and programmes’, New York, 2010, p. 7.
195 The Millennium Declaration (2000) states as its aim: ‘to combat all forms of violence against women
and to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women’.
196 UN Millennium Project, ‘Taking Action: Achieving Gender Equality and Empowering Women’, Task Force
on Education and Gender Equality, London and Sterling, Virginia: Earthscan, 2005.
197 E. Krug et al. (eds.), World Report on Violence and Health, World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva,
2002.
198 Physicians for Human Rights, Executive Summary, ‘War-Related Sexual Violence in Sierra Leone:
A Population-based Assessment’, 2002, p. 3.
199 See, for example, P. Antrobus, ‘Critiquing the MDGs from a Caribbean perspective’, Gender and
Development, Vol. 13(1), 2005, p. 95.
200 Amnesty International, ‘From Promises to Delivery: Putting Human Rights at the Heart of the Millennium
Development Goals’, London, 2010, pp. 16-18.
58
A barrier to the introduction of new indicators for gender is that measurement is difficult
due to the lack of gender-specific information.201 Countries should make a greater effort
to collect such information.202 Although the UN Commission on the Status of Women
publishes an annual report, gender budgeting is developing very slowly.
Mainstreaming
In addition to the criticism that the MDG3 indicators are incomplete, other MDGs are
criticised for not devoting sufficient attention to the position of women.203 Without
significant improvements in education for girls (MDG3), other MDGs will not be achieved.
Educating girls is an effective way of stimulating economic productivity and also helps
reduce infant and maternal mortality, improve nutritional and health status, and combat
HIV/AIDS and other diseases.204 In this light it is clear that improving the position of
women (MDG3) will also have a positive impact on the other MDGs.205 Conversely, if the
other MDGs are gender-blind, MDG3 cannot be achieved and it will be difficult to attain
sustainable poverty reduction.206
It would be more effective to devote attention to the role of women in other MDGs, such
as sustainable development and combating AIDS and poverty. The role of women is,
for example, not an indicator or target in the fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria and other
diseases (MDG6), while inequality between men and women must be an important
starting point of policy to combat HIV/AIDS.207 In the words of UNAIDS, the problem
of HIV/AIDS is ‘feminising’, not only because women are biologically at greater risk of
infection, but also because of the difficulties facing women – due to social, financial and
cultural factors – in negotiating safe sex.208 MDG1, too, fails to make explicit reference to
201 In 2005 the UN Statistics Division conducted a review of gender statistics in national reports. It showed
that important elements are lacking in the collection, composition and reporting of gender-sensitive
data. See UN Division for the Advancement of Women, 2005.
202 OECD, ‘Investing in women and girls: The breakthrough strategy for achieving all the MDGs’, based
on a speech by J. Lomoy, UN Development Cooperation Forum, 4 June 2010, p. 6; and P. Antrobus,
‘Critiquing the MDGs from a Caribbean perspective’, Gender and Development, vol. 13(1), 2005, p. 101.
203 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘What will it take to achieve the MDGs? An international
assessment’, New York, June 2010, p. 1.
204 UN Girls’ Education Initiative (UNICEF), ‘Gender Achievements and Prospects in Education: The GAP
Report Part One’, New York, 2005, p. 5.
205 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘What will it take to achieve the MDGs? An international
assessment’, New York, June 2010, p. 7.
206 N. Jones, R, Holmes, J. Espey, ‘Progressing Gender Equality Post-2015: Harnessing the Multiplier Effects
of Existing Achievements’, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 41, No. 1, January 2010, p. 113.
207 See, for example, P. Antrobus, ‘Critiquing the MDGs from a Caribbean perspective’, Gender and
Development, Vol. 13(1), 2005, p. 98.
208 UNAIDS, ‘Agenda for Accelerated Country Action for Women, Girls, Gender Equality and HIV - Operational
plan for the UNAIDS action framework: Addressing women, girls, gender equality and HIV’, New York,
2010, p. 16.
59
women, even though poverty is also feminising.209 In addition, much economic capacity is
lost through obstacles to girls and women. Agricultural productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa,
for example, could rise by 20% if women had equal access to land, seeds and fertiliser.
In India, GNP would rise by 8% if the ratio of female to male employees were to increase
by 10%.210 If poverty is to be resolved, women (and other target groups) must be at the
forefront of any effort to understand the nature of the problem.
B.III.2 Securityanddevelopment:acoherentapproach
A basic level of security is essential for the development of a state, both in socioeconomic
terms and in respect of human rights and the rule of law. In fragile states, building up or
reforming the security sector (Security Sector Reform, SSR) is essential in strengthening
the level of security. Special attention should be given to building up the police, the
judiciary and the legal system. A coherent approach to security and development issues
is crucial in fragile states. Creating a safe situation is, in the first instance, a task for
the military. Building a civil society with good governance and an acceptable level of law
enforcement must make further social and economic development possible and bring
about sustainable peace. There are no generally applicable blueprints for achieving
this.211
For sustainable development in fragile states, peacebuilding must have local support,
strengthen local institutions and be carried out locally. Yet, in practice, this often leads to
problems as, in fragile states in particular, (parts of) the local population or authorities
and leaders often lack the will or capacity for peacebuilding. In addition the central
government of a fragile state often has little or no authority recognised as legitimate and
the real power rests with other networks and groups based, for example, on clientism and
patronage.212
A post-2015 system would have to include a basic level of security as a condition for
development. This makes building or reforming the security sector essential. The World
Bank’s ‘World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security and Development’, states that
civil security, the administration of justice, and jobs are the key to breaking through cycles
of violence.213 In addition to security sector reform, the report calls for the creation of
employment, anti-corruption measures, and involving women in community initiatives
relating to security, justice and economic emancipation.
The current MDGs have no relevance in terms of preventing violence. Reducing the
number of violent deaths would give an indication of improvements in security, but these
209 AIV, ‘Cohesion in International Cooperation’, response to WRR report ‘Less pretension, more ambition’,
advisory report number 69, The Hague, May 2010, p. 11.
210 Department for International Development, ‘Gender Equality at the Heart of Development: Why the role
of women is crucial to ending world poverty’, 2007, p. 13.
211 See also AIV, ‘Crisis Management Operations in Fragile States: The Need for a Coherent Approach,’
advisory report number 64, The Hague, March 2009.
212 R. van der Veen, What went wrong with Africa. A contemporary history, KIT Publishers: Amsterdam, 2002.
213 World Bank, ‘Conflict, Security and Development: World Development Report 2011’, Washington,
April 2011.
60
figures are often not available for fragile states.214 Indicators of whether a state is indeed
capable of protecting its citizens could include the existence of internal conflicts and
displaced people, illegal seizure of power, severe violations of human rights, perceptions
of instability, and the percentage of the territory suffering from conflict.215 Clearly, a
number of these indicators are politically sensitive in negotiations. Indices on the fragility
of states focus not only on security, but also on economic, social and political freedoms,
which are (or can be) partly expressed in the other MDGs. For example, inequality can
be a factor in fragility (as current developments in the Arab region remind us). Economic
regulations could also be included in an MDG on peace and security. Such statistics
can help to provide early warning of conflicts.216 Negotiations on these criteria can build
on the Dili declaration on a New Vision for Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, the Geneva
declaration on Armed Violence and Development and the Oslo Commitments on Armed
Violence.
In the AIV’s view, a post-2015 system must devote more attention both to the problem of
peace and security and to supporting effective state institutions.
B.III.3
Foodsecurity
In many developing countries, agriculture has been neglected so that it can no longer
meet the increased demand for food resulting from population growth and changing
consumption patterns. Food insecurity has also increased, as more countries have
started importing food and because the price of grain and other staple foods is subject
to stronger fluctuation. Some see this price volatility as being caused not only by
drought and flooding but also by the use of crops for biofuels and greater speculation
on the commodities markets. Food prices are currently one of the main causes of poor
households’ greater vulnerability, but also provide an incentive to increase their own food
production.
The World Bank has serious concerns about the impact of the rising prices of staple
foodstuffs on poverty.217 The prices of products like sugar, maize, wheat and rice are
high and changeable, and that is likely to continue in the coming period. A 10% increase
in food prices will push another ten million people in the world below the poverty line of
1.25 dollars a day. With a 30% rise, that will be 34 million. They come on top of the 44
million people who sank deeper into poverty during the previous price peak in June 2010.
Because food insecurity can be caused by both national policies in developed and
developing countries and the international markets, the AIV believes that a post-2015
system should devote explicit attention to the growing problem of food security and to
promoting international coherence in efforts to address it.
A post-2015 system should, however, devote attention not only to international factors
but also to national initiatives. There are many examples of small-scale farmers launching
214 Idem.
215 S.E. Rice, S. Patrick, ‘Index of State Weakness in the Developing World’, Brookings Global Economy and
Development, The Brookings Institution, Washington 2008, p. 8.
216 Idem, pp. 8-9.
217 World Bank, Food Price Watch, Washington, April 2011.
61
their own successful initiatives to ensure food security, sometimes with the help of other
organisations. The lesson that can be learned from this is that we should build on the
skills and resources that farmers have at their disposal and on practices that already
exist, rather than impose our own, one-sided prescriptions. Successful initiatives from
developing countries themselves can be used as a source of inspiration.218
B.III.4
Infrastructure
The need for better infrastructure in Africa is immense and there is a large funding gap.
It has been calculated that the lack of physical infrastructure in Africa results in around
40% less economic activity than in countries where the infrastructure is better, and as
much as 2% less economic growth per year.219 The gap between infrastructure in Africa
and the rest of the world has only grown larger. In comparison with South Asia, which has
a comparable per capita income, Africa is lagging behind, even in areas in which it was
ahead in 1970 (at that time Africa had three times as much electricity capacity and twice
as many telephone lines). The supply of electricity will have to double in the next decade
to meet demand.
There is an enormous lack of financing for infrastructure in Africa, despite its having
doubled between 2001 and 2009, from $17 to $35 billion. The annual financing deficit is
around $31 billion,220 most of which cannot be covered by non-governmental funding, as
the worst problems occur in fragile states, which are not creditworthy. A regional approach
is therefore needed and the summits of the African Union show that there is considerable
political commitment to achieving this. The AU, together with the African Development
Bank, is working on reforms to the institutional coordination of infrastructure development
on the continent (Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa, PIDA). New
initiatives should dovetail with these efforts. The private sector, development banks,
donors and stakeholders should work together to create the infrastructure required.221
Creating the right conditions for developing the private sector is closely related to
the physical and non-material infrastructure in the countries concerned. It calls for
strengthening the national investment climate, for example by removing obstacles and
reducing risks, improving institutions, legal frameworks, access to and the functioning
of markets, investing in infrastructure, education and health, and promoting access to
the formal economy, technical assistance and financial services (with extra attention to
improving access for people in deprived situations). Policy must aim at creating the right
conditions, not at cocrete direct support in any form at all to companies.222
A post-2015 system would have to devote greater attention to productivity, taking
account of the need for infrastructure and creating the right conditions for private sector
development.
218 Idem.
219 African Union, African Development Fund, World Bank, ‘Africa’s infrastructure: An agenda for
transformative action’, background paper for UN MDG Summit side event, 21 September 2010.
220 Idem, p. 1.
221 Idem, pp. 7-8.
222 AIV, ‘Private Sector Development and Poverty Reduction’, advisory report number 50, The Hague,
October 2006.
62
B.III.5
Conclusions
Gender
As equality between men and women is indispensable for balanced development, the
AIV recommends devoting explicit attention to it in the post-2015 system and including
gender indicators in all MDGs. This means:
· recording statistics on gender and breaking the indicators down by gender;
· clustering these indicators in the separate gender-MDG3 to provide a clear picture of
the situation regarding the equal treatment of men and women; and
· specifying the gender-specific dimensions of the new clusters for peace and security
(violence against women) and effective governance (women’s participation in running
society).
Peace and security
The AIV recommends devoting greater attention to peace and security and to effective
state institutions in a post-2015 system. This means:
· a basic level of security must be included as a condition for development. Building or
reforming the security sector (SSR) is essential to strengthen levels of security and
should therefore be an inseparable part of a post-2015 system for fragile states;
· a cluster on peace and security may also contain indicators for early warning of
conflicts; and
· a cluster for effective state institutions partly responds to criticism regarding human
rights (rule of law), without being too highly charged, and is an important factor in the
fragility of states.
Food security
Food insecurity is caused by both national policies in developed and developing countries
and the working of international markets. The AIV believes that a post-2015 system
should therefore devote explicit attention to the growing problem of food security and that
greater international coherence is required to address it.
Infrastructure
The AIV is of the opinion that strengthening infrastructure should be part of a post-2015
system. Private-public partnerships can play a significant role here. This is especially
important for Africa.
B.IV
Conceptual basis for global cooperation
In donor countries the development debate is dominated by proponents and opponents of
global cooperation. Arguments based on international solidarity are pitched against those
that advocate ‘standing on your own two feet’, and are justified by appealing to public
support for development cooperation (or the lack of it) and the ‘right to development’.
Internationally, the debate is even more highly charged, with discussion on the political
will, or lack of it, to put certain issues on the agenda. Moral discussions are also often
complicated by ‘language sensitivities’. To promote the discussion on a post-2015
agenda, the AIV will examine here two important arguments forming a conceptual basis
for international cooperation: human rights and global public goods. The first engages
with moral issues and international treaties, the second with enlightened self-interest.
The AIV will also briefly examine empirical data on cooperation at local level on shared
resources (known as ‘common resource pools’ or ‘public commons’).
63
B.IV.1
Humanrightsapproach
Chapter five of the Millennium Declaration refers specifically to the importance of
respecting human rights and confirms principles of international equality and shared
responsibility. Many researchers emphasise the interdependency of development and
human rights.223 In 2003, the AIV also published a report on the importance of human
rights approaches to development.224
Although not formulated in terms of ‘rights’, the MDGs are an important milestone
in achieving economic, social and cultural rights. Conversely, human rights strategies
support achievement of the MDGs, because they address the discrimination, exclusion
and accountability failures that often underlie poverty and development problems.225 In
the human rights approach, promoting development is not seen as charity. Development
is considered to be the right of every individual and it is the duty of the state to guarantee
it. A human rights approach provides principles on which action should be based. They
include non-discrimination, human dignity, participation and accountability.226
Proponents of a human rights approach emphasise that human rights can strengthen
the MDGs in a variety of areas. Firstly, this approach focuses on vulnerable groups, and
on people who are discriminated against or whose rights are violated and those who
are responsible for this. At the moment, the MDGs are based on average progress by
countries as a whole. Secondly, a human rights approach can provide working principles
for achieving the MDGs; non-discrimination, participation and accountability can act as
guidelines in implementing development policy. Thirdly, changing a goal into a right can
encourage people to demand accountability from the state. The MDGs would then no
longer be mere targets, but legal obligations to be fulfilled by the state.227 Specifying
human rights in relation to the MDGs could result in improved monitoring mechanisms,
for example by making use of information gathered and assessed as part of existing
human rights procedures, e.g. under the International Convention on Economic, Social
223 See, for example, P. Alston, ‘Ships passing in the night: The current state of the human rights and
development debate seen through the lens of the Millennium Development Goals’, Human Rights
Quarterly 27(3), August 2005, pp. 755-829; E. Domíniquez Redondo, 'The Millennium Development
Goals and the human rights based approach: Reflecting on structural chasms with the United Nations
system’, The International Journal of Human Rights 13(1), 2009, p. 29; M. Robinson, ‘The MDG-Human
Rights Nexus and Beyond 2015’, IDS Bulletin 41(1), 2010, p. 81.
224 AIV, ‘A Human Rights Based Approach to Development Cooperation’, advisory report number 30, The
Hague, 2003.
225 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), ‘Frequently Asked Questions on a Human
Rights-Based Approach to Development Cooperation’, New York 2006, p. 11.
226 Idem. Other principles that have priority in human rights are universality and inalienability; indivisibility
and/or mutual dependence and solidarity; equality and non-discrimination; participation and inclusion;
accountability and the rule of law.
227 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals: Making
the Link’, Oslo, 2006. Amnesty International, ‘From Promises to Delivery, 2010: Putting Human Rights
at the Heart of the Millennium Development Goals’, London, 2010 and P.J. Nelson, ‘Human Rights, the
Millennium Development Goals, and the Future of Development Cooperation’, in: World Development,
25(1), 2007.
64
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).228 Fourthly, a human rights approach could ensure that
attention is devoted to the quality of services, and not only the quantity. Human rights
treaties often prescribe minimum criteria, which could also be used to measure the
MDGs.229
Lastly, these rights will continue to be valid after 2015; in the long term, all rights must
be achieved for all people. In this respect a human rights approach is more sustainable
and focuses on overcoming structural causes of rights violations and underdevelopment.
Unfortunately the current MDGs can also undermine human rights. In Vietnam and South
Africa, for example, slums have been demolished (accompanied by illegal evictions) to
fulfil MDG target 7.10 (to reduce the proportion of urban population living in slums).230
Another example is the building of a dam to improve access to drinking water and
employment at the expense of the local population’s right to shelter and food.231
The human rights approach to poverty and development issues has itself not been free
of criticism. It is arguable whether the political will exists to refer to MDGs in terms of
rights. Many states are unwilling to do this and to accept liability for violations of those
rights. One of the strong points of the current MDGs is that they are based on a political
consensus on general development goals. Formulating the MDGs in terms of rights
could undermine this consensus.232 Other critics emphasise that human rights are often
formulated too abstractly and that trying to implement them frequently leads to conflict
with existing, often unfair, power relations.233 Enforcing human rights through the courts
can be very difficult, and there are very limited opportunities to do so at international
level. At national level, legal proceedings are often expensive and not accessible to
marginalised groups. What is more, the state can also refuse to implement a ruling.234
Lastly, it is not clear from the rights-based approach which issues should be given priority
in the development agenda. For example, education might act as a catalyst, but the right
228 C. Doyle, ‘Millennium Development Goals and Human Rights: In Common Cause or Uneasy Partners’, in:
The International Journal of Human Rights, 13(1), 2009, p. 7.
229 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals: Making
the Link’, Oslo, 2006.
230 M. Langford, ‘A Poverty of Rights: Six Ways to Fix the MDGs’, IDS Bulletin 41(1), 2010, p. 88.
231 Speech by H.E. Navanethem Pillay (UNHCR) at the Seminar on Human Rights and the Millennium
Development Goals, The Hague, 25 and 26 May 2009.
232 Paul J. Nelson, ‘Human Rights, the Millennium Development Goals, and the Future of Development
Cooperation’, World Development 35(12), 2007, pp. 2041-2055.
233 B. de Gaay Fortman in: Marc Broere, Berichten over armoede, KIT Publishers: Amsterdam, 2009,
pp. 176-177.
234 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals: Making
the Link’, Oslo, 2006. Proponents of the human rights approach deny that rights can only be enforced
through legal instruments. Civil society and a critical media also play a role.
65
to education has equal status to the right to health.235
Aside from the functioning and enforceability of human rights at individual state level,
there is also the doctrine of the extraterritorial applicability of human rights: how far
can and should states go in defending and achieving human rights beyond their own
borders? The nature and scope of such commitments in the field of classic human rights
are by now reasonably clear,236 while in the field of economic, social and cultural rights,
they are rapidly crystallising.237 The AIV advises the government to be alert to these
developments in a post-2015 system and to do what it can to flesh them out.
Practical embedding in the MDGs
In theory, there are three scenarios in which human rights approaches could play a
greater role in the MDGs. One possibility is that countries add an extra MDG, following
the example of Mongolia which has drawn up a ninth national MDG on human rights
and democracy.238 A second option is to indicate how each MDG relates to the existing
human rights acquis. For example, MDG2 (universal access to primary education) can
be traced back to article 13 of the ICESCR and article 28 (1)(a) of the International
Convention on the Rights of the Child (ICRC, 1989).239 In addition, article 2(1) of
the ICESCR emphasises the obligation of both developed and developing countries
to seek to achieve MDG8.240 Many countries already use their reporting obligations
under international human rights conventions to report on progress on the MDGs.241
Some academics go a step further and call for the MDGs to be replaced by Millennium
Development Rights (MDRs) after 2015. The MDRs would comprise the positive
235 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals: Making
the Link’, Oslo, 2006.
236 See, for example, Michal Gondek, ‘The Reach of Human Rights in a Globalising World: Extraterritorial
Application of Human Rights Treaties’, Antwerp: Intersentia.
237 See the activities of the global consortium in ‘Beyond Territoriality: Globalisation and Transnational
Human Rights Obligations (GLOTHRO)’ at: <http://www.esf.org/activities/research-networkingprogrammes/social-sciences-scss/beyond-territoriality-globalisation-and-transnational-human-rightsobligations-glothro.html>, and ‘Extraterritorial Obligations’ at: <http://www.fian.org/programs-andcampaigns/projects/the-eto-consortium>.
238 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘Millennium Development Goal 9: Indicators and the state of
democracy in Mongolia’, Ulaanbaatar, 2009. MDG9 in Mongolia embraces respecting and enforcing the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, freedom of the press, free access to information, promoting
democratic principles and practices and eradicating corruption.
239 UN Development Programme (UNDP), ‘Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals: Making
the Link’, Oslo, 2006, p. 11. Table 1 shows which human rights correspond to which MDG.
240 This article calls on member states to ensure international support and cooperation to achieve the
rights embraced in the convention. M. Sepúlveda Carmona, ‘The obligations of ‘‘international assistance
and cooperation” under the ICESCR: A possible entry point to a human rights based approach to
MDG8’, The International Journal of Human Rights 13(1), 2009, p. 87.
241 UN Development Group (UNDG), ‘Making the MDGs matter: A country perspective, Report on a UNDG
survey’, 2005.
66
obligations of the state to protect, respect and comply with social and economic rights,
and to guarantee the universal right to participation and freedom from discrimination
(right to equal treatment).242 The AIV does not advise adopting this specific approach per
MDG, as it is not politically feasible at this time and could undermine the international
consensus on the MDGs.
The third scenario entails a general reference to the importance of the human
rights approach in the post-2015 system through a differentiated measurement and
incorporation of references. This would enable the underlying principles of human rights
to be declared applicable to all stages in the MDG process.243 Updated MDGs could
make explicit links to broadly endorsed agreements from the past, through references to
Beijing (MDG3), Cairo (MDG5) and relevant articles from widely ratified UN human rights
conventions. This would enable a difficult process of renegotiation to be avoided. The
AIV believes that this third scenario is the most pragmatic way of incorporating a human
rights approach in the MDGs while preserving the international consensus.
B.IV.2
Globalpublicgoods
Global public goods (GPGs) are goods and services that, in principle, affect or should
be available to everyone. It is important to take GPGs into account in formulating a
post-2015 development strategy, given increasing globalisation and interdependence.
Moreover, shortcomings in the organisation of international decision-making on these
goods have contributed to the failure so far to (fully) achieve the MDGs and will
continue to be significant in the process of drawing up the new goals after 2015. Future
development can only occur if the most important GPGs are addressed effectively.
For example, what will it mean for poverty in the world if we do not prevent infectious
diseases, address climate change or prove unable to control the financial crisis?
Some commentators call for an approach that seeks to achieve ‘responsible sovereignty’
based on collective interest, especially after the financial-economic, climate and food
crises. They lay the emphasis on global public goods in the traditional sense of ‘goods
that affect everyone, from which no one can be excluded,244 and where use by one is not
at the expense of use by another’ (‘non-excludability’ and ‘non-rivalry’).245 Responsible
sovereignty implies that a state also has an external responsibility in the sense of
‘do no harm’ and is no longer only responsible for respect for human rights within its
own borders. Sovereignty can also be understood as ‘freedom’ and, in human rights
discourse, when exercising one’s freedom it is important to respect the other’s right
to exercise their freedom. The role of the state must be that of intermediary between
external and domestic needs, so that international cooperation occurs on the basis of
242 E. Dorsey, M. Gómez, B. Thiele & P. Nelson, ‘Falling Short of Our Goals: Transforming the Millennium
Development Goals into Millennium Development Rights’, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights,
28 (4), 2010, p. 520.
243 G. Schmidt-Traub, ‘The Millennium Development Goals and Human Rights-Based Approaches: Moving
towards a Shared Approach’, in: The International Journal of Human Rights, 13(1), 2009, pp. 81-83.
244 Below we examine the question of whether the word ‘can’ also implies ‘may’.
245 R. Went, Internationale Publieke Goederen, web publication no. 41, Advisory Council on Government
Policy (WRR), The Hague, January 2010, p. 12.
67
Een mondiale publieke goederenaanpak zou meer efficiëntie in de allocatie van middelen
brengen in de internationale
samenwerking.
enlightened self-interest.246 A global public goods approach would lead to more efficient
allocation of resources in international cooperation.
Mondiale publieke goederen bieden nieuwe mogelijkheden voor het definiëren van
gemeenschappelijke belangen nu het traditionele idee dat ontwikkeling in essentie een
Global public goods present new opportunities to define common interests now that the
nationaal publiek goed is, verandert. In een tijd waarin meer getwijfeld wordt aan de
traditional idea that development is essentially a national public good is changing. In a
effectiviteit en efficiëntie van ontwikkelingshulp en waarin internationale solidariteit niet
time in which more and more doubts are being expressed about the effectiveness and
overal vanzelfsprekend meer gevonden wordt, wijzen mondiale publieke goederen naar
efficiency of development aid and international solidarity is no longer taken for granted ,
de gemeenschappelijke belangen die ontwikkelde landen door mondialisering in toeneglobal public goods point to the interests that the developed
countries increasingly share
mende mate samen met ontwikkelingslanden
hebben.247
with developing countries.247
Wat biedt de agenda met betrekking tot mondiale publieke goederen boven op de klasWhat does the global public goods agenda offer over and above classical international
sieke internationale samenwerking? Naast het eerdergenoemde inzichtelijk maken van
cooperation? In addition to highlighting the above-mentioned need for a joint approach
de noodzaak van een gemeenschappelijke aanpak, met bijbehorende financiering, in
– with the corresponding funding – in a mutually dependent world, the concept of global
een onderling afhankelijke wereld, werkt het concept van mondiale publieke goederen
public goods can also clarify how this need should be met. The categories of public goods
ook verhelderend voor de wijze waarop dit moet gebeuren. De verschillende categorieën
vary in degrees of purity: pure (available to everyone and without restrictions), impure
publieke goederen variëren in mate van zuiverheid: zuiver (voor iedereen en onbeperkt
(exclusion is possible or use is not unrestricted), club goods (exclusion is possible and
beschikbaar), onzuiver (uitsluiting is mogelijk óf gebruik is niet onbeperkt), clubgoederen
use is not unrestricted) and joint products (the results are partly a public good and partly
(uitsluiting
is mogelijk én gebruik is niet onbeperkt) en ‘joint products’ (gevolgen van
not).248
actie zijn deels publiek mondiaal goed en deels niet).248
Types of public goods
Soorten mondiale publieke goederen
Spillover range
Pure
impure
club
National
· Deterrence of
enemies
· Financial
accounting
standards
· Surveillance
of borders
· Interstate
highway
· Extension
· Education
services
· Charitable
· Communication
activities
network
joint product
Regional
· Watershed
management
· Malaria cure
· Pest control
· Immunizing
populations
· Airports
· Power grids
· Peace keeping
· Reducing acid
rain
Global
· Curbing global
· Reducing
warming
organized
· Limiting ozone
crime
shield depletion · Limiting
contagions
· INTELSAT
· Universal
Postal Union
· Protection of
rain forest
· (some forms
of) foreign
assistance
Arce
Sandler 2002:
2002: 17
17
Arce and
and Sandler
Pure public goods are goods from which everyone can benefit, including those who do
Bij zuivere publieke goederen geldt: iedereen kan ervan profiteren, ook de niet-betalers
not pay for them (free riders). This can mean that everyone waits until someone else
(‘free riders’); daarom wacht soms iedereen op de ander voor actie (‘prisoner’s dilemma’)
takes action (prisoner’s dilemma) and makes the price difficult to determine, so that
en is er moeilijk een prijs voor vast te stellen. Het marktmechanisme werkt dan ook niet
the market mechanism does not work sufficiently to supply them. A significant cause of
afdoende om erin te voorzien. Een belangrijke oorzaak die leidt tot interdependentie in
interdependence in supplying goods is the fact that many goods can only be provided
het voorzien van goederen, is het feit dat veel goederen alleen geleverd kunnen worden
als alle, dan wel de meeste landen meedoen (‘summatieproces’), zoals bij klimaat246 I. Kaul, ‘Global Public Goods and responsible sovereignty. Special report: collective self-interest.’, The
Broker, 1 July 2010.
247 R. Went, ‘Internationale Publieke Goederen’, webpublicatie nr. 41, Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het
Regeringsbeleid (WRR), Den Haag, januari 2010, pp. 26-27.
247 R. Went, Internationale Publieke Goederen, web publication no. 41, Advisory Council on Government
Policy (WRR), The Hague, January 2010, pp. 26-27.
248 Idem, p. 15, voor een nadere begripsomschrijving.
248 Idem, p. 15, for a more detailed definition.
72
68
if all, or most, countries participate (‘summation process’), e.g. in the case of climate
change. Sometimes, if the ‘weakest link’ does not cooperate, the whole process fails, as
in the eradication of infectious diseases.
In 2006, the International Taskforce on Global Public Goods identified six major GPGs:249
1) preventing infectious diseases;
2) combating climate change;
3) international financial stability;
4) an international trade system;
5) peace and security;
6) knowledge.
This led to a broadening of the concept as applied by some economists. The Taskforce
also made a number of important recommendations.
The ‘publicness’ of goods is largely a matter of political choice and is not intrinsic to the
nature of the goods themselves.
The literature defines ‘publicness’ on the basis of three elements: decision-making on
public goods is participatory, their consumption is available to all, and their benefits are
equally distributed (‘equity’).250 In some respects, this touches on the human rights
approach. The definition of public goods must do justice to this by identifying potential
public goods: a public good is not only what the market rejects, but also what politicians
decide belongs in the public domain. Water can, for example, be made a public or a
private good (in that people can be excluded from access to it, and its use by one person
may be at the expense of another; yet an accessible water supply can be a public good if
it is decided that no one may be excluded from it).251 This explicitly does not mean that it
must be supplied ‘publicly’ (i.e. by the government).
The kind of policy initiatives proposed by the GPGs taskforce can focus on:
· strategy to create ownership of the concept of public goods;
· incentive structures to reach agreement; international negotiations are a ‘political
market’;
· analysing possible ways of providing public goods: which actors supply which part of
the public good;
249 International Taskforce on Global Public Goods, ‘Meeting Global Challenges: International cooperation in
the national interest’, Final report, Stockholm 2006. There was, however, a crucial difference of opinion
on the definition of global public goods. Inge Kaul added a disclaimer to the report (p ii): ‘All but one of
the members of the Task Force fully endorsed and signed off on this report. Inge Kaul did not.’ In her
view, GPGs are goods that affect all countries and not, as the reports states, from which all countries
benefit. Many developing countries, for example, consider the multilateral trade regime unfair. ‘Public’
(in GPGs) therefore means the interdependence of countries in the consumption of goods, which should
not be confused with the public utility of goods. In Kaul’s opinion, developing countries would not accept
the report for this reason and the taskforce, sponsored by France and Sweden, was dead in the water.
250 I. Kaul, R.U Mendoza, 'Advancing the Concept of Public Goods', in I. Kaul, P. Conceição, K. Le Goulven,
R.U. Mendoza (eds), Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization, Oxford University Press,
2003, p. 92.
251 I. Kaul, P. Conceição, K. Le Goulven, R.U. Mendoza (eds), ‘Providing Global Public Goods, Managing
Globalization’, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 2-26.
69
·
·
·
promoting the self-production of public goods through technology;
also giving line ministries responsibility for global public goods, since global public
goods are an extension of national public goods; and
case studies to identify best practices, including evaluation of issue-related global
funds.
It should be noted here, however, that acceptance of the concept by developing countries
deserves the highest priority, and that there is a long way to go before that is achieved. It
is therefore to be recommended that if the Netherlands embraces the global public goods
agenda it should explicitly focus on the dialogue with both small and large developing
countries (like China) to reach agreement on this concept.
The AIV recommends establishing a link between the MDGs and global public goods.
Controlling infectious diseases, for example, is already a global public good. This injects
a more philosophical element into the goals, clarifying the question of why we enter into
development cooperation: because it is a matter that affects everyone. It also breaks
through the discussion on ‘here’ and ‘there’, as all countries should work to preserve
global public goods.
We can make a distinction between human public goods (global norms) and natural public
goods (e.g. the open sea or the atmosphere). ‘Millennium Goods’ can therefore become
part of an international norm-setting framework, with progress measured in terms of
moving towards a level that is acceptable for everyone.
A global public goods approach can also reveal the links between the different goals. In
contrast to what some commentators advocate,252 i.e. separate ODA and GPG agendas,
it is more logical to argue in favour of integrating the two agendas. After all, different
countries have different priorities in respect of public goods. The AIV can provide more
detailed advice on how this should relate to, for example, the ODA norm. The advantage
of this system is that it applies equally to all countries.253
B.IV.3
Globalcommons
Nobel Prizewinner Elinor Ostrom (2009) studied how users of the same natural resources
(such as fishing grounds or meadows) achieve an effective form of shared use, known as
‘commons’ or ‘common pool resources’.254 She challenged the conventional theory that
collective use without ownership rights automatically leads to overuse, rendering either
government regulation or privatisation necessary (this is referred to as ‘the tragedy of the
252 I. Kaul, ‘Global Public Goods: A key to achieving the Millennium Development Goals’, discussion draft,
Third Forum on Human Development, 2005, p. 10. Severino and Ray also make a distinction between
GPGs and human welfare/fighting inequalities in J. Severino and O. Ray, ‘The end of ODA: Death and
rebirth of a Global Public Policy’, Center for Global Development, March 2009 p. 26. This is inspired by
a plea to maintain the 0.7% norm.
253 See also J. Martens, ‘Thinking Ahead: Development models and indicators of wellbeing beyond the
MDGs’, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Berlin, November 2010, p. 8.
254 See E. Ostrom, R. Gardner, J. Walker (eds), ‘Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources’, The University
of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor: USA, 1994.
70
commons’).255 Collective private systems proved much more effective than government
interventions or market-based solutions. Self-regulation often generates a refined system
of individual users’ rights, responsibilities and sanctions. This theory can be extrapolated
to worldwide level (‘global commons’).
Ostrom’s ideas are generally acknowledged as an important contribution to economic
theory from political science and anthropology. The ‘commons’ theory comes close to
the concept of global public goods, with the difference that the former reasons from
(local) community level, and the global public goods theory from global interdependence.
‘Global commons’ is actually a system of self-regulation that comes into operation at
the moment when a global public good (such as the atmosphere) moves from being
inaccessible to accessible and needs to be managed, monitored and protected.256 In
this sense the global commons, under the conditions described above, are one possible
mechanism for implementing global public goods. ‘Common resource pools’ also contain
impure public goods, because use by one person is at the expense of another.
Ostrom formulated seven principles for successful ‘common pool resources’: (i)
establishing rules for entitlement at the source, (ii) adequate conflict resolution
mechanisms, (iii) the duty to maintain the resource in reasonable proportion to the
benefits, (iv) monitoring and sanctioning carried out by the users themselves, (v) sanctions
should be graduated, becoming stricter as violations are repeated, (vi) democratic
decision-making on rules, and (vii) explicit recognition by outside authorities of the right
of users to self-organise.257 Ostrom expressed the hope that this insight would also help
in finding solutions to the climate problem.258 Commons governance is easier to achieve
when it complies with the following conditions: 1) use of resources can be quantified,
2) the rate of change is moderate, 3) there are social networks of users who trust each
other, and 4) outsiders can be easily excluded from using the resource. Institutional
arrangements should therefore take account of these conditions.259 Knowledge, too, can
be seen as a ‘global commons’. The digital revolution has generated virtual communities
that share information on the basis of rules they have drawn up themselves, for example,
on overuse and to combat pollution.260
255 This theory was proposed by biologist G. Hardin in 1968 and is still taught, despite evidence to the
contrary; see C. Hess, E. Ostrom, ‘Understanding Knowledge as a Commons’, MIT Press, December
2006, p. 11.
256 Idem, p. 10.
257 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, ‘Economic governance: Scientific background on the Sveriges
Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel’, Stockholm, October 2009, p. 11.
258 New York Times, Elinor Ostrom and Oliver E. Williamson win Nobel in Economic Science, 12 October
2009.
259 T. Dietz, E. Ostrom, P. Stern, ‘The Struggle to Govern the Commons’, Science Magazine, Vol. 302, 1907,
December 2003.
260 C. Hess, E. Ostrom, ‘Understanding Knowledge as a Commons’, MIT Press, December 2006.
71
B.IV.4
Conclusions
In this advisory report, the AIV recommends incorporating human rights implicitly in a
post-2015 system, more than is now the case. After all, all the current MDGs reflect
human rights, though they are not explicitly embedded in the goals and targets. In a
more ideal world, we would advise a ‘Millennium Rights’ approach, but the AIV does not
believes this to be politically feasible for the time being. The advantage of the rights
approach is that it is grounded in international treaties and conventions. Below, the AIV
recommends incorporating this approach wherever possible.
The AIV recommends establishing a link between the MDGs and global public goods
(GPGs). Enlightened self-interest is a less charged argument than moral entitlement, but
has the disadvantage of having no grounding in international conventions. The challenge
is to define exactly what global public goods are: are they goods from which no one can
or may be excluded? International consensus still has to be reached on this issue. The
academic discussion is shifting towards ‘may’, as ‘can’ is partly dependent on technical
factors. ‘Public’ explicitly does not mean ‘provided by the government’ but public in
consumption, distribution and decision-making.
Human rights
To retain the bottom-up, participatory approach, the AIV recommends incorporating the
human rights approach to development cooperation in a post-2015 system by:
1. incorporating, where possible, the principles of participation, non-discrimination,
human dignity and accountability; including in a post-2015 system a preamble with
regulatory principles on human rights, gender, etc. (see also ‘public commons’);
ensuring that the process of creating a post-2015 system is participatory;
2. establishing explicit links with major human rights agreements that are widely
supported and endorsed, for example, referring to ‘Vienna’ in MDG2, to ‘Beijing’ in a
new MDG3 and to ‘Cairo’ in a new MDG5;
3. splitting indicators by upper and lower layers in society to make inequality visible
(participation);
4. splitting indicators by target group to make forgotten groups (such as indigenous
peoples) visible (non-discrimination);
5. continuing to measure different dimensions of poverty; this increases the pressure on
governments to be accountable, especially in relation to gender and target groups;
6. including indicators for assessing the effectiveness of the state and/or state
institutions; this would also make opportunities for achieving the rule of law more
visible; and
7. conducting an international debate on the extraterritorial applicability of civil, political,
socioeconomic and cultural rights.
Global public goods
GPGs must be given an important role in a post-2015 system by:
1. establishing a link between the goals of the post-2015 system and GPGs, i.e. issues
that affect everyone and from which no one may be excluded. In the light of achieving
global goals, all countries should contribute to this, both by taking measures at
national level and through development cooperation and policy coherence. Defining
public goods is a matter of political decision-making. The AIV can advise on how
contributions should be related to, for example, the ODA norm. The discussion should
not be led by funding opportunities or constraints (implementation follows strategy);
2. where possible, integrating in the new strategy achievement of the six most important
GPGs, as formulated by the 2006 International Taskforce: 1. preventing infectious
diseases; 2. combating climate change; 3. international financial stability; 4. an
international trade system; 5. peace and security; and 6. knowledge;
72
3. conducting a dialogue with large and small developing countries to establish a clear
definition of the concept of GPGs, which is a controversial issue internationally.
Countries are extremely distrustful of anything that they feel may threaten their
sovereignty. A small number of emerging powers (India, Brazil, South Africa) see some
merit in the concept, albeit with a limited application;
4. introducing an international dialogue on the concept of responsible sovereignty – by
the state acting as an intermediary between domestic and foreign stakeholders to
create ownership of the new MDG strategy among donors and recipients and also to
make the need for international cooperation clear to the public;
5. advocating the establishment of an international taskforce for responsible sovereignty,
that would also represent developing countries.
Public commons
Ostrom (2009) elaborated on non-market-related relationships within the economy by
looking at the ‘commons’ (a resource shared by a group of users). The AIV recommends
including these insights (which are based on experiences with local community
governance) in a post-2015 system for global governance. This means mutatis mutandis
incorporating Ostrom’s seven rules for successful governance:
1. establishing rules for entitlement;
2. establishing adequate conflict resolution mechanisms;
3. establishing a duty to maintain the resource in reasonable proportion to the benefits;
4. organising monitoring and sanctioning carried out by the users themselves;
5. introducing graduated sanctions that become stricter as violations are repeated;
6. ensuring democratic decision-making on rules;
7. ensuring explicit recognition by outside authorities of the right of users to selforganise.
B.V
B.V.1
Towards renewed global governance
Globalgovernanceandthenetworksociety
The AIV notes that a post-2015 system can benefit from a new system of global
governance, as current institutions are based on the economic and political reality of 60
years ago and have proved ineffective in managing today’s increased interdependencies
and addressing crises. Reform has been piecemeal and therefore often lacking in
coherence.
The new system must be determined by shared rights and obligations, differentiated
according to level of development. International organisations must return to their core
mandates to avoid the current overlap, while new, more representative organisations are
required to address issues like financial regulation, the debt burden, technology transfer,
climate and migration, including labour migration.261
Global governance is not only a matter of relations between states, but also between
NGOs and their networks, civil society movements and transnational corporations.262 More
generally, formal institutions do not hold a monopoly on promoting global cooperation,
peace, sustainable development and democracy; in these areas in particular, informal
261 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2010:
Retooling Global Development’, New York, May 2010, chapter 6.
262 Commission on Global Governance (CGG), ‘Our Global Neighbourhood’, Oxford University Press, 1995.
73
arrangements have an important role to play.263
Coherence between national and global policy
Besides the theoretical arguments in favour of responsible sovereignty, global public
goods and global governance, practitioners have also been calling for a different
approach to development cooperation. This has been expressed in journalistic books by
authors like Dambisa Moyo (Dead Aid, 2009) and Dutch diplomat Karel van Kesteren,
who claims that aid is ‘lost in chaos’ due to the increase in the number of donors.264
Van Kesteren notes that the Paris Declaration on increasing the effectiveness of aid
has largely failed, even in the case of ‘donor darlings’ like Tanzania. A recent analysis
(on hypercollective action) states that the Declaration is overly based on a now obsolete
model, the coordination of traditional aid by bilateral and multilateral donors.265 Today,
aid is increasingly provided by civil society, citizens, companies, single-issue multilateral
funds and new donors like China and Brazil, who are not members of the OECD.
Returning to the old model is an illusion, as this would be denying social reality. The
alternative – setting up an enormous coordination mechanism for aid – is expensive and
threatens to become an end in itself. In its new report ‘Attached to the World’ the WRR
takes a network society as its starting point.266 In the view of the AIV, a society in which
temporary networks play a more prominent role is a more realistic starting point.
Arguments in favour of providing only budget support, with a strict division of labour
among donors, have proved unfeasible in practice. Developing countries with strong
institutional capacity are now choosing themselves which donors they wish to work
with and for what goal. Weak countries, by contrast, are often not equipped for effective
accountability and therefore benefit from capacity building. In a number of ‘ideal’ cases,
joint budget support can be a good solution.
The question is which approach is the most effective. The advantage of many new
actors is that they are often closer to the people for whom the aid is intended. This
makes policymaking far less centralised, with one important disadvantage: the absence
of an arbiter.267 To solve this problem, Severino and Ray propose regulating the tidal
wave of projects as efficiently as possible through legislation, international norms,
incentives, information platforms and partnerships. They also suggest improving aid by
providing the public with more information on the need for international cooperation,
conducting serious consultations with the ultimate recipients of aid during evaluations,
263 Advisory Council on Government Policy (WRR), ‘Less pretension, more ambition’, Amsterdam University
Press, Amsterdam, 2010, p. 249.
264 K. van Kesteren, Verloren in Wanorde, KIT Publishers: Amsterdam 2010.
265 J. Severino and O. Ray, ‘The end of ODA (II): The birth of hypercollective action’, Center for Global
Development Working Paper 218, June 2010, p. 3.
266 Advisory Council on Government Policy (WRR), Aan het buitenland gehecht (‘Attached to the World’),
Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2010, pp. 12-14.
267 J. Severino and O. Ray, ‘The end of ODA (II): The birth of hypercollective action’, Center for Global
Development Working Paper 218, June 2010, pp. 4-11.
74
and cooperating on the use of indicators to measure the impact of aid.268 Donors can
be encouraged to improve their policies by means of indices that compare the impact of
their activities: ‘cross-donor’ evaluations (by analogy to the micro-finance index, which
measures performance in providing microfinancing).
These and other initiatives can only develop in an improved, normative global policy
framework. A post-2015 system could fulfil this role, as long as it is interpreted as a
system of shared goals with an underlying perspective on development, rather than
just a framework for input allocation.269 This implies, in a certain sense, accepting the
redistribution of prosperity to promote the ‘health’ of the global socioeconomic system.
After all, global demand and employment can also come from low-income countries,
not least because these countries (in Africa and elsewhere) are experiencing strong
population growth. In the words of the director of the World Bank at the G20 summit in
Korea, it is a matter of ‘sink or swim together’.270 A renewed framework could herald a
new form of international cooperation, based in the first instance on a minimum level of
subsistence. This implies that everyone takes responsibility for the ongoing process of
globalisation and the imbalances that it has generated in some parts of the world.271
From this perspective, multilateral institutions should also take on a new role: rather
than implementing projects and programmes, they should manage donors. They can
do this by bringing financing together, devising a policy perspective, identifying projects
seeking support and contracting them out to donors (or other actors) who can bid for
them, preferably working together in partnerships (comparable to the method used by the
EU-Africa Partnership for Infrastructure).272 This proposal responds to the widespread
criticism that donors give so much money to multilateral institutions without any form of
consultation or feedback, ensures that bilateral donors can contribute their own specific
knowledge, and can promote the added value of civil society (being closer to the aid
consumer) and the involvement of individual citizens.273
B.V.2
Globalfinancing
Financing development has become increasingly complex. Development and ODA are
moving further and further out of line (see figure below). Expenditures are classified under
ODA that do not belong there, while development activities are being financed from nonODA funds.
268 Idem, pp. 34-35.
269 Idem, p. 41.
270 N. Okonjo-Iweala, Managing Director of the World Bank, ‘Why the G20 should be interested in the
Development of the G-160+’, Speech at the World Bank Conference on Post-Crisis Growth and
Development, Busan, Korea, 11-12 November 2010.
271 J. M. Severino, ‘Millennium Development Goals: Looking beyond 2015’. Blog on ID4D.org, 2007.
272 J. Severino and O. Ray, ‘The end of ODA (II): The birth of hypercollective action’, Center for Global
Development Working Paper 218, June 2010, pp. 36-40.
273 Idem, p. 31.
75
If global public goods are also included in the analysis and discussion of development
funding, the picture becomes extremely complex. A distinction can then be made between
social aid, economic support and global public goods, including combating ‘global public
bads’, i.e. the negative effects of national policies on other countries. Opinions can of
course differ on exactly what falls into the various categories, but a presentation of all
future development financing flows would be a better guideline for policy than a fixation
on ODA.
With greater attention to global public goods, there is a clear need to define more
precisely what should be financed and how. Some methods of financing are more suited
to funding certain development activities than others. For some time now, there have,
for example, been calls to devise innovative methods for funding global public goods.
The Taskforce on International Financial Transactions for Development recommends a
global currency transaction tax, i.e. a tax on foreign currency transactions.274 This would
generate revenues and a sustainable flow of funds, only impact slightly on trade volumes
and contribute to price stability. A tax of this nature is internationally controversial. Other
examples of innovative financing are described in ‘The New Public Finance: Responding to
Global Challenges’,275 and in a UN study addressing proposals such as an environmental
tax, a Tobin tax, a development focus on special drawing rights, an international financial
274 Report of the committee of experts to the Taskforce on International Financial Transactions and
Development, ‘Globalizing solidarity: The case for financial levies’, Paris, June 2010. This idea was
weighed up against other options, such as a tax on activities in the financial sector, VAT on financial
services, a taxation on financial transactions and national taxation of countries’ own currency.
275 I. Kaul and P. Conceição, ‘The New Public Finance: Responding to Global Challenges’, Overview,
published for UNDP, Oxford University Press: Oxford/New York, 2006, p. 49.
76
facility, private donations, a global lottery and migrant remittances.276 A more detailed
examination of new funding opportunities is beyond the scope of this report.
B.V.3 Conclusions
The AIV attaches great importance to formulating an improved system of global
governance, including the financing components, as part of a post-2015 system. Recent
theories on global public goods and institutional development (public commons) can
serve as a starting point for this process (as discussed in the previous chapter).
Global governance
The AIV concludes that an ideal scenario for donor coordination is not feasible and
should no longer be pursued. It is more realistic to take as a starting point a society
in which temporary networks play a more prominent role. They will not replace existing
structures, but will operate alongside them. It will remain very important to set norms,
both between states and with multilateral organisations, citizens, companies and civil
society organisations. This means:
· designing a new MDG system that can act as a norm-setting framework for
international cooperation for all actors;
· giving multilateral institutions a role in the management of donors (rather than just
programmes) and returning them to their core tasks;
· modifying the G20, so that regions like Africa and the least developed countries have
a voice in global decision-making;
· devising a new MDG8 with a clear and coherent global governance agenda; and
· achieving greater coherence between development activities and expenditures in
donor countries and reforming trade and financial systems.
Financing
The AIV concludes that financing for ODA and for global public goods currently overlaps.
Besides ODA there are more and more ideas on innovative forms of financing. Some
forms are better suited than others for certain categories of public goods. This means:
· distinguishing between public goods for which ODA is suitable and those which can be
financed in another way.
276 Atkinson, A.B. (ed.), ‘New Sources of Development Finance’, UNU-WIDER Oxford University Press: Oxford,
2005.
77
Annexes
Annexe I
Mr F. Korthals Altes
Chairman of the Advisory Council
on International Affairs
P.O. Box 20061
2500 EB The Hague
Date
Re
18 November 2010
Request for advice on the development agenda after 2015
Dear Mr Korthals Altes,
The General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously signed the Millennium Declaration
in New York in 2000. For the first time in history, measurable development goals were
agreed: the Millennium Development Goals for 2015. It is now 2010 and much has been
achieved. The MDG Review Summit was held in New York in September to take stock of the
situation and to see how progress could be speeded up in the five years that remain.
The first international discussions have now been held on the development agenda after
2015. The Netherlands is taking part in them.
In this connection, I would request the Advisory Council for International Affairs (AIV) to draft
an advisory report that will enable the government to determine its position in the debate
on the post-2015 development agenda. This request does not concern Dutch policy on the
MDGs in the 2011 to 2015 period. I would invite the AIV to provide the government with an
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach and to trace the
outlines of a new approach, in so far as it is emerging from the international discussions
referred to above and publications such as the recent report by the Advisory Council on
Government Policy (WRR), Less Pretension, More Ambition.
At this stage, I believe that a exploratory advisory report would be the most useful. However,
I may request a follow-up advisory report at a later stage.
In its response to the WRR report, the AIV has already pointed out that the MDG approach
originated in response to the Washington Consensus and the Structural Adjustment
Programmes. Publications appeared in the 1980s and 1990s on methods of measuring
prosperity and wellbeing that were not only based on purely economic indicators, but also
devoted attention to matters such as human dignity and personal development. Thinking of
this kind underpinned the series of Human Development Reports launched in 1990, and was
reflected more recently in the work of the Stiglitz Commission.
The Millennium Declaration has worked as a catalyst, leading to a broad international
consensus on development. The MDGs identified a number of persistent problems that
hinder development, such as the subordinate position of women, HIV/AIDS and maternal
mortality. Much has been achieved in the fields of education and health care.
However, the current MDG framework is frequently criticised for devoting too little attention
to the economic agenda, good governance, participation, empowerment and other political
dimensions of the development issue. Criticism has also been voiced about implementation
of the MDG model, in particular that the principles on the effectiveness of aid, as set out in,
for example, the Paris Declaration, are not always put sufficiently into practice.
I would request you to examine the questions below from the perspective of both developing
countries and donors.
Lessons learned
Main question: What has been the value for development of the Millennium Declaration and
the concept of the Millennium Development Goals?
The following subsidiary questions could help focus the answer to this question.
· Has the Millennium Declaration proved sufficiently successful in addressing the
problems that hinder or block development?
· Has the Millennium Declaration contributed to the focus on poverty?
· What are the advantages and disadvantages of the way in which the targets have been
formulated? With respect to the disadvantages, what issues have been neglected in the
past ten years?
· To what extent has the concept of the Millennium Development Goals influenced donor
policy in terms of decisions about the allocation of resources and choices of themes
and sectors? To what extent have developing countries been able to influence decisionmaking by donors? To what extent have the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs been
a common enterprise of the states that signed the Declaration?
· The goals are formulated in general terms. Has that been an obstacle to country-specific
action? Has it affected developing countries’ ownership of their own development?
· Has the concept of the Millennium Development Goals contributed to greater policy
coherence for development and coordination of aid? If so, how significant was the
contribution?
· How did the concept of the Millennium Development Goals influence the evolution and
implementation of the development agenda in donor and partner countries?
· To what extent has the Millennium Declaration proved to be a catalyst in increasing
donor countries’ financial commitment (towards the 0.7% norm)?
Towards a different approach?
In 2000, the MDG targets were set for a period of 25 years, with a baseline in 1990. The
international balance of forces has changed considerably in the past ten years. Various
interconnected crises have occurred. The question is whether developing countries
each carry enough weight at international level to pursue their own policies in a time of
cross-border crises. Some countries’ policy space seems to be shrinking rather than
increasing. Given this context, we might expect that development goals should more often
be seen in relation to global challenges such as security, the international legal order,
health, environment, water and climate, trade and knowledge development. What are the
implications for a new agenda?
I would request the AIV to carry out an objective study of emerging themes in international
thinking about development, in order to give the government a better understanding of the
possible contours of a new international development agenda: one that inspires, mobilises
and is based on consensus between North and South.
Does the AIV’s analysis of the lessons learned, the changing international context and
current developments in international thinking on development lead it to expect the
international development agenda to take on a completely new form after 2015?
The following subsidiary questions might be useful in answering this question.
· What ideas are currently shaping international thought about development and
development processes? Does the AIV believe that they could serve as a starting
point for a new global development agenda? (If so, why; if not, why not?) Or does the
AIV believe that the current approach (possibly with some adjustments) should be
continued?
· Could issues that are linked to interdependence, such as the distribution of and access
to global public goods, form the basis for development goals after 2015? If so, what
role will development cooperation play?
I would request you to complete your report by February 2011.
Yours sincerely,
(signed)
Ben Knapen
Minister for European Affairs and International Cooperation
Annexe II
List of frequently used abbreviations
AIV
Advisory council on International Affairs
CGD
Center for Global Development
CMR
Human Rights Committee of the AIV
COS
Development Committee of the AIV
DAC
Development Assistance Committee
EU
European Union
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GNI
Gross National Income
GNP
Gross National Product
GPGs
Global Public Goods
HIPC
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
ICESCR
International Covenant on Economic, Social en Cultural Rights
ICRC
International Convention on the Rights of the Child
IMF
International Monetary Fonds
MDGs
Millennium Development Goals
NGOs
Non-governmental Organisation
ODA
Official Development Assistance
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PPP
Purchasing Power Parity
PRSPs
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
R&D
Research and Development
TRIPS
Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
UN
United Nations
UNAIDS
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNCTAD
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNICEF
United Nations Children’s Fund
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
US
United States
WHO
World Health Organization
WTO
World Trade Organization
Annexe III
Official list of MDGs
All targets and indicators in italics have been added since 2001
** target or indicator that was included in the original MDGs but has been moved to another
target or indicator
Official list of Millennium Development Goals, effective 15 January 2008
Goals and Targets
(from the Millennium Declaration)
Indicators for monitoring progress
Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Target 1.A: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the
1.1 Proportion of population below $1 (PPP)
proportion of people whose income is less than one
per day1
1.2 Poverty gap ratio
dollar a day
1.3 Share of poorest quintile in national
consumption
Target 1.B: Achieve full and productive employment 1.4 Growth rate of GDP per person employed
and decent work for all, including women and young 1.5 Employment-to-population ratio
people
1.6 Proportion of employed people living below
$1 (PPP) per day
1.7 Proportion of own-account and contributing family
workers in total employment
Target 1.C: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the
proportion of people who suffer from hunger
1.8 Prevalence of underweight children under-five years
of age
1.9 Proportion of population below minimum level of
dietary energy consumption
Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education
Target 2.A: Ensure that, by 2015, children every2.1 Net enrolment ratio in primary education
where, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete 2.2 Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach
a full course of primary schooling
last grade of primary
2.3 Literacy rate of 15-24 year-olds, women and men
Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
Target 3.A: Eliminate gender disparity in primary
and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and
in all levels of education no later than 2015
3.1 Ratios of girls to boys in primary, secondary and
tertiary education
3.2 Share of women in wage employment in the nonagricultural sector
3.3 Proportion of seats held by women in national
parliament
Goal 4: Reduce child mortality
Target 4.A: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990
and 2015, the under-five mortality rate
1
4.1 Under-five mortality rate
4.2 Infant mortality rate
4.3 Proportion of 1 year-old children immunised
against measles
For monitoring country poverty trends, indicators based on national poverty lines should be used, where available.
All indicators should be disaggregated by sex and urban/rural as far as possible.
Goal 5: Improve maternal health
Target 5.A: Reduce by three quarters, between
1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio
5.1 Maternal mortality ratio
5.2 Proportion of births attended by skilled health
personnel
Target 5.B: Achieve, by 2015, universal access to
reproductive health
5.3 Contraceptive prevalence rate**
5.4 Adolescent birth rate
5.5 Antenatal care coverage (at least one visit and at
least four visits)
5.6 Unmet need for family planning
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
Target 6.A: Have halted by 2015 and begun to
reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS
6.1 HIV prevalence among population aged
15-24 years
6.2 Condom use at last high-risk sex
6.3 Proportion of population aged 15-24 years with
comprehensive correct knowledge of HIV/AIDS
6.4 Ratio of school attendance of orphans to school
attendance of non-orphans aged
10-14 years
Target 6.B: Achieve, by 2010, universal access to
treatment for HIV/AIDS for all those who need it
6.5 Proportion of population with advanced HIV
infection with access to antiretroviral drugs
Target 6.C: Have halted by 2015 and begun to
reverse the incidence of malaria and other major
diseases
6.6 Incidence and death rates associated with malaria
6.7 Proportion of children under 5 sleeping under
insecticide-treated bednets
6.8 Proportion of children under 5 with fever who are
treated with appropriate anti-malarial drugs
6.9 Incidence, prevalence and death rates associated
with tuberculosis
6.10 Proportion of tuberculosis cases detected and
cured under directly observed treatment short
course
Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
Target 7.A: Integrate the principles of sustainable
7.1 Proportion of land area covered by forest
development into country policies and programmes 7.2 CO2 emissions, total, per capita and per $1 GDP
(PPP)
and reverse the loss of environmental resources
7.3 Consumption of ozone-depleting substances
7.4 Proportion of fish stocks within safe biological limits
7.5 Proportion of total water resources used
Target 7.B: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by
7.6 Proportion of terrestrial and marine areas protected
2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss
7.7 Proportion of species threatened with extinction
Target 7.C: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people 7.8 Proportion of population using an improved
without sustainable access to safe drinking water
drinking water source
and basic sanitation
7.9 Proportion of population using an improved
sanitation facility
Target 7.D: By 2020, to have achieved a significant 7.10 Proportion of urban population living
improvement in the lives of at least 100 million
in slums
slum dwellers
Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development
Target 8.A: Develop further an open, rule-based,
Some of the indicators listed below are monitored
predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial separately for the least developed countries (LDCs),
system
Africa, landlocked developing countries and small
island developing States.
Includes a commitment to good governance,
development and poverty reduction – both nationally Official development assistance (ODA)
and internationally
8.1 Net ODA, total and to the least developed
countries, as percentage of OECD/DAC donors’
Target 8.B: Address the special needs of the least
gross national income
developed countries
8.2 Proportion of total bilateral, sector-allocable
ODA of OECD/DAC donors to basic social
Includes: tariff and quota free access for the least
services (basic education, primary health care,
developed countries’ exports; enhanced programme
nutrition, safe water and sanitation)
of debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries
8.3 Proportion of bilateral official development
(HIPC) and cancellation of official bilateral debt; and
assistance of OECD/DAC donors that is untied
more generous ODA for countries committed to
8.4 ODA received in landlocked developing
poverty reduction
countries as a proportion of their gross national
incomes
8.5 ODA received in small island developing States
Target 8.C: Address the special needs of landlocked
as a proportion of their gross national incomes
developing countries and small island developing
Market access
States (through the Programme of Action for the
8.6 Proportion of total developed country imports
Sustainable Development of Small Island
(by value and excluding arms) from developing
Developing States and the outcome of the twentycountries and least developed countries,
second special session of the General Assembly)
admitted free of duty
8.7 Average tariffs imposed by developed countries
on agricultural products and textiles and
clothing from developing countries
Target 8.D: Deal comprehensively with the debt
8.8 Agricultural support estimate for OECD
problems of developing countries through national
countries as a percentage of their gross
and international measures in order to make debt
domestic product
sustainable in the long term
8.9 Proportion of ODA provided to help build trade
capacity
Debt sustainability
8.10 Total number of countries that have reached
their HIPC decision points and number that
have reached their HIPC completion points
(cumulative)
8.11 Debt relief committed under HIPC and MDRI
Initiatives
8.12 Debt service as a percentage of exports of
goods and services
Target 8.E: In cooperation with pharmaceutical
companies, provide access to affordable essential
drugs in developing countries
8.13 Proportion of population with access to
affordable essential drugs on a sustainable
basis
Target 8.F: In cooperation with the private sector,
make available the benefits of new technologies,
especially information and communications
8.14 Telephone lines per 100 population
8.15 Cellular subscribers per 100 population
8.16 Internet users per 100 population
Source: UNDP: ‘Beyond the Mid-point: achieving the Millennium Development Goals’, January 2010
Annexe IV
"!
#$%&%
"
!
"
# $%&
(
'
'
!
) ( *
+ ,
-
#
.& /
0
*
"
21
#
.
3"!4
/
,
35
.'!6/ & '
!
.'!/7
-
& #
*
8
& 9 + 7
+
& 8
+
8
92
) (
)
) ) % *
&
+ %
!
,#
"
$
"
'
" !
$ # # " %
&
)('&"*
+)('
% , - + ")('
. /, $ ",
$
& ! ##
0
1 /
, % $ + $
$,
2 0 " ! $ #
(
" %
$
93
% + "
.
/ % , -
&$0
( ' !
*
% $ 2 - *
) #$
%
)(3
4
1
94
Previous reports published by the Advisory Council on International Affairs
1 ANINCLUSIVEEUROPE, October 1997
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
CONVENTIONALARMSCONTROL:urgentneed,limitedopportunities,April 1998
CAPITALPUNISHMENTANDHUMANRIGHTS:recentdevelopments,April 1998
UNIVERSALITYOFHUMANRIGHTSANDCULTURALDIVERSITY,June 1998
ANINCLUSIVEEUROPEII,November 1998
HUMANITARIANAID:redefiningthelimits,November 1998
COMMENTSONTHECRITERIAFORSTRUCTURALbILATERALAID,November 1998
ASYLUMINFORMATIONANDTHEEUROPEANUNION, July 1999
TOwARDSCALMERwATERS:areportonrelationsbetweenTurkeyandtheEuropeanUnion, July 1999
DEVELOPMENTSINTHEINTERNATIONALSECURITYSITUATIONINTHE1990s:from unsafesecurityto
unsecuredsafety,September 1999
THEFUNCTIONINGOFTHEUNITEDNATIONSCOMMISSIONONHUMANRIGHTS,September 1999
THEIGCANDbEYOND:TOwARDSAEUROPEANUNIONOFTHIRTYMEMbERSTATES,January 2000
HUMANITARIANINTERVENTION,April 2000*
KEYLESSONSFROMTHEFINANCIALCRISESOF1997AND1998,April 2000
AEUROPEANCHARTEROFFUNDAMENTALRIGHTS?,May 2000
DEFENCERESEARCHANDPARLIAMENTARYSCRUTINY,December 2000
AFRICA’SSTRUGGLE:security,stabilityanddevelopment,January 2001
VIOLENCEAGAINSTwOMEN:LEGALDEVELOPMENTS,February 2001
AMULTI-TIEREDEUROPE:therelationshipbetweentheEuropeanUnionandsubnationalauthorities,May 2001
EUROPEANMILITARY-INDUSTRIALCOOPERATION,May 2001
REGISTRATIONOFCOMMUNITIESbASEDONRELIGIONORbELIEF,June 2001
THEwORLDCONFERENCEAGAINSTRACISMANDTHERIGHTTOREPARATION,June 2001
COMMENTARYONTHE2001MEMORANDUMONHUMANRIGHTSPOLICY,September 2001
ACONVENTION,ORCONVENTIONALPREPARATIONS?TheEuropeanUnionandtheICG2004,November 2001
INTEGRATIONOFGENDEREqUALITY:amatterofresponsibility,commitmentandquality,January 2002
THENETHERLANDSANDTHEORGANISATIONFORSECURITYANDCOOPERATIONINEUROPEIN2003:
roleanddirection,May 2002
bRIDGINGTHEGAPbETwEENCITIzENSANDbRUSSELS:towardsgreaterlegitimacyand
effectivenessfortheEuropeanUnion,May 2002
ANANALYSISOFTHEUSMISSILEDEFENCEPLANS:prosandconsofstrivingforinvulnerability,August 2002
PRO-POORGROwTHINTHEbILATERALPARTNERCOUNTRIESINSUb-SAHARANAFRICA:ananalysisofpoverty
reductionstrategies,January 2003
AHUMANRIGHTSbASEDAPPROACHTODEVELOPMENTCOOPERATION,April 2003
MILITARYCOOPERATIONINEUROPE:possibilitiesandlimitations,April 2003
bRIDGINGTHEGAPbETwEENCITIzENSANDbRUSSELS:towardsgreaterlegitimacyandeffectiveness
fortheEuropeanUnion,April 2003
THECOUNCILOFEUROPE:lesscanbemore,October 2003
THENETHERLANDSANDCRISISMANAGEMENT:threeissuesofcurrentinterest,March 2004
FAILINGSTATES:aglobalresponsibility,May 2004*
PRE-EMPTIVEACTION,July 2004*
TURKEY:towardsmembershipoftheEuropeanUnion,July 2004
THEUNITEDNATIONSANDHUMANRIGHTS,September 2004
SERVICESLIbERALISATIONANDDEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES:doesliberalisationproducedeprivation?,
September 2004
THEPARLIAMENTARYASSEMbLYOFTHECOUNCILOFEUROPE,February 2005
REFORMINGTHEUNITEDNATIONS:AcloserlookattheAnnanreport,May 2005
THEINFLUENCEOFCULTUREANDRELIGIONONDEVELOPMENT:Stimulusorstagnation?,June 2005
MIGRATIONANDDEVELOPMENTCOOPERATION:coherencebetweentwopolicyareas,June 2005
THEEUROPEANUNION’SNEwEASTERNNEIGHbOURS:July 2005
THENETHERLANDSINACHANGINGEU,NATOANDUN,July 2005
ENERGISEDFOREIGNPOLICY:securityofenergysupplyasanewkeyobjective, December 2005**
THENUCLEARNON-PROLIFERATIONREGIME:Theimportanceofanintegratedandmultilateralapproach,
January 2006
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
SOCIETYANDTHEARMEDFORCES,April 2006
COUNTERTERRORISMFROMANINTERNATIONALANDEUROPEANPERSPECTIVE,September 2006
PRIVATESECTORDEVELOPMENTANDPOVERTYREDUCTION,October 2006
THEROLEOFNGOSANDTHEPRIVATESECTORININTERNATIONALRELATIONS,October 2006
EUROPEAPRIORITY!,November 2006
THEbENELUX:THEbENEFITSANDNECESSITYOFENHANCEDCOOPERATION,February 2007
THEOECDOFTHEFUTURE,March 2007
CHINAINTHEbALANCE:towardsamaturerelationship,April 2007
DEPLOYMENTOFTHEARMEDFORCES:interactionbetweennationalandinternationaldecision-making,May 2007
THEUNHUMANRIGHTSTREATYSYSTEM:strengtheningthesystemstepbystepinapoliticallychargedcontext,
July 2007
THEFINANCESOFTHEEUROPEANUNION,December 2007
EMPLOYINGPRIVATEMILITARYCOMPANIES:aquestionofresponsibility,December 2007
THENETHERLANDSANDEUROPEANDEVELOPMENTPOLICY,May 2008
COOPERATIONbETwEENTHEEUROPEANUNIONANDRUSSIA:amatterofmutualinterest,July 2008
CLIMATE,ENERGYANDPOVERTYREDUCTION,November 2008
UNIVERSALITYOFHUMANRIGHTS:principles,practiceandprospects,November 2008
CRISISMANAGEMENTOPERATIONSINFRAGILESTATES:theneedforacoherentapproach,March 2009
TRANSITIONALjUSTICE:justiceandpeaceinsituationsoftransition,April 2009*
DEMOGRAPHICCHANGESANDDEVELOPMENTCOOPERATION, July 2009
NATO’SNEwSTRATEGICCONCEPT,January 2010
THEEUANDTHECRISIS:lessonslearned,january 2010
COHESIONININTERNATIONALCOOPERATION:ResponsetothewRR(AdvisoryCouncilonGovernmentPolicy)
Report‘Less Pretension, More Ambition’, July 2010
THENETHERLANDSANDTHERESPONSIbILITYTOPROTECT:theresponsibilitytoprotectpeoplefrommass
atrocities,June 2010
THEEU’SCAPACITYFORFURTHERENLARGEMENT,July 2010
COMbATINGPIRACYATSEA:areassessmentofpublicandprivateresponsibilities,December 2010
THEHUMANRIGHTSOFTHEDUTCHGOVERNMENT:identifyingconstantsinachangingworld,February 2011
Advisory letters issued by the Advisory Council on International Affairs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
12
13
14
15
16
17
AdvisoryletterTHEENLARGEMENTOFTHEEUROPEANUNION,December 1997
AdvisoryletterTHEUNCOMMITTEEAGAINSTTORTURE,July 1999
AdvisoryletterTHECHARTEROFFUNDAMENTALRIGHTS,November 2000
AdvisoryletterONTHEFUTUREOFTHEEUROPEANUNION,November 2001
AdvisoryletterTHEDUTCHPRESIDENCYOFTHEEUIN2004,May 2003***
AdvisoryletterTHERESULTSOFTHECONVENTIONONTHEFUTUREOFEUROPE, August 2003
AdvisoryletterFROMINTERNALTOEXTERNALbORDERS.RecommendationsfordevelopingacommonEuropean
asylumandimmigrationpolicyby2009,March 2004
AdvisoryletterTHEDRAFTDECLARATIONONTHERIGHTSOFINDIGENOUSPEOPLES:fromDeadlockto
breakthrough?,September 2004
AdvisoryletterObSERVATIONSONTHESACHSREPORT:HowdoweattaintheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals?,
April 2005
AdvisoryletterTHEEUROPEANUNIONANDITSRELATIONSwITHTHEDUTCHCITIzENS,December 2005
AdvisoryletterCOUNTERTERRORISMINAEUROPEANANDINTERNATIONALPERSPECTIVE:interimreportonthe
prohibitionoftorture,December 2005
AdvisoryletterRESPONSETOTHE2007HUMANRIGHTSSTRATEGY, November 2007
AdvisoryletterANOMbUDSMANFORDEVELOPMENTCOOPERATION,December 2007
AdvisoryletterCLIMATECHANGEANDSECURITY,January 2009
AdvisoryletterTHEEASTERNPARTNERSHIP,February 2009
AdvisoryletterDEVELOPMENTCOOPERATION,Thebenefitofandneedforpublicsupport,May 2009
AdvisoryletterOPENLETTERTOANEwDUTCHGOVERNMENT,June 2010
*
IssuedjointlybytheAdvisoryCouncilonInternationalAffairs(AIV)andtheAdvisoryCommitteeonIssuesofPublic
8
9
10
11
InternationalLaw(CAVV).
**
jointreportbytheAdvisoryCouncilonInternationalAffairs(AIV)andtheGeneralEnergyCouncil.
*** jointreportbytheAdvisoryCouncilonInternationalAffairs(AIV)andtheAdvisoryCommitteeonAliensAffairs(ACVz).
Capitalism and inequality
The failure of the free market as a challenge for the
Rhineland model
Summary
Since 1960, the primary focus in the relation between capitalism and inequality has
been the increasing gap between poor and rich countries. In the last ten or twenty
years, this gap has been decreasing, sometimes even dramatically. Globalization, the
emergence of the free market philosophy, combined with various economies’ own
efforts as well as those of development cooperation have cut world poverty by half.
The attention has therefore shifted to a growing inequality between developed,
emerging and under-developed economies. Poverty and inequality are still persistent
characteristics of the capitalist system, which is why a lot of people are increasingly
in favour of redistribution mechanisms between rich and poor within societies, for
example by (re)introducing progressive taxation and stopping the mechanisms that
legally and illegally further inequality. Yet the question remains whether this approach does full justice to the complex question of capitalism and inequality.
As important as those financial and economic tendencies in a certain country
may be, there are also other causes and dimensions.
Research often shows that far too little attention is paid to indirect economic
factors. A stable family situation, stimulating education and good nutrition during
the first thousand days of one’s life; a safe, stimulating and controlling environment,
good and relevant schooling and also ethnical and religious conditions may be very
important. Sometimes redistributive policies prove to be counter-productive and a
non-activating welfare state even tends to lead to lasting poverty. Efforts to keep extreme wealth and its expressions within bounds will not be enough if they are not
accompanied by a new ethical kit and perhaps even a cultural change. But most of
all, measures that are taken only on a national scale will be ineffective and even futile. What is needed is a new, worldwide financial architecture that rules out the possibility of easy circumvention of restrictions, that punishes free rider behaviour by
countries, that promotes the proper basic conditions for the functioning of a global
market and that—perhaps—can even levy some sort of international tax.
But of (at least) equal importance is to examine the relation between capitalism and inequality in a broader context. Here the following four dimensions are concerned:
»»First of all, there is the persistence of poverty and subordination for 10 to 20
percent of the world population, both in rich and in poor countries.
2
Jos van Genip
»»Then there is the vulnerability and undervaluation of the other parties concerned in the functioning of the market next to shareholders and financial
suppliers, i.e. the environment and the labour conditions.
»»Thirdly we see, in contrast to a growing middle class in the developing countries, the disruptive impoverishment and shrinking middle class in many developed countries.
»»And finally, there is the excessive increase of wealth and income of some
upper layers in society, both in poor and in rich countries. Sometimes, this
is caused by corruption, sometimes by a lack of efficient regulations. Only
0.01% of the population in the US (and probably also in Russia), not only has
a dominant financial position but also a determining political influence.
Precisely these different dimensions constantly require a different, yet coherent, approach.
»»The persistent poverty at the bottom of society requires public authorities—
not only in society but also in trade and industry—to pay attention to education and schooling, security, care and specific stimulation towards economic
participation, e.g. micro credit.
»»Environment, working conditions, human rights and other non-financial aspects, in combination with individual responsibility, regulations and especially new price mechanisms (such as the true price initiative), should all be
duly reflected in adapted market mechanisms.
»»The social (and ecological) market model, as translated in the Rhineland and
Scandinavian system, gets increasing appreciation in other countries and especially among former defenders of the Anglo-Saxon model. Yet at the same
time we should seriously consider an update. For many poor and growing
economies, it may be a clear alternative to either a socialist model, or to a
complete free market ideology. But also in richer countries, it may contribute
to the recovery of the position of the middle class and give a new perspective
to employment and growth. A transformation, not an abolition of the welfare
state, will be part of it.
»»The excesses and abuses at the top income and fortune layers of society require measures and regulations on a national scale but they have to be completed with global arrangements. Those arrangements will thoroughly transform the Bretton Woods system and initiate a global super-national financial
architecture. The reality of globalization can only be matched within systems
of law and sanction. But even that will be insufficient, in this field as well as in
the field of human rights violation, if there is no new ethical approach to the
concepts of market, income and the meaning of prosperity.
These macro-economic and macro-political realities also have consequences for our
own preferences, choices and behaviour.
»»Attention and dedication to social cohesion and bonds remain irreplaceable
Capitalism and Inequality
3
for the fight against poverty in our own country, and also for individual citizens. The various forms of international solidarity remain equally essential,
especially when focused on the causes of poverty and the liberation from this
yoke of the lowest layer of a billion fellow citizens. More modern ways of intelligent assistance, such as carefully programmed micro-credits, can have a
lever effect.
»»Individual purchase and consumption behaviour, consumers’ actions for fair
trade, shareholders’ activities and responsible entrepreneurship are critical
for a new balance on the market of supply and demand, whereby sustainability and labour conditions, as well as other social values, play a role.
»»The regaining of faith by and in banks and financial institutions should be
part of a broader discussion about cultural change wherein the taboo on discussing the relation between ethics and money is lifted, and wherein a realistic contribution to the necessary vision on a new global financial architecture
can be developed.
For a humane society to have a real perspective, we need to reconcile modernisation
and industrialisation on the one hand, and humane labour conditions on the other.
We have to reform without throwing away values such as human dignity, responsibility, solidarity and subsidiarity. If it appears from data and numerous publications
that choices made elsewhere that favour raw capitalism lead to dislocating and sometimes devastating results, then we should be critical and contribute much more to the
essential national and international debate on the establishment of a social market
economy on a global level.
Derailment of the system
A small farmer in Indonesia, a country with a rapidly growing economy, symbolizes
the bottom 20 percent of the world population, i.e. those who cannot participate, do
not benefit from the globalization and do not profit from the free market or the capitalist system. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the same was
true for the small holder in Western Europe, who was at risk of missing the boat of
increasing prosperity. In both cases this is about inequality, in many cases a growing
inequality of income and of opportunities.
Then suddenly, one realises that this is not only about the small farmer in Asia.
It is also about the factory worker in the US, or about the cashier in Walmart, or
about the elderly in eastern Europe or the school drop-out in Spain.
The bottom of society
Globalization and the free market have promoted equality between what we once
4
Jos van Genip
called the poor and the rich countries and the world map of poverty has subsequently
changed drastically in the past 25 years. This was realised with the help of technology and the spirit of enterprise and freer markets, but it was also thanks to education,
nutrition, healthcare and better water. Nevertheless, it appears that for ten, twenty,
sometimes even thirty percent of the population, there was marginal to no benefit
from the economic developments, the technological breakthroughs, the free market
or the globalization. In recent and in older studies abundant questions have been
asked as to why this is.
An important cause of inequality is that the basic conditions for a well-functioning market are deliberately violated in a number of countries, through monopolies, corruption, and conflicts of interests between politics and commercial life.1 In a
recent article in Foreign Affairs about ‘Capitalism and Inequality’, Jerry Muller also
points out a number of completely different causes. The glass ceiling to progress is
made impenetrable not only because of macro-economic and political factors, but
socio-cultural and ethical factors as well. It is about the instability in education in a
family where, for example, the father is absent, and also the lack of a supporting and
guiding social environment. “One can hardly overestimate the role of the family,”
he says, relying on extensive research. And “nothing can replace that emotionally
and culturally supporting family.” Stability, intimacy, solidarity and supervision by
one’s family, social environment, and church communities are extremely important
in creating opportunities to break free from poverty. It also shows why some ethnic
and religious groups do better than others. It is not without good reason that so many
poor people manage to escape the bonds of poverty.
Muller then goes a revolutionary step further. He says that without important
public expenditures in the social field, no answer will be found to a number of inherent characteristics of capitalism. “The welfare state is not a beast to be starved!” The
systematic limitation, demolition or wrong direction of the welfare state as we have
seen since Reagan is, according to Muller, one of the main causes of the loss of the
American dream and of the persistent presence of poverty in the bottom twenty percent in the US and elsewhere. According to The Economist, a paper that can hardly
be suspected of anti-capitalist ideas, the question is, how long a policy such as that
of the Chinese can be reconciled with social peace and economic growth. Governments from Brazil and India for example have introduced adjustment programmes
to benefit the poorest, and their reasons for doing so were not particularly doctrinal.
Those who believe the welfare state is outdated will sooner or later realise that
if that were the case, the free market will also come under severe pressure. After all, a
free market does not work well with growing inequality and a lack of perspective for
1 The reason the economic growth in Indonesia did not follow the neighbouring countries, was
determined to be due to the fact that foreign investments in this country were thirty percent more
expensive due to “transaction costs”, as they called them euphemistically. This resulted immediately in
unequal opportunities for those still under the poverty line.
Capitalism and Inequality
5
ten to twenty percent of the population. Analysts and opponents of ‘big government’
say that the present financial and economic crisis would benefit from an increase
of expenses on luxury consumer goods, expensive cars, jewellery or wealthy apartments. We are talking here about some hundreds of thousands of the super-rich. I
wonder what would happen if the bottom twenty percent, say sixty to eighty million people in the US, would start to have some more purchasing power, as President
Obama was striving for at the beginning of his first term. What would happen if that
bottom billion would get two instead of one dollar each day? Now that would give a
real impulse to the (global) economy!
The high-profile economists and politicians of our multilateral institutions
and also the frequently cited opinion makers are often rather unfamiliar with the
real world of the poor. According to Wijffels, they are even unfamiliar with primary
processes like food production. Most of all, they are unacquainted with the economics of the poor. That is why economic growth often excludes the poor, leaves them to
be poor or makes them even poorer.
If you don’t take the economics of the poor into account, the consequences
can be catastrophic. When President Clinton wanted to promote the ownership of
a house among the poor and stimulated mortgages by offering commissions to brokers, it worked out to be a perverse stimulus because the basic conditions to create the
capacity to repay were lacking. The entire world now suffers from the consequences.
Meanwhile, it’s not just the poorest that are affected. Almost as shocking as
the observation of persisting poverty and exclusion in the bottom layer, is the relatively recent recognition that these imperfections have two other victims, namely the
environment and labour conditions on the one hand, and the middle class, in particular in the developed countries, on the other.
The most vulnerable
We were already aware of the fact that the environment is excessively burdened and
becoming exhausted. In Arjan Broers’s very instructive book, Geld en Goed, Herman
Wijffels points it out as follows: “The carrying capacity of the earth is overburdened
by fifty percent. In financial terms this means that we don’t live on the return but on
the capital itself. So we use up our capital.” And obviously this overburdening has to
do with our greed and consumption behaviour or, in other words, our morals. But to
say that the lack of morality is the only reason, is to return us to the night watchman
state of the 19th century—because it is not only my lack of sobriety or renunciation of
the golden calf and not only my attachment to other values, which causes this exhaustion and overburdening. It is also caused by a failing market mechanism. The cheap
furniture made of hardwood from ancient forests is in reality invaluable. A holiday
by air in Europe should be much and much more expensive than a train holiday. But
for many goods and services the transactions are ruled by supply and demand and
6
Jos van Genip
take far too few other aspects into account to determine the real costs. These aspects
are the damage for the environment caused by transport, exploitation, noise, cruelty to animals, harmful pesticides, health in general, removal of essential elements
for future life such as biodiversity, regeneration capacity and the valuation of human
communities. Market mechanisms with systematic imbalances are maintained because incentives for alternative energy such as true innovation, cleaner combustion
engines, promotion of regional products, decent production processes and so many
other things are still missing.
Most definitely, something is brewing. Young people will individually choose
more consciously and the situation will really improve when worried consumers join
forces in movements and public actions.
Public interventions made corrections to our market in the first half of the previous century and in the same way we now cannot just rely on voluntary actions. We
needed laws to forbid child labour, to restrict dismissals, to protect cooperatives, to
facilitate societal and workers’ insurances, to fight against poverty for the most vulnerable. This was the core of the social market model, or the Rhineland model. In
essence this model is a correction on the functioning of the market, especially in the
area of labour conditions. Despite strong opposition, there was the conviction that
the market needed correction but should not be eliminated.
Now we are again speaking of a correction, but with two essential differences.
It is not only about vulnerable people, but rather about the vulnerable, the helpless—
in one word: Creation. And here no unions of stakeholders are around. That’s the
reason why politics can get away so easily with delays, immobility or false solutions.
This can only be changed if ethical and moral power stations in society link with
opinions and movements that go further than simply having more and using more.
Churches and world religions could make the difference here.
And there is a further essential difference and complicating factor. What we
need is authority, one that can really formulate and impose corrections. For example
we have the WTO, the World Trade Organisation, but they operate on a voluntary
basis. We need a transformation that goes much further. We need to create an effective form of a world authority that is able to steer the rather hard globalization with
legal power.
For many years, the World Council of Churches has argued for such a direction, and only recently the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace published a
report titled Towards reforming the international and monetary systems in the context
of global public authority. The starting point here is that globalization is not always
wrong and we cannot do without the market, but a whole lot of things have to change.
These changes should lead to forms of worldwide authority. It is the translation of
the principle of subsidiarity but then upwards. Many real specialists of the haute finance were involved and it plots a realistic and doable path.
Capitalism and Inequality
7
The middle class
A sense of realism is therefore needed, because another phenomenon has come like a
bolt from the blue in the past recent years. It is the stagnation and falling behind of the
lower and middle incomes in most developed countries. For three or four generations
we’ve experienced progress in our countries and this had an influence on our culture
and our attitude to life. Upon the arrival of steam engines and washing machines,
cars and microwaves, the necessity to physical labour diminished and people, notably women, were even freed from being housebound. Healthcare made most diseases
curable or preventable. Schooling, ranging from primary to academic levels became
accessible for everybody, it formed people more and more, making them available for
new kinds of jobs. The computer gave access to information and cultural domains
that were previously only attainable for the elite. And this was combined with an
ever-increasing income, generation after generation. Ownership of a house became
more and more attainable, as well as all kinds of luxury goods. The American Dream
spread to Europe. A labourer’s son could become the CEO of a listed company, his
wife being a senior medical specialist.
The issue which really puts the debate on capitalism and inequality on edge is
the position of the middle class. The middle class as a ‘reception room’ for the poor
and a bridge to capital and higher education, turned out to be the basis for stability,
democracy and economic growth. The best economic news of the past two or three
decades was the rising and developing of a middle class in both developing and post
socialist communities. That was real progress.
But in the aforementioned special of The Economist, it appears that—at least
in the US—the middle class is not making any progress but that it is, together with
the layer just underneath, becoming poorer. For twenty, perhaps thirty years, this
was concealed because the family income increased or stayed the same. The partner
took a job, both partners worked longer and kept on working later. And then there
were the debts, debts, debts… They concealed the fact that individually things were
not all together as good as they appeared. And collectively, the debts were used to
finance a part of the welfare state. In other words, the magnificent boom, that incredible growth of income and expenses was financed with … borrowed money. (I quote
again Wijffels in Broers’s book).
Suddenly, here and everywhere, one realises that things are perhaps different:
limits to growth, income, expenses, work, property, and even to education. It is not
only about slowing growth rates. On the one hand we have the diminishing inequality between North and South, and on the other hand we see that inside these countries
inequality does not decrease, but rather it increases. We also see another kind of inequality. What first was limited to the bottom 10 percent, is in the US now threatening
to spread and lead to new ghettos of segregation according to ethnicity, family structure, regional differences. In Europe we see a new dividing line between language,
culture and countries. There is no longer a division between east and west but there is
8
Jos van Genip
a new demarcation line between south and north with the Polish and Czechs as new
winners and Greeks, Spaniards and Italians as losers. There is the great disillusion
for young people newly arriving on the labour market, including the highly educated:
you aren’t needed, not now and maybe not even later. It is a double disillusion as it also
applies to the parents who saved for their children’s studies.
For quite some time, there’s been something wrong with the idea of automatic
progress, but the financial crisis in the US and later in Europe swiftly unmasked it.
The doubt about whether it’s worth it for me or my child to pursue higher education
is in fact the doubt about whether progress is still attainable or—nearly everybody’s
worry—whether future generations will be as well-off as we are. It’s no wonder we
see the rise of new economies as a threat to ours, that we wrongly think the piece of
the pie for ourselves will be smaller if it gets larger for someone else.
Something doesn’t make sense: the preservation of our level of prosperity, let
alone an improvement in our countries, obviously needs a drastic adjustment of the
market mechanisms. It is our own insecurity that prevents us from realising how
comfortable we still are here in the countries with the Rhineland and Scandinavian
model. An avalanche of studies and articles appears in the US, criticising the system based on the Anglo-Saxon model which was prematurely declared invincible in
1989. Free market, fine, but if it leads to a greater inequality, to the melting down of
the middle class, then something is structurally wrong. And if in Scandinavia and in
the countries around the Rhine this inequality continues to decrease and the middle
class with its prosperity keeps in a strong position, should we then not take a careful
look at the system? One has found a measure for this, the so-called Gini-coefficient.
It is an indication of how much inequality increases or decreases. We do rather well
on this indicator, although we feel something is brewing, at least concerning the economic climate. And perhaps among large groups the motivation and belief needed
to make progress has come under pressure, especially among the 5 or 10 percent of
those who seem to get stuck in poverty as we explained earlier.
The top of the pyramid
Meanwhile the discussion is primarily about the other side of the picture, the top.
Since the Reagan years, since Milton Friedman—the apostle of absolute deregulation—, since Ayan Rand—the ideologist in favour of blunt self-interest—, nothing
has lead to a greater inequality than the explosion of the wealth of the upper one to
five percent. But it is not about jealousy, it is primarily about the question whether
the explosively growing richness of the happy few perpetuates or even worsens the
poverty of millions of others. The Asian Development Bank says that, due to this
increasing inequality, at least 240 million people stayed under the poverty line.
One percent of the population of the US is responsible for 20 to 25 percent of
the national income. The income of the top 0.01 percent of the US, 16,000 families,
Capitalism and Inequality
9
has quadrupled their income since 1983. The bottom 20 percent has raised their income only with 0.4 percent. And why? It is not only about entrepreneurship, seizing
opportunities or speculations. Mechanisms that, directly or indirectly, specifically
benefit the rich and richest, have crept into the aid system. That is how the amount
of tax reduction on the houses of the richest 20 percent is four times as big as the
amount spent on social housing for the poorest 20 percent. Even more serious is that
200 Americans are responsible for 80 percent of the donations to political parties,
donations that amount to billions and billions.
Deregulation, the absence of the notion of society’s interests rising above the
sum of all the individual interests, the conviction that a welfare state makes people
idle, the absence of a social dialogue, the incorrect assignment of financial aid, the
dependency on politics and vested interests of a very small elite: they are all failures
in a capitalist system which is untenable in this form. And with respect to the absence
of a social dialogue, a large number of authors have raised the question of whether we
should not look a bit closer into the social market model, i.e. the Rhineland and Scandinavian models. After all it is about system failures, failures that in the first place
ruin society in the US. But they get an extra dimension as soon as they contaminate
the financial and subsequently the economic system in the entire world, as was the
case in 2008. One cannot think of a more dramatic example of the deterioration and,
more specifically, the inadequacy of the world order to manage a crisis or prevent
abuses.
In our digging for causes and remedies, we failed to emphasize the lack of a
standard, the necessity of decency and virtue. Greed is not bad, we hear, it is good
because the sum of every individual greed produces a maximum of prosperity; don’t
hamper us with regulations and controls; and in politics and in society one should
not refer to the general interest because we can neither measure nor impose it.
In the financial world there are greedy predators running around that need to
be locked back up in their cage, a cage of a worldwide dimension. The cage bars of the
post war institutions that were meant to protect us are too large or they are placed
in a wrong place. The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the other
so-called Bretton Woods institutions, need to be reformed. The churches have been
pleading for this over the last fifty years. Now is the time to strengthen the multilateral system with a common effort to reform existing institutions into new authorities. Something is brewing: senior bankers gathering together in the offices of the
Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt to talk with a cardinal and with theologians about how,
what and by which path; CEOs of a number of multinationals like Paul Polman of
Unilever meet with archbishop Nichols in the archiepiscopal palace of Westminster
to talk about necessary changes; in the Vatican itself, world famous economists and
politicians gather with leaders from international financial institutions and with
bishops. The time is ripe, act now!, it spells. And now I am going to say something
imprudent. If the new Pope refers to the obsession in his church about abortion, con-
10
Jos van Genip
traception, gay rights and so on, is that not a sign for the American bishops that says:
speak up about the environment, poverty, capitalism and inequality. Use your influence in these matters too, just as you did thirty years ago. And don’t just complain
about wrongdoing, but give direction: Tell people that until we have drastic international reforms, those predators, that sometimes tiny elite, will continue to prey
with impunity upon many hundreds of millions of fellow citizens. The principles of
the Christian social tradition of solidarity and subsidiarity point in just one direction: The fact that nowadays our people are joined by common interests around the
world, calls for a safety-net without borders for the poor, and—at the same time—for
institutions and regulations with global authority. It even calls for an abolition of the
privileged status of financial transactions ranking above the trade in goods and services—the start, thus, of cross-border taxation, something like the Tobin Tax.
But indeed, we cannot realise all this without tackling the global infection with
greed and the prevalence of self-interest. At the conference of the Deutsche Bank, a
senior executive of Goldman Sachs said: “In the end all regulations are futile. Escape
routes are already figured out by my staff even before the ink has dried.” These regulations will only be effective if they are supported by an ethical change, and an ethical
and moral revival. This should start with the individual banker, but also on a collective basis in institutions, in the economy, in enterprises, in politics. That is easy to
say, but what kind of ethics, what kind of morality do we need, and most of all, what
are our sources of inspiration?
Adam Smith could defend a free market with his invisible hand making corrections, because he started from the general acceptance of Christian ethics and the
belief in an almighty God. But in a culture which does not share a common inspiration, how do we arrive at a an idea of the general interest, without any sanction lurking around the corner. How do we return to the idea that was expressed in The Perfect
Prey by a former Dutch top banker, decent in an old-fashioned way: “If you want to
get rich in a quick way, don’t get yourself a job in a bank.”
There are examples where, beyond religious and anti-religious traditions, an
almost global consensus grew regarding what is right and what is not. Child labour,
discrimination, respect for a number of basic rights: different domains in which humanity has made a tremendous progress after 1945 and 1989. Sure there are still gaps
and relapses, but still. The key question for the coming years is whether the relation
between money and goods, according to some people between money and God, will
be restored. Because that is what Lord Brian Griffiths of Goldman Sachs admits
wholeheartedly: if we don’t restore this combination of individual and collective morality, then anything we invent will be futile, whether it concerns new taxes or larger
reserve funds, abolition of bonuses or international control.
Capitalism and Inequality
11
Our own responsibility
There are four sides to that inconvenient, yet apparently inherent relation between
capitalism and inequality. There are always winners and losers on the market. That is
the inevitable part of the game. But how high can the profit be and how low the loss?
The core of the approach in this story is that the question of capitalism and inequality in the second decade of this century is neither a confusing mess, nor a simple
uniformity; rather, we see four different segments:
»»Firstly, the bottom 10 to 20 percent that is reduced to, or locked in, severe
poverty, in extreme inequality of income and possession, coupled with the
absence of opportunities.
»»Secondly, the values and interests which are not included in the balance of
profit and loss of enterprises and entrepreneurs, i.e. environment, human
rights, consumers’ interests, sometimes quality, production and trade in illegal products.
»»Thirdly, a shrinking and declining middle class, including young people just
arriving on the labour market, the pensioners with their shrinking income,
small businesses being competed out of the market.
»»And finally, the upper class for whom ‘the winner takes it all’ applies, who
seem to have no limits to their income and profit growth, no borders, nor—in
some cases—ethical boundaries.
If we examine these four dimensions of change in the balance of profit and loss in our
global market system, our top priority should be to do something about the biggest
losers: the bottom billion people. It is essential that they get more equal opportunities, opportunities to escape from that one or two dollar yoke. It is possible. It has
been proven and the success of the immense effort to achieve the goals as described in
the Millennium Development Goals was so big in the past few years, that we should
stick to this approach. This was also stated in the report A New Global Partnership,
presented by the Secretary-General of the UN only recently with the significant under title “Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economy”. It contains a double message
that applies also to this subject: provide aid for the time being, for this has proven to
be very successful. But at the same time we need a structural transformation of the
economy, giving opportunities to the poorest.
One of the biggest, yet rather successful distortions of the truth is that aid is
wasted money. In a time that we need to cut expenses it is of course a comfortable
message. But those that say that we certainly need to continue with this proven successful approach, are not just anybody and surely not some unworldly idealists—for
example David Cameron or Paul Polman, the CEO of Unilever. Money for education, care, water and a basic income to feed the children and repair the leaks in the
roof is not wasted.
12
Jos van Genip
But more interesting is what is happening in the UK. Churches over there are
not only investing in food banks but also in micro-credits. They do so in close cooperation with schools! A growing number of secondary schools, together with the
parishes they belong to, are running loan-programmes for people from the neighbourhood. These loans last for a day, a week, a month perhaps, so that these people
won’t become victim of the so-called payday loans or usurers. Added to this is that it
confirms their dignity because they are known by their name. It has a unique educational dimension: pupils of 13 or 14 years get into contact with another kind of reality
than consumption, fashion, chatting and chilling. Their class room is turned into a
little bank where they are introduced to poverty, survival and other things from daily
life. To end the actual segregation in which an important part of our youth grows up,
should be given much more attention.
The second adjustment concerns the vulnerable and the defenceless, ranging
from the environment to human rights. In these matters too, we as ordinary citizens
get involved. There is increasing consumers’ awareness. Every purchase is a choice, a
statement for myself, for my surrounding, for the seller and for the production. The
power of the organised and non-organised consumer is enormous. Buyer strikes are
a negative instrument; but preferences can also lead to positive choices: fair trade
products, products free of child labour and manufactured in decent labour conditions, products with a green label. Also in the way we behave financially we can contribute, for example by investing our money in green and ethical investment funds. It
all starts with ourselves.
Let’s go back to England again. The Anglican Church under the leadership of
archbishop Justin Welby, a late vocation of someone that used to be in the oil and
banking businesses, goes a step further. With 8 billion pounds in the church’s pension fund and deposits of thousands of parishes, they are an important financial
player. They use their influence for an activating policy. On their shareholders’ meeting they think about the relation between performance and bonuses. How could the
Libor scandal take place? Why aren’t there more alternative investments? What matters is fulfilling legal and ethical conditions, and many are surprised by the response
and especially the coalitions with other big shareholders and investment funds.
Thirdly, there is the middle class with shrinking financial strength, whose children are confronted with unemployment and forced to work longer for an equal or
even reduced income. In the US the situation is perhaps more extreme, but also in
Europe underlying tendencies evolve in the same direction. What do we do about it?
Can we do something about it? The political debate of today: acceptance of globalization or denial and escapism?
From the summits of capitalism is said that the Christian social Rhineland
model or the mild social-democratic Scandinavian model could be an attractive alternative. We must therefore ‘capitalise’ on that! There is no way back to 1989 for
example, the time when the Anglo-Saxon model had won. Neither can we return to
the certainties and protection of the 1980 welfare state.
Capitalism and Inequality
13
When one says that it is about values such as justice and solidarity, that it is
about responsibilities and the use of talents, one gets another outcome. When one is
attached to values of Christian social inspiration and at the same time realises that
the execution depends on place and time, one knows that a transformation is needed.
In the Christian social movement we should also discuss things that make us
competitive. We should think about ways to use our talents, how to combine saving and productive investment, how to realise a truly responsible entrepreneurship.
Christian social conduct should again be equal to modernisation, dialogue, and, yes,
dare to take up an active middle position. We should not get stuck in 1960 or 1980 and
cling to acquired rights, mainly serving our own interests. Globalization and sustainability are challenges and opportunities, just as once the movement’s acceptance
of industrialisation and modernisation kept the movement relevant for the people
involved and for the whole of society.
What we need to do is build a new socio-economic and ecological market
model. That can have a promising future, locally and globally, but we will have to reinvent it, implement and promote it.
Crucially, will we have the courage and the vision to adequately involve the
global financial system, and therewith the excesses of the top incomes and fortunes.
Perhaps due to its technical complexity, perhaps also because we feel powerless, there
is hardly any pragmatic debate or translation of our values into a new global structure. We don’t seem to get any further than saying that bonuses should be abolished.
Even when it becomes blatantly obvious that extreme differences in income
in the long run will cause serious social and political disruptions, the persistent misunderstanding remains that if someone’s income is less, another one will have more.
What is at stake is a complete architecture of a new and participatory globalization,
not a threatening globalization but one that offers perspectives. This is meant for
the poorest in foreign countries and for the group that lags behind or drops out in
our own society. The top floor of that globalization building should be the home for
a new financial and banking regulation. That regulation will be global, or it will be
nothing. There will be no room for tax paradises or a rat-race of deregulation between the different countries fighting for the biggest possible piece of the pie in the
global bank sector. There should be room for global guarantee and safety-net systems. We should discuss on the possibilities and impossibilities of imposing taxes
on financial transactions. Voices from various sources and places we hear: Finance,
a Christian reflection on the matter, is the title of a book from Pierre, duke of Lauzun,
who is in the top of the French AFM, the supervising financial authority. In Germany, the book Das Kapital, written by Reinhard Marx, archbishop in Munich, has
become the best-seller on the list of Der Spiegel. And on several places in Europe
entrepreneurs, bankers and theologians come together and think about the demand
for a new financial structure.
And there is a need for this too, because we still have that other question of
14
Jos van Genip
Lord Brian Griffith of Goldman Sachs. How do we get the new combination of individual and collective, institutional ethics? His answer is clear: Churches, religiously
inspired movements, ideological movements and think-tanks should not hesitate to
reflect on these questions and debate the answers. They already do this on so many
other topics, but please give this dimension of capitalism and inequality attention.
Regulations, a separation of functions, the abolition of bonuses and an increase of
reserve funds, they are altogether only half of the solution. The critically important
revival of public confidence is only possible if we start from another culture, one of
service and a heightened ethical awareness.
There was the appeal in the early fifties to reach for peace, reconciliation and
mutual solidarity in Europe, and eventually to realise these in super-national institutions. Perhaps we are once more at such a crossroads where we should link the reality
of globalization with forms of multilateral authority and justice, founded on humanity, ethics, and values that recognize common welfare and the dignity of each individual as point of reference.
Au travail!
Capitalism and Inequality
15
Literature
Eduardo Aninat, “An Authority over Globalization,” unpublished paper
Maarten Biermans, Decency and The Market. Dissertation University of
Amsterdam, 2012
Arjan Broers, Geld en Goed, Lessen voor welwillende kapitalisten. Vught: Skandalon,
2013
Marc Chavannes, “De Amerikaanse Kloof,” NRC-Handelsblad, 18 augustus 2013
Pierre de Lauzun, Finance, un regard chrétien. Paris: Embrasure,2012
Reinhard Marx, Das Kapital. Munich: Pattloch Verlag, 2008
Jerry Muller, “Capitalism and Inequality.” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2013
Jeroen Smit: The Perfect Prey: The Fall of Abn Amro, Or What Went Wrong in the
Banking Industry. London: Quercus, 2009
Gert van Maanen, The Dream and the Markets, Liber Amicorum 60 Years World
Council of Churches
Gert van Maanen, “Microkrediet, Schuld of zuurstof.” Festus 20 april 2013
Gert van Maanen, “Armoedebestrijding en Oikocredit.” (Unpublished paper)
The Economist, “For richer, for poorer,” Special Report on the World Economy,
October 13th 2012
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace , “Towards reforming the international
financial and monetary systems in the context of global public authority.”
Rome 2011
“Banking on the Common Good, Finance for the Common Good.” Colloquium of
the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Konrad Adenauer Foundation
and Uniapac, Rome May 12-13, 2013 (with important contributions a.o. of Dr.
Eduardo Aninat, Jacques Camdessus, Steven Vanackere, Pierre de Lauzun)
The Tablet, August 3, 2013, Special on banks, credit unions, investments
United Nations, A New Global Partnership, Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent
Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, New York 2013
Papal Encyclical Centesimus Annus, 1991
Papal Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, 2009