
 Climate change crisis
 oil and energy (price) crisis
 Food (and hunger) crisis
 Financial and economic crisis

 The consequences of these crisis individually and even more so combined - for development and all stakeholders involved
(people, governments, civil society, private sector, NGOs, multilateral agencies) may be devastating.
 Hence there is an urgent need to develop effective strategies to prepare for all eventualities and to compensate and counter any negative fall-out.

 Profound and deepening financial and economic crisis affecting all countries - the impact of real global interdependency -, requiring injection of (hundreds of) billions of
US$ by Governments a) into banking sector to maintain liquidity of banks and uphold their ability to provide credit - and b) to provide economic stimulus programmes of a Keynesian nature
 Real estate/housing market meltdown - with many foreclosures and personal bankruptcies
 Stock and commodity market crash (“krach”) and shrinking confidence/trust in economy

 Deep and long global economic recession looms for ALL countries - with high unemployment, shrinking tax receipts, lower exports and trade, gyration in value of currencies, decreasing tourism income, reduced consumption levels - and the specter of deflation
 Oil and commodity prices are in a steep fall, affecting the income of many oil-producing
(developing) countries - while lessening the burden for the majority of the developing countries, which had absorbed e.g. in many
African countries all ODA inflows

 All these pressures reduce the ability of
Governments in industrialised and developing countries alike to steer their economies; budget deficits are rising again (in the EU likely above the 3% Maastricht mark)
 Governments are forced to prune their budgets so as to reach as balanced a budget as possible, especially if they require IMF standby credits
 The return of the virtue of deficit spending
 Moral hazard: Need for more equity in policymaking and allocation of public funds

 The global financial crisis has spread like wildfire across the world because one single model of globalization, i.e. liberalizing market economy without regard to diversity, different stages of development, needs etc. was pursued.
 The deliberate pushing aside of alternative models and approaches points to a moral and ethical deficency, which policy-makers would have to account for.
 Kofi Annan recently denounced as “incredibly short-sighted - as well as immoral for wealthy countries to use this financial crisis to drop promises to help the poorest“ (IHT)

 Developing countries , the most defenseless - and often times “innocent bystanders” - face a perfect storm (WB) and for them the crisis may translate into
 lower government budget allocations to social AND productive sectors;
 Less (discretionary) funds for activities in ED, SC, CLT and CI
 Lesser prospects for attainment of IADGs/MDGs by 2015
 rising poverty levels - indeed more than 100 million people have already been pushed back into poverty since onset of crisis (WB President Zoellick)
 More demand for official development assistance (ODA) and foreign direct investment (FDI) flows
 More demand for multilateral and NGO/foundation funds
 More recourse to South-South cooperation

 For industrialised countries , this may translate into
 Lower ODA earmarking and allocations, abandoning commitments made only recently (e.g. 2005 G-8
Gleneagles commitment to double aid to Africa by 2010) at present, US$ 30 billion short;
 overall, more pronounced trend towards lower ODA
 Less ODA for select sectors, especially those not protected by specific international pledges or agreements
 Less availability of discretionary funds and hence lower/stagnant levels of extrabudgetary contributions to multilateral organisations
 Lack of readiness to subscribe to new multilateral initiatives

 For the private sector , this may translate into
 Lower economic growth
 Less trade with developing countries irrespective of trade barriers and custom levels
 Lower levels of FDI flows
 Less loans for investment and trade in developing countries
 Lack of interest in new public-private partnerships requiring private sector funding
 Overall, reduced confidence in market forces
 Lower volume of donations to NGOs and charities
 Lower programme funds earmarked by foundations?

 Global “collisions” and contradictions arise; difficult to resolve - e.g., lower budget allocations by developing countries makes them look towards UN agencies which by themselves my be hit by lower budgets - or promote trade while credit dries up
 doing more with less : demand by developing countries for assistance will increase while contributions to agencies are likely to decrease (zng or worse)
 It may also mean more focus on upstream advice

 Can there be additionality even for (UN) reform frameworks and how long will current commitments hold (e.g. MDG-F and its new windows; support to One UN Funds; no country left behind in EFA who has a credible national EFA plan)?
 How will IMF loans and the related conditionalities affect UNDAFs and One
Programmes/Funds (e.g. Pakistan)?
 Will UN reform efforts at the country level be affected - if additional donor funds are not forthcoming to One or UNDAF Funds?

 Will governments and multilateral agencies be able to maintain their professed commitment to fight climate change and environmental degradation - or will that be sacrificed for straightforward economic survival action and other more immediate priorities??
 Will any sectoral priorities be sacrificed or pushed back?
 Overall - will there be a need to redefine multilateralism - towards more collaboration?
 Danger: excessive focus on new, more transparent and accountable financial architecture, without regard to the level of real needs of people and infrastructure needs

 The G-20 Declaration of the Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy on 15 November 2008 outlined a roadmap for future action to stabilise and reform financial markets, to preserve an open global economy, to promote trade, to provide credit and liquidity and to restart economic growth and overcome recession
 Major focus was on strengthening transparency and accountability curbing speculation in currency, financial and commodity markets; enhancing sound regulation nationally and internationally; promoting integrity in financial markets; and reinforcing international cooperation
 But the summit also emphasized in the concluding section on a “commitment to an open global economy” - though almost as an afterthought and with rather weak and little compelling language or conviction - on:

 A commitment to free market principles which are essential to economic growth and prosperity and have lifted millions out of poverty;
 The importance of rejecting protectionism and not turning inward in times of financial uncertainty;
 The impact of the crisis on developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable;
 The importance of the MDGs, the development assistance commitments the participants have made
 Urge both developed and emerging countries to undertake commitments consistent with their capacities and roles in the global economy
 Reaffirm the development principles agreed at the 2002
Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development, which emphasized country ownership and mobilizing all sources of financing for development.

Sadly, no word about preventing a rollback in the volume of development finance, the need for investment in education and health precisely at the present juncture to build the foundations for future development and prosperity, or underlining the critical role of and providing the necessary resources to other multilateral organisations than the Bretton Woods institutions…..
We are left simply with a statement that the summitteers are confident that through coordinated partnership, cooperation and multilateralism (of an undefined type), the world will overcome the challenges before it and restory stability and prosperity in the world economy.

 The World Bank President called on donors to boost financial aid to developing nations which find themselves at the mercy of a crisis that “is not of their making”
 Empowering developing and emerging countries and economies is imperative
 Helping nations pursue economic development and long-term prosperity should be the goal of development finance.

Doha Follow-up International Conference to the Monterrey Consensus -
28 November - 2 December 2008
It adopted a voluminous Outcome Document containing the Doha Declaration on Financing for Development, now to be submitted to the UN General Assembly for endorsement.
Highlights of this Declaration: a) the reconfirmation by and large of the Monterrey
Consensus (insofar not breaking any new ground); b) the emphasis, especially at the insistence of developing countries, on the need to remain committed to the current ODA targets, irrespective of the fallout of the present crisis; c) in addition to the traditional supply side concerns of domestic resource mobilization, ODA, debt relief and trade a strong focus on innovative financing approaches;

d) a strong section on gender equality and the economics of gender; e) an explicit focus on social investment, including education not least driven and inspired by UNESCO
’ s successful High-level event; and f) a decision to hold a UN conference at the highest level on the impact of the current financial and economic crisis on development.
g) On the margins of the Conference, the President of the General Assembly also launched a Commission of Experts on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System.
h) If anything, the continued absence of scientific, cultural and communication issues on the agendas and the outcome documents of conferences like the one in Doha is a source of dissatisfaction and we may need to reflect how to remedy this deficiency.

 From UNESCO
’ s perspective, most significant was the High level Side Event: Financing
Education in Conflict Affected Areas to Achieve the
Education for All Goals . It was organized by ED and NYLO and held under the auspices of First
Lady Sheikha Mozah. The list of participants further included the UN Secretary-General, the
President of Burundi, the Vice-President of El
Salvador, the President of the UN General
Assembly, numerous Development Cooperation
Ministers and Heads of bilateral agencies (e.g.
Netherlands, USA) as well as senior officials, NGO leaders and senior colleagues from the UN system
(World Bank, UNICEF, UNFPA) and regional development banks (Asian Development Bank).

 The discussion resulted in the Doha
Statement on Financing Education in
Conflict Affected Areas . This event laid an excellent foundation for the upcoming spring 2009 discussion by the UN General
Assembly on the very subject.

The OSLO DECLARATION
ACTING
TOGETHER
, was adopted by the participating
Ministers, leading officials of multilateral and bilateral agencies, senior representatives of civil society and private sector organisations, gathered at the invitation of the Director-General of
UNESCO and of the Minister of Environment and
International Development of Norway

The HLG noted that it took place in the context of a global economic slowdown spurred by a financial crisis unprecedented since the 1930s. The
Declaration stated that
“
It will be imperative to protect and insulate the world
’ s poorest children, youth and adults from the worst effects of the crisis, as they carry the least responsibility for these events . The crisis should not serve as justification for any reduction in national spending and international aid to education. Instead, steadfast support for achieving the internationally agreed development goals, including the EFA and
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), is more vital than it was before the crisis .
”

Reaffirming the centrality of education for development

(3.)
… we reaffirm that education is a fundamental human right, to be respected at all times. It is one of the most effective tools for achieving inclusive and sustainable economic growth and recovery, reducing poverty, hunger and child labour, improving health, incomes and livelihoods, for promoting peace, democracy and environmental awareness . Education empowers individuals with the knowledge, values and skills they need to make choices and shape their future. Universal access to quality basic education and better learning outcomes are the drivers to achieve the IADGs, including the MDGs . As reaffirmed at the September 2008 United
Nations MDGs summit, sustained investment in education and health is essential for reaching the MDGs .


(4.) We therefore agree to better plan and coordinate global advocacy efforts for all six EFA goals . We task the EFA convening agencies and interested EFA partners to further develop a joint EFA advocacy plan of action and present its first results to the next meeting
…
.

(5.) Educational strategies need to be integrated within broader antipoverty and national development policy frameworks. The fact that child malnutrition and ill health remain a major obstacle to educational access and achievement for the poor highlights the intricate connections among education, health and social conditions. It underscores the need for stronger inter-sectoral policy coordination .

(6.) We request the EFA convening agencies, to engage with relevant
UN agencies such as the WHO and the WFP as well as interested EFA partners in order to better coordinate education, health and nutrition initiatives in integrated programmes, targeting young children in poor communities in countries far from EFA . We commit to support such initiatives that should be country driven and backed by development partners.

 As exemplified by the Oslo Declaration, critical need for specific and effective advocacy for maintaining or increasing ODA flows in time of financial downturn with all relevant partners
(education, climate change).
 Multi-sectoral coordination, especially at the country level, will be essential to attain IADGs
 Concentration+prioritisation in the face of lower resource prospects and growing needs
 Need for even more sharpened and resultsoriented 35 C/5

 Need for more imagination and creativity in delivery: focus on less costly initiatives - and reorientation towards (cheaper but effective) upstream initiatives - enhanced visibility
 Whither the UNESCO budget level: can zrg be obtained for the 35 C/5? How can we preserve current levels of extrabudgetary resources critical for outreach and impact?
 Need for a revision of 34 C/4??

 Urgent need for sustained monitoring of trends in the spheres of competence of
UNESCO:
 In developing countries as regards budget allocations to education, the sciences, culture and communication and information and continuation of multi-donor programmes and projects
 In industrialized countries, flows of ODA, sectorally broken down (data by OECD), and of extrabudgetary resources to UNESCO and other multilateral organizations
 In case of negative trends, launch global alerts and design proactive counter-strategies

 Strengthen critical areas where UNESCO can make a difference:
 Advocacy for EFA and preservation of national budget allocations to education
 Accelerate education for sustainable development - in creative and effective ways to induce behavioral changes with long-term effects
 Build capacities for operating national scientific knowledge basis - we must become more adept at quickly translating scientific evidence/innovation into policy changes and practices
 Inure policy initiatives and investments in strategically important sectors like education, science, culture as well as communication and innovation
 Preserve resources for culture as a critical element of sustainable development and education

 We must mobilise our efforts in packaging and sharing knowledge and information as well as policy advice that can help countries to cope with the multiple crises
 Paradoxically, this will also need an immediate infusion of resources - not a cutback
 It is not charity , it is investment in the world’s immediate future - the crisis has already undermined our global economic security
 Action in the social sectors is critical for future global stability and prosperity: investments in development assistance and the social sector must be defined by their long-term return, not their short-term cost

 Almost exclusive emphasis on macroeconomics and on supply side of development: ODA flows, FDI, debt relief
 Insufficient focus on sectoral demand side, like resources required for EFA, SC, CLT, CI or agriculture, health, industrial development, labor
 No effort is apparent to link supply and demand sides of the equation - need for closer coordination between Bretton Woods institutions and UN system organizations

 WB President Zoellick proposed in IHT of 24
Jan. 2009 the creation of vulnerability funds, to be fed by developed countries with an amount of 0.7% of their respective stimulus packages to assist developing countries that can’t afford bailouts and deficits
 The funds should be taken from the dedicated bailout/stimulus packages
 This would translate for US to an immediate contribution of US$ 6 billion
 WB+Japan launched programme to recapitalise banks in developing countries

 Creation of safety net programmes
 Food-for-work programmes
 Seed and fertilizer projects
 Maternal and child nutrition projects
 School meal programmes
 Cash for work programmes
 Road work and drainage
 INVESTMENTS IN HEALTH, EDUCATION AND
NUTRITION MUST BE MORE THAN
TEMPORARY POVERTY RELIEF: THEY ARE
INVESTMENTS IN HUMAN CAPITAL




 This all then calls for effective strategies and solid calculations for the various sectoral areas - a challenge and a survival necessity/opportunity for UNESCO
 The only available sectoral estimate of US$
11 billion annually for EFA may well be outdated and too low, as it was produced some 10 years ago
 Where do we stand with estimates for science/water/oceans; culture; communication and information??

 CEB/HLCP will - with UNESCO part.-discuss the issue at its next session 26-27 February 2009, Geneva
 As agreed by the Intersectoral Platform for
Anticipation and Foresight, on 2 March 2009,
BSP/FOR (Foresight Programme) will organize a daylong workshop session on the “ The Global
Financial and Economic crisis – its parameters and potential impact on multilateralism ”

The Director-General will open the conference, at which several well-known international experts will speak on the following four panel subjects:
 THE IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL AND
ECONOMIC CRISIS ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, IN
PARTICULAR IN AFRICA, AND THE PROSPECTS FOR
ATTAINING THE INTERNATIONALLY AGREED
DEVELOPMENT GOALS, INCLUDING THE MDGs
 INVESTING OUT OF THE CRISIS – IN EDUCATION,
SOCIAL SERVICES, SCIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE
 THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL
FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS ON WOMEN AND
GENDER EQUALITY
 WHAT IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL AND
ECONOMIC CRISIS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND
PROSPECTS FOR A GREEN ECONOMY?

 Calm inside
 Heavy storm outside
 Debris all around us
 And then: what will be the fallout for us?
 How can we react and counter any potential negative impact?
 How can we anticipate the expectation of
Member States, the needs of developing countries and proactively deliver?