Written evidence submitted by ARTICLE
19
1. ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights
organisation that works around the world to protect and promote
the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article
19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees
freedom of expression and freedom of information.
2. ARTICLE 19 is working on numerous development-related
human rights projects around the world, managed through our offices
in London, Mexico, Brazil, Senegal, Kenya, Bangladesh and Ukraine.
In 2010, ARTICLE 19 brought together civil society groups, government
officials and experts to develop the London Declaration for
Transparency, Free Flow of Information and Development, which
sets a clear agenda for transparency in the promotion of development.
3. It is widely recognised that the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) are off track due to unmet political
and financing commitments and poor decision-making. Development
efforts are hampered by corruption, mismanagement, inefficiency
and ineffectiveness, and a worldwide reduction in civil society
space. The 2000 Millennium Declaration predicted as such: "Success
in meeting [the MDGs] depends, inter alia, on good governance
within each country. It also depends on good governance at the
international level and on transparency in the financial, monetary
and trading systems". The UNDP reflects this in its 2010
report The path to achieving the Millennium Development Goals:
In many countries, the mechanisms to hold institutions
accountable for their own responsiveness and effectiveness are
missing, particularly in relation to transparency. Policies and
goals that are understood and known outside the institution, as
well as the means to evaluate clearly an institution's progress
toward those goals, are strong tools for achieving results.
The solution to bringing the MDGs back on track
is to create real accountability by delivering a free flow of
information and transparency, and empowering civil society to
take part in decision-making. This Submission will concentrate
on how to achieve these.
Key outcomes from the Summit
4. For the MDGs to be achieved in the next
five years, the world urgently needed an ambitious political and
economic commitment from the September Summit in New York. Unfortunately,
although global action was somewhat revived and renewed by the
event, the Outcome Document, Keeping the promise: united to
achieve the Millennium Development Goals, primarily repeats
old assurances rather than breaking new ground in tackling the
root causes for the failures.
5. Despite almost universal recognition
that for the MDGs to succeed, accountability and transparency
must be central, the Outcome Document fails to deliver real commitment
for accountability. The Document repeats the Millennium Declaration
in specifically recognising the importance of "transparent
and accountable systems of governance at the national and international
level", as well as aid transparency, for both donors
and developing countries, and transparency in UN institutions.
However, it failed to make any real commitments to ensuring that
governments and other development actors are held to such resolve.
6. Throughout the development of the Outcome
Document, ARTICLE 19, joining with other international organisations,
repeatedly called on the co-facilitators and other delegates,
including the UK, to significantly strengthen the draft Document's
references and commitment to accountability, in particular, by
making clear recommendations on commitments to transparency, free
flow of information, and civil society involvement in decision-making.
Unfortunately, this was not done.
7. The failure to properly commit to accountability
appears to be due to two reasons. Firstly, while the Europe/CANZ
(Canada, Australia, New Zealand) blocs highlighted the need for
better accountability, the G77, led by Yemen, saw the proposals
around accountability as "interference" in governance,
rather than creating more efficient and inclusive methods to achieve
the MDGs, and instead demanded more development assistance without
new mechanisms to ensure that it will be used properly.
8. Secondly, the process of creating the
Document largely negated and neglected any non-governmental input.
Sparse opportunities to engage with the process, such as the June
2010 civil society meeting in New York, civil society attendance
at the Summit, and civil society representatives in the Summit's
roundtable discussions, were expensive, exclusive and tightly
controlled, resulting in stilted engagement from only a few, mostly
large US-based, organisations.
DFID's role in delivering agreed strategies
9. The Department for International Development
(DFID) only partially fulfilled its role in delivering a more
accountable and transparent framework for the MDG process and
Outcome Document. The Secretary of State did meet with UK civil
society prior to and during the MDG Summit, including ARTICLE
19. However, DFID, unlike the Foreign Office, was generally slow
to respond to and engage with the accountability community, and
failed to properly represent the UK government in discussions
with transparency and human rights organisations in the run up
to the Summit. DFID also missed an opportunity to demonstrate
to the rest of the world the importance of accountability, transparency
and civil society engagement within governments for the benefit
of stronger outcomes. The UK delegation to the Summit failed to
contain civil society representatives, despite many other European
countries and a number of African states doing so.
10. Looking forward, DFID's role in delivering
the Outcome Document's agreed strategies must focus on implementing
what the international community could not: accountability. The
UKaid Transparency Guarantee is an excellent first step, but the
test is in the implementation. DFID must prioritise the free flow
of information, transparency and civic engagement as fundamental
to the achievement of the MDGs, and the global fight against poverty.
Such mechanisms for creating real accountability must be at all
levels, from global, to donor governments, to development partner
countries. They must also include civil society at every stage,
with particular emphasis placed on the role of a free media as
a mechanism to check and monitor accountability. DFID also has
a responsibility to better inform the UK public what strategies
and projects the department is taking.
The role of the UN, the World Bank, the European
Commission and NGOs in securing and delivering Summit outcomes,
and how these organisations will be held accountable for achieving
them
11. During and prior to the Summit, United
Nations bodies, specifically the United Nations Non-governmental
Liaison Service (NGLS) and the Millennium Campaign, did, to a
limited extent, include civil society in the MDG process. However,
inclusion of civil society was extremely limited and multiple
and onerous procedural demands were created which effectively
blocked civil society from the global south from taking a bigger
part in the debate.
12. Without any real or substantial commitments
to accountability within the Outcome Document, there is now no
mechanism in the MDGs for holding intergovernmental organisations
and other development actors either accountable for delivering
Summit outcomes, or able to hold governments accountable for their
MDG strategies and work. Therefore, it is vitally important that
the UK, through diplomatic channels and through DFID, ensure that
accountability is instilled in all future funding and projects.
13. In particular, the UK government and
DFID should take a multi-sectoral approach in ensuring that its
partners are active in adopting transparency measures. Specifically,
it should ensure that intergovernmental organisations, such as
the UN, EU, World Bank and IMF, adopt and effectively implement
comprehensive access to information policies based on the principles
of voluntary, maximum and proactive disclosure, such as those
developed for International Financial Institutions (IFI) by the
Global Transparency Initiative. The UK government should also
encourage private sector bodies adopt corporate social responsibility
standards which recognise the importance of transparency and the
free flow of information. DFID should continue to support multi-stakeholder
initiatives, such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
(EITI), the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST)
and the Medicines Transparency Alliance (MeTA) to encourage private
companies and governments to publish all information on contracts
with and payments to governments, particularly in relation to
the extractive industries and other natural resources. The UK
government should commit to adopt a law to require that all publicly-traded
companies in natural resources and other relevant sectors publish
all information on contracts with and payments to governments
such as was recently adopted in the United States. DFID should
also ensure that throughout their funding strategies and projects,
mechanisms at the national, regional and international levels
for guaranteeing access to information, transparency and civil
society engagement in decision-making are encouraged in order
to build accountability.
The role of developing countries in securing and
delivering Summit outcomes
14. Without any real or substantial commitments
to accountability within the Outcome Document, there is little
mechanism in the MDGs for holding governments accountable for
delivering Summit outcomes, including both developing and developed
governments. DFID can play an important role in encouraging and
supporting efforts in partner countries to take measures to resolve
this.
15. A key area is to ensure that freedom
of expression and access to information is respected in these
countries. The UK government and DFID must encourage and support
partner countries and other actors receiving development assistance
to fully respect, protect and fulfil the right to freedom of expression,
including the right to information, and freedom of association,
in accordance with international human rights law, as key to achieving
the MDGs and tackling poverty. This includes promoting the adoption
and effective implementation of national laws, regulations and
policies on access to information, and proactive disclosure of,
information related to development and the MDGs. DFID should also
support the establishment of an enabling legal and regulatory
environment for civil society organisation which recognises their
independence and right to carry out their peaceful work without
fear of harassment, reprisal, intimidation and discrimination.
DFID should also ensure that national, sub-national and local
bodies make available and accessible all development-related information,
including information on development assistance received and expended,
strategies for development, MDG targets and indicators.
16. DFID should publish and ensure partner
countries also publish comprehensive, timely and comparable information
on aid policies, performance, and financial flows, and implement
the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). They should
also publish accessible and comprehensive information on budgets,
expenditures and revenues in relation to development and the MDGs,
such as on development assistance, social, economic and financial
activities, and natural resources, including the extractive industries,
forestry, fisheries and land.
17. DFID should also support developing
countries' transparency measures in planning, licensing and contracting
for natural resource management and establish benchmarks for all
development assistance programming in resource-rich countries.
Looking ahead to after the MDG deadline of 2015
18. Under current trends and as a result
of the weak Outcome Document, it is highly probable that a second
generation of MDGs will be required from the international community.
Realising that the second generation of goals will never be achieved
if they continue at their current pace, the international community,
led by the UK government, must recall the Millennium Declaration's
focus on the importance of civil and political rights in development,
and secure a new generation of goals that utilise a rights-based
approach to development, including accountability. Such an approach
places human rights at the core of development policy, defined
in the UN Common Understanding on a Human Rights-Based Approach
as ensuring "duty-bearers" meet their obligations and
"rights-holders" claim their rights. According to UN
Development Group, the importance of the rights-based approach
to development is that human rights carry normative value as a
set of universally agreed values, standards and principles endorsed
by every UN member state. The approach is people-centred, based
on the international moral consensus, and legally enforceable.
8 October 2010
|
