Written evidence submitted by Bond
INTRODUCTION
1. Bond is the membership body for UK NGOs
working in international development. Over 70 Bond members have
been actively advocating on the MDGs over the last year, and collectively
have worked together on a number of projects, including:
(a) A position paper for the EU entitled "Towards
the UN MDG Summit: Recommendations to the EU".[6]
(b) A joint statement on the MDGs for the UK
Government, entitled "A last chance to keep our promises".[7]
This statement was signed by over 50 Bond members.
(c) A parliamentary reception on the MDGs, attended
by over 40 members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
(d) A joint letter to the Prime Minister, Deputy
Prime Minister and Secretary of State for International Development
on the MDGs, signed by over 45 members.
(e) A public event on the MDGs for over 400 people,
involving the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State
for International Development.
2. Representatives of Bond and over a dozen
member organisations attended the UN MDG Review Summit on 20-22
September in New York. Members organised and attended various
side events. Bond coordinated two meetings with the UK delegation—one
with the Secretary of State (20 September) and one with both the
Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State (22 September).
3. This response is sent on behalf of the
Bond membership, and specifically those members which attended
the Summit. These members include: Amnesty International, Action
Aid, Christian Aid, End Water Poverty, Interact Worldwide, ONE
Campaign UK, Oxfam, Pants to Poverty, Save the Children, Sightsavers,
Stamp Out Poverty, UNICEF UK, Tearfund, Trocaire, WaterAid and
WWF UK. Members such as WOMANKIND Worldwide and CAFOD also contributed
to this submission.
KEY OUTCOMES
FROM THE
SUMMIT
4. There are a number of key outcomes from
the MDG Summit, including the following:
THE OUTCOME
DOCUMENT
5. The most tangible outcome is the Outcome
Document which was adopted by the General Assembly. The overall
message of the Outcome Document is positive and forward looking:
the MDGs are achievable and they must guide development and investment
for the next five years. That said, language used 10 years ago
was much more urgent. The Millennium Declaration stated that,
"we will spare no effort to free our fellow men… from
the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty",
whereas the Outcome Document only expresses the "deep concern"
of world leaders for the same issue. This reflects a weaker commitment
to tackling global poverty.
6. The Outcome Document highlights a renewed
commitment to the target of 0.7% of GNI for Official Development
Assistance (para 78f), partly due to the tough stance of DFID
on this issue. DFID has certainly shown leadership, and needs
to continue pushing other developed countries, especially in the
EU, to honour the 0.7% commitment.
7. The Outcome Document does little more
than reiterate previous promises. It does not seriously address
the lack of progress towards the MDGs and does not agree any new
policies, resources or improvements in the international economic
environment.
8. The Outcome Document is weak on clear
actions for implementation. It is not the ambitious MDGs Rescue
Plan with clear financial and political commitments which is needed
to ensure that the MDGs are met by 2015.
9. The document does not make a necessary
and explicit commitment to ensuring that all MDG efforts are consistent
with human rights. Exclusion and discrimination must be addressed,
national targets set and implemented for progress; full and informed
participation guaranteed; and national and international mechanisms
of accountability strengthened. Women's rights must be central
to efforts to achieve the MDGs.
10. The Outcome Document does not effectively
tackle environmental degradation; it does not set specific targets
on climate change and it does not mention the popular Financial
Transaction Tax. Calls by Presidents Sarkozy and Zapatero for
a tax on the financial sectors to raise money for development
provided a ray of hope at the Summit—the UK now needs to
support this initiative.
11. The Outcome Document is particularly
weak on MDG 8—a global partnership for development. It thus
fails to address the need to integrate greater policy space for
developing countries into existing global rules; inappropriate
external conditionalities imposed by donors and International
Financial Institutions; and the lack of policy space resulting
from dictates of international market forces on national policy
choices. Secretary General's Global Strategy for Women and Children's
Health.
12. This plan is meant to fast-track progress
on MDGs 4 and 5 (child and maternal health) as these goals are
off-track and will currently not be met by the 2015 deadline.
13. Although the Strategy recognises the
importance of removing financial barriers to accessing healthcare,
this issue should have been given much more importance. The removal
of healthcare user fees, particularly for vulnerable populations,
is essential. The UK Government has been a leading voice on this
issue, recognising the disproportionate impact of user fees on
the poorest and most marginalised, and should continue to keep
this issue at the centre of its efforts for women and children.
14. In its current form, the Strategy lacks
is a focus on turning the commitments made against it into an
action plan for progress on the health MDGs. The Strategy calls
for an accountability framework to be developed and for the World
Health Organisation to lead on this process. Such an accountability
mechanism needs to include a range of actors, including civil
society from developing and developed countries.
15. A system must be put in place that tracks
progress against the Strategy on the ground. Donor countries must
also make good on the strategy's pledge (which they have backed)
to cede control of national health plans to the governments of
developing countries. Additionally, if there is a viable and fully-costed
national health plan, donors should be working to make sure that
it does not go unfunded.
16. It is especially important that the
financial resources committed to support this Strategy, US$40
billion by developing and developed countries and other global
actors, are not a shift of resources from financing already committed
to other health issues, thus undermining progress already made
across the health MDGs.
17. The Strategy attracted a reported $40
billion of commitments. However, only approximately $20 billion
is new money, and over half of that has been committed by non
state actors. Approximately $8 billion was committed in new money
from governments. The UK reportedly committed £5.5 billion
between 2010-15, but in fact this represents only an additional
£2.1 billion over five years, in addition to commitments
made for 2010 and 2011 at the Muskoka Summit. Furthermore, it
seems that this Strategy is not anchored in a UN body, and the
list of commitments is simply money which will be spent by various
bodies on child and maternal health.
18. Human rights need to be systematically
integrated into this strategy as many people, particularly women
living in poverty, continue to face a range of barriers in accessing
the healthcare services they need. Key human rights issues, such
as the denial of sexual and reproductive rights, must be addressed.
19. The Strategy requires firm action and
commitment to addressing MDG 3—promoting gender equality
and empowering women. Without tackling gender inequality and bringing
about improvements in women's social, political and economic status,
well intentioned efforts to improve maternal health are detained
to fail.
FINANCIAL TRANSACTION
TAX
20. The UK missed an opportunity to be a
champion on a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) for development,
which would provide long-term, sustainable funding for all of
the MDGs. Both Spain and France came forward in support of a financial
transaction tax and we are disappointed that the UK did not show
the leadership to do the same. We call on the UK Government to
support the FTT, especially in forthcoming meetings of the G8
and G20, at which President Sarkozy will promote the FTT.
DFID'S ROLE
IN DELIVERING
AGREED STRATEGIES
21. Bond and our members welcomed DFID's
engagement with civil society in the run up to the MDG Summit,
during the Summit and indeed after the Summit. While we welcome
the opportunity afforded by the Secretary of State's and Deputy
Prime Minister's civil society briefings in New York, we are very
disappointed that the UK Government did not agree to include a
representative from civil society on their delegation—whereas
Ireland included four people on its delegation, and Denmark seven.
This would have sent a clear and positive sign to other countries
about engagement with civil society, and would no doubt have encouraged
other governments to agree to such an engagement. We recommend
that DFID undertakes to include a civil society representative
for future Summits and actively encourages other governments to
do the same, aiming to enable sufficient space for civil society
at national and international levels to monitor their governments'
contribution to achieving the MDGs.
22. More transparency from DFID as to their
input on the Outcome Document (via the EU), the Roundtable on
"emerging issues" would have been useful. Bond and our
members would have found it useful to see interventions and positions
from the UK.
23. We welcome DFID's commitment on accountability,
specifically their push for an annual review of the MDGs and a
clear list of the commitments different countries took at the
Summit. As the current list of commitments is somewhat unclear,
we would strongly encourage DFID to keep pushing DESA for a clear
list of financial and political commitments taken at the Summit
so that governments can be held accountable.
24. At the national level, DFID should work
with governments in the South to ensure that evidence informs
national policies and plans are supported, and that these react
to a nation's needs rather than prevailing political priorities.
25. Beyond just the financial figures, DFID
should be a global leader on pushing for the development of the
accountability framework on the Strategy in order to ensure that
progress can be tracked.
26. DFID should ensure policy coherence
across the UK Government, particularly in regard to trade, climate
change, human rights, gender equality, agriculture, the environment
and conflict and security.
27. DFID should support innovative financing
schemes to provide long-term, sustainable financing for international
development and climate change adaptation and mitigation.
28. DFID should lead on making global structures
and decisions making processes more democratic, inclusive and
transparent. This includes International Financial Institutions
and the G8 and the G20.
THE ROLE
OF THE
UN
29. We welcome the role that UN NGLS and
UN Millennium Campaign played in organising the civil society
hearings in June. However, we were disappointed that so few member
states were present at these hearings.
30. In general, the UN procedures for civil
society to engage with the Summit were difficult to navigate.
31. We welcome the fact that the UN agreed
to have civil society representatives at the six round tables.
However, it is unfortunate that many of these representatives
were not asked to speak until very late in the meetings, when
many people had already left the room. Round Tables did not work
for civil society engagement, and it felt very much like a box
ticking exercise. The space the UN provides for civil society
seems to be shrinking. We strongly urge the UN to ensure that
the voice of civil society, specifically Southern civil society,
is heard by world leaders in future Summits, specifically the
next MDG Summit in 2013.
32. We welcome the creation of the MDG Task
Force and the MDG Ambassador Group. We hope that both groups continue
and intensify their work in the struggle to achieve the MDGs by
2015.
33. The UN should play a leading role in
developing a mechanism to hold governments to account for their
commitments made on the MDGs. An annual review of MDG targets,
commitments made and actions undertaken would be useful.
34. The UN is compiling a list of commitments
made at the Summit—see http://www.un.org/en/mdg/summit2010/pdf/HLPM_Side%20events_CRP.pdf.
This list is currently far from exhaustive and does not contain
financial commitments from member states.
35. We welcome the mandate of the General
Assembly to review progress of MDG implementation through ECOSOC.
We stress the importance of a clear and effective accountability
mechanism, which does not yet seem to be in place.
36. We welcome the suggestion of an annual
report from the Secretary General, another Summit in 2013 and
recommendations for a post 2015 framework (see below).
37. The UN should take a lead in addressing
systemic deficiencies and unfair rules in the global economic
system to increase the policy space for countries to meet their
domestic obligations.
THE ROLE
OF NGOS
38. The role of NGOs in the Summit was limited,
given the difficulty of accessing the UN building and the nature
of the closed meetings. The Round Tables were not interactive,
and it is not clear what happened to the recommendations which
were made. NGOs currently have some level of access, but limited
opportunity to influence. This will be a key point for NGOs in
the coming months.
39. One of the roles of NGOs is to hold
governments to account for the commitments they have made on the
MDGs. However, it is incumbent on the UN to facilitate this task.
For NGOs to be able to hold their governments to account, there
has to be a central document which sets out those commitments
made.
40. Some NGOs have also made substantial
financial commitments at the Summit. They should also be accountable
for these commitments.
41. As commitments made at such Summits
are not legally binding on member states, NGOs will need to back
up the global dialogue with action on a national level. NGOs must
hold governments to account through the relevant courts and regulatory
bodies.
THE ROLE
OF DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES IN
SECURING AND
DELIVERING SUMMIT
OUTCOMES
42. Developing countries need to have strong
delivery mechanisms in place to ensure delivery of commitments.
43. The Outcome Document focuses on National
Plans for achieving the MDGs. It is clearly important that developing
countries need to have strong plans in place, setting clearly
defined national targets to realize economic, social and cultural
rights. They must also end discrimination and ensure that people
living in poverty can participate in the MDG efforts. National
accountability mechanisms must be put in place to enable civil
society to hold developing country governments to account for
their commitments. Freedom of association, expression and information
must be allowed in order to ensure that such account-holding can
take place.
THE ROLE
OF THE
EU
44. We welcome the EU's engagement in the
MDG process, especially the conclusions adopted at the EU Heads
of State Summit in June, which form the EU's policy position for
the UN MDG Summit. However, we are concerned that the conclusions
favour an action oriented approach without proposing an action
or breakthrough plan on the EU side; and that it includes no clear
mechanisms for monitoring any of the MDGs. An analysis of the
conclusions of the June meeting can be found here:
http://www.concordeurope.org/Files/media/0_internetdocumentsENG/4_Publications/3_CONCORDs_
positions_and_studies/Positions2010/Concord-Analysis-of-FAC-conclusions-14-06-10.doc
45. The EU should respect its commitment
to hold its member states to account for commitments made to the
MDGs, including providing 0.7% of GNI for development.
46. We would encourage the EU to show global
leadership on innovative sources of financing. The EU should introduce
such sources, including the Financial Transaction Tax (in addition
to traditional ODA). President Sarkozy has already said that France
will use its presidency of the G8 and the G20 to push for a global
financial transaction tax. The EU must advocate for this agenda
internationally and also act swiftly to put in place such measures
within the eurozone in the short term.
47. We urge the EU (and specifically member
states) to deliver at least 0.7% of GNI in ODA by 2015 at the
latest (and 0.56% by 2010) and to put in place binding timetables
at a national level, leading to the attainment of these targets.
48. We also urge the EU to phase out harmful
economic or trade policy conditionality attached to development
aid as well as conditionality on migration control measures.
LOOKING AHEAD
TO AFTER
THE MDG DEADLINE
OF 2015
49. Bond and a number of Bond members have
been very active in looking at the question of a framework for
international development post 2015.
50. There needs to be a robust and ambitious
framework in place for eliminating poverty which comes into place
in 2015.
51. It is important not to lose track of
the current MDGs framework, and the world should not focus on
the post 2015 framework at the expense of achieving the MDGs by
2015.
52. Research has shown that the majority
of Southern civil society partners would like an overarching,
internationally agreed framework for development after 2015.
53. Specific recommendations for looking
ahead to the post 2015 agenda include:
(a) The international community should kick-start
a global process of deliberation to construct a new overarching
framework for global development after 2015.
(b) Any new framework must take better account
of country-contexts than the original MDGs.
(c) The North and South should work in partnership
to develop this new framework.
(d) The process of deciding a new framework must
be open and participative, including poor citizens in developing
countries.
(e) As well as the core development concerns
and issues neglected by the MDGs, a new framework must make the
environment and climate change a priority.
(f) A post 2015 framework needs to address the
root causes of poverty (rather than the symptoms), such as unfair
global trading systems, inequalities between countries, corruption,
transparency, conflict, inequality, discrimination and climate
change.
(g) Any future framework should include clear
and potentially legally binding accountability mechanisms to ensure
that countries honour commitments made.
(h) A future framework needs to address cross
cutting issues such as human rights, gender equality, conflict
and environmental sustainability.
6 http://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/MDG_2010/bond_mdgs_full.pdf Back
7
http://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/mdg_statement_final_for_june_10.pdf Back
| 
