Written evidence submitted by Christian
Aid
1. INTRODUCTION
AND SUMMARY
1.1 Christian Aid welcomes the opportunity
to submit a response to the International Development Committee's
Inquiry into the 2010 Millennium Development Goals Review Summit.
Christian Aid works globally in over 40 countries for profound
change that eradicates the causes of poverty, striving to achieve
equality, dignity and freedom for all, regardless of faith or
nationality. We are part of a wider movement for social justice.
We provide urgent, practical and effective assistance where need
is great, tackling the effects of poverty as well as its root
causes.
1.2 The Millennium Development Goals have
driven significant and very welcome development progress, and
raised the profile globally of the international commitment to
eradicate poverty. As of the most recent data available (see Figure
1), progress has been notably strong in regard to extreme income
poverty; to gender parity in primary, secondary and tertiary education
enrolment; and to access to safe drinking water. Considerable
achievements have been made in each area, with truly significant
implications for hundreds of millions of people.
1.3 Progress has lagged in other areas,
including the commitment to achieve "full and productive
employment and decent work for all", and the targets relating
to maternal mortality (on which less than 30% of the intended
1990-2015 advance has been achieved), access to sanitation, primary
school enrolment, and in reducing extreme hunger (40% or below)
and in reducing child mortality, providing antenatal care, and
expanding access to HIV treatment (below 50%).
1.4 We believe the patchy progress reflects
serious flaws in the way in which the ambition of the Millennium
Declaration was translated into the MDG approach. In particular,
Christian Aid shares with the Declaration an understanding of
poverty as broad and complex, and fundamentally a lack of power—requiring
political solutions that challenge the causes. The MDG approach,
however, is focused on a narrower set of basic needs. There have
been successes in some areas, but failures in others where the
causality is more complex, and the role of inequality, including
gender inequality, more powerful—most notably in regard
to maternal and child mortality,
1.5 The outcome document of the 2010 Review
summit gives welcome attention to inequality, sustainability and
climate change, and democratic and participatory governance—each
of which we identified as areas of weakness in the MDG approach.
In addition, the summit broke new ground by highlighting the importance
of effective taxation for development, and of international action
to tackle the obstacles posed by the financial secrecy that supports
huge illicit financial flows.
1.6 Changes made now, especially with regard
to the emphasis on gender equality, can yield benefits by 2015.
The major benefit, however, will lie in ensuring that the post-2015
successor to the MDGs is the product of learning from the weaknesses
of the current approach. In particular, this requires a much more
participative approach, resting on a comprehensive baseline dataset
that captures the breadth and complexity of poverty and can form
the basis for prioritisation.
2. ACHIEVEMENTS
TO 2010
2.1 The Millennium Development Goals have
driven significant and very welcome development progress, and
raised the profile globally of the international commitment to
eradicate poverty. Addressing the UN General Assembly at the Millennium
Summit in September 2000, then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan
said: "I am struck by the remarkable convergence of views
on the challenge that faces us. And by the urgency of your call
to action. You have said that your first priority is the eradication
of extreme poverty. You have set specific targets related to that
goal, and you have prescribed measures for achieving them. If
the measures are really taken, we all know the targets can be
reached."[8]
2.2 Heads of state met in New York in September
for the 2010 Millennium Development Goal Review Summit, to assess
progress since the Millennium Declaration. Compared to the 2005
review summit, there was sufficient data to see clearly the extent
of progress made, or otherwise. The summit therefore represented
the final global-level opportunity to influence the 2015 outcomes,
not only by reinvigorating efforts but also by addressing failings
in the approach.
2.3 Christian Aid believes that the commendable
ambition of the Millennium Declaration was lost in translation
into the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) approach, and that
the resulting weaknesses are the main cause of patchy progress,
as our analysis of progress (see Poverty Over: We're all in
this together, September 2010, http://bit.ly/pOVERty) shows.
To assess the 2010 summit outcomes, and to consider the best way
forward from 2015, it is important to understand these weaknesses,
as well as the achievements to date.
2.4 The Millennium Declaration reflects
a broad and complex view of poverty—and one which is fundamentally
political. This view is close to that of Christian Aid, which
sees poverty as a lack of power in four dimensions: personal power
(including health, education, mental wellbeing, decent work and
leisure conditions, and household relations); economic power (income,
freedom from extreme inequality, economic security and access
to or control over resources); social power (community wellbeing,
social relations and social inclusion, environmental conditions);
and political power (political freedom, political security and
active citizenship).[9]
We believe individuals and communities have a right to exercise
power in these dimensions over their own lives, and so as poverty
is political, so our response must also be political.
2.5 In contrast, the MDG approach is based
on a relatively narrow concept of poverty as unfulfilled basic
needs. It has been argued that this is simply a question of timing
and prioritisation, and that the MDG framework is the first stage,
before it is sensible to move on to broader aspects of poverty.
The evidence, and our experience, do not support this view. Instead,
there is a growing consensus that sustainable impacts on poverty
are only achieved by addressing the causes as well as the symptoms.
Without addressing the broader aspects of poverty, even progress
on the narrow needs will be held back. As the Secretary of State
Andrew Mitchell MP noted: "It is a fact that money spent…
dealing with the causes rather than the symptoms, is very well-spent
money."[10]
2.6 Figure 1 shows a summary of global progress
to date, for each measureable and measured target within the MDG
framework. Data lags mean that this largely shows, in effect,
the extent of progress before the financial crisis. Of the 14
objectives shown, five are on-track (or better) to be achieved
by 2015: on extreme income poverty; on gender parity in primary,
secondary and tertiary education enrolment; and on access to safe
drinking water. This data implies considerable achievements have
been made in each area, with truly significant implications for
hundreds of millions of people. The main driver for the first
goal—ending extreme income poverty—would be expected
to be economic growth, with additional spending on education,
health, and other services underpinning progress on the other
objectives.
2.7 Of the remaining nine objectives, progress
is most badly lagging on the commitment to achieve "full
and productive employment and decent work for all". Data
for the simplest measure, the employment-to-population ratio,
shows that this has actually fallen back since 1990, in part due
to the financial crisis. Of the other objectives, progress on
the use of contraception and reducing the rate of maternal mortality
is weakest (less than 30% of the intended 1990-2015 advance has
been achieved). Progress is 40% or below for access to sanitation,
primary school enrolment, and in reducing extreme hunger. Progress
is below 50% in reducing child mortality and providing antenatal
care, and—despite the G8's 2005 commitment to universal
treatment—in expanding access to HIV treatment. The divergent
performance on access to safe drinking water and access to sanitation
is a concern, given the extent of similarities in approach required,
and may reflect a simple problem of sanitation being seen as less
"attractive" by donors and therefore less well funded.
2.8 A deeper issue may lie behind the weak
progress on child and maternal mortality rates. Mortality rates
are less straightforward to influence, insofar as they do not
necessarily decline in a straightforward fashion with eg economic
growth or greater health spending. Mortality and life expectancy
rates appear to be associated with income inequality, and this
points to the key weakness of the MDG approach. The approach has
been most successful where targets relate to outcomes that are
more directly influenced by additional funding; but by largely
ignoring the breadth and causality of poverty that the Millennium
Declaration reflects, the MDG approach has undermined the potential
for progress even on the areas of need that it targets.
2.9 Christian Aid believes there are three
key areas in which the loss of ambition in translation from the
Millennium Declaration to the MDG approach is most problematic:
inequality, sustainability and democratic and participatory governance.
2.10 In the case of inequality, the Declaration's
considerable emphasis on questions of distributive justice—defining
the uneven impact of globalisation as the "central challenge"
facing the world, and stressing repeatedly the need for equality,
the need to respect diversity, and the need to promote tolerance—is
sadly missing from the MDGs in operation. Indeed, the approach
is largely "neutral" to most inequalities, despite their
importance, and that "neutrality" in practice condones
continuing inequalities in multiple areas. If there has been no
attempt to address, for example, the fact that women outnumber
men by two to one among those living in extreme income poverty
on less than a dollar a day, there can be no surprise that the
ratio is unchanged. There should, however, be shame. The importance
to the development process of income inequality, of gender inequality
and of inequality between groups (eg those based on ethnicity,
caste, HIV status or faith) means that neglect of this crucial
area has undermined the achievement of the MDGs on their own terms,
as well as the broader aspiration of poverty eradication.
2.11 In the case of sustainability, the
Declaration is forthright: "Prudence must be shown in the
management of all living species and natural resources, in accordance
with the precepts of sustainable development. Only in this way
can the immeasurable riches passed to us by nature be preserved
and passed on to our descendants. The current unsustainable patterns
of production and consumption must be changed in the interest
of our future welfare and that of our descendants." From
this ambition however, little is translated into the targets and
indicators in MDG7, which operates almost counter to today's clear
international understanding of the responsibility of rich countries
for the problem of climate change. Since the MDGs do not apply
to rich countries, MDG 7 creates, in effect, mechanisms that will
make poorer countries account for their use of natural resources.
Sustainability consists in far more; and the fundamental question
of how human civilisation can substantially raise the standard
of living for its billions of poorer citizens, without exhausting
or irreversibly undermining the planet's ability to support human
life, cannot be separated from the broader thrust of poverty eradication.
2.12 Finally, the Declaration stresses that
"Democratic and participatory governance best assures [the
rights of men and women to] live their lives and raise their children
in dignity, free from hunger and from the fear of violence, oppression
or injustice." The MDG approach, on the other hand, consistently
fails to recognise the role of women and men as participants in
the development process, indeed as agents in their own movement
out of poverty. This risks, of course, reinforcing the disempowerment
which is poverty. DFID's own research finds clearly that "the
political settlement is central to all development. When citizens
actively participate in society through local associations and
movements outside the state, there are benefits to both state
and society";[11]
or as the UN Research Institute for Social Development puts it,
"Politics matters for poverty reduction. The protection of
civic rights, active and organized citizens, well-organized and
representative political parties, and effective states with redistributive
agendas are all important for sustained progress towards poverty
reduction."[12]
2.13 To obtain the benefits of active citizen
engagement across the whole MDG framework, both for people themselves
and through more effective policy making, there are some key accountability
building blocks that must be put in place. These include freedom
of information, transparent budgets, participatory policy making
and the political "space" to allow civil society organisations
to operate without draconian restrictions. These measures can
ensure that women and men in poverty—whose views are too
often overlooked—are able to direct anti-poverty plans in
poor countries.
2.14 A weak, or at least partial approach
to accountability also led to a top-down, imposed approach that,
while delivering laudable progress in some areas, failed to recognise
the context of poverty in different countries and different communities,
and in so doing failed to empower the citizens of those countries
and communities. Accountability rests primarily with developing
country governments for meeting MDGs 1-7, while there are no verifiable
targets for MDG 8, the global partnership for development where
rich countries could in theory be held accountable for their contribution
to shaping global structures and systems to support development.
Recognising poverty as a lack of power, this failure of the translation
of the Millennium Declaration's ambition into the MDG approach
is especially regrettable.
2.15 On the basis of the analysis summarised
above, Christian Aid's position on the MDG Review Summit was that
the key areas to be addressed included the failure seriously to
address inequality, sustainability and democratic and participatory
governance with the MDG approach; the failure to ensure sufficient
data even to track progress in each MDG; and the failure to address
key international obstacles to development, including importantly
the illicit financial flows and resulting tax revenue losses that
are widely held to exceed aid inflows by some distance.
3. KEY OUTCOMES
OF THE
SUMMIT
3.1 The summit outcome document responds
to each of the concerns highlighted in our analysis. Annex I contains
an extract of key sections of the outcome document. In particular,
it stresses the importance of challenging the "large and
increasing" social and economic inequalities that underpin
poverty. It recognises the threat of climate change, and the need
to address it if the MDGs are to be met. It emphasises the need
for "full participation of all segments of society, including
the poor and disadvantaged, in decision-making processes",
along with the importance of transparency and accountability on
all sides, including rich countries.
3.2 We believe these statements reflect
real and important progress for three reasons. First, there clearly
is a possibility of increasing the level of achievement on certain
targets by 2015. A key area, and one which would have multiplier
effects across other areas both in the period to 2015 and beyond,
is that of gender equality. Christian Aid has urged the UK government
to commit to being one of the top four funders of the new UN Women
agency, as part of a push to accelerate progress by 2015. DFID
should be held accountable for this, and for helping to provide
the political support necessary to ensure that UN Women is able
to leverage real change through the UN system.
3.3 The second reason for the importance
of the statements is that they provide a valuable indicator of
a changing understanding of development in the international community.
In particular, Christian Aid welcomes the step change in understanding
of climate change compared to the original MDG framework, above
all in the recognition of rich country responsibilities. This
responsibility means rich countries both through carbon emissions
reductions and through supporting through finance and technology
transfer climate actions in developing countries, including adaptation,
disaster resilience and low-carbon development.
3.4 In addition, the language calling for
national and international measures to address the "crucial"
issue of financial opacity and illicit financial flows, and recognising
the central importance of effective taxation to development, is
extremely valuable and would have been unthinkable in such a document
ten or even five years previously—for example, neither the
word "tax" nor the word "illicit", in relation
to finance, appear in the outcome document of the 2005 review
summit. Working with civil society and governments from developing
countries and donor countries, Christian Aid, our partners at
the Tax Justice Network and our fellow members of the global Task
Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development have been
at the forefront of the move to put these issues on the international
agenda. The crucial changes to provide the greater transparency
that will curtail the massive abuses of tax systems in developing
countries, and the other forms of corruption that financial opacity
facilitates, are still to be achieved; but the international prominence
of this agenda is secure, and change is now at the very least
possible.
3.5 The third reason for the importance
of the statements in the outcome document is the possibility that
they raise for the post-2015 successor to the MDG framework, and
perhaps nowhere more so than with regard to the statistical capacity
to more accurately understand and confront poverty and marginalisation.
The summit statement puts great emphasis on "strengthening
statistical capacity to produce reliable disaggregated data for
better programmes and policy evaluation and formulation".
We set out our aspiration for a successor framework to the MDGs
in the following section, and a new level of statistical capacity
is central to this.
3.6 DFID under the new coalition government
has repeatedly highlighted "value for money" in development.
As all those who work towards poverty eradication can confirm,
measurement of appropriate indicators is crucial to understanding
the nature of poverty in a given context, to creating appropriate
responses, to measuring effectiveness and to improving responses
on that basis. All too often, however, the underlying statistical
capacity is absent, and so key evidence to deliver better results
is missing too. There is a clear need for champions in this area.
4. THE SEARCH
FOR A
POST-2015 SUCCESSOR
TO THE
MDGS
4.1 While statements in the summit outcome
document are laudable, they are not in general likely to have
a great impact on the progress made by 2015. This is for two main
reasons: first, because the effect of any changes will not necessarily
be seen so quickly; and second, because the MDG approach will
retain the broad flaws outlined in the previous section. It is
therefore of great importance that the process of establishing
a successor framework to the MDGs be put in place, bringing together
learning from the past ten years and beyond, in order to create
an approach that tackles head-on the causes as well as the symptoms
of poverty.
4.2 While that approach must emerge from
detailed analysis, Christian Aid believes that three key elements
can be clearly identified now. First, the top-down imposition
of priorities must be replaced by an open framework, within which
national and local decision-making processes take the lead.
4.3 Second, and necessarily for this to
function, the international community must invest in the statistical
capacity to create a comprehensive baseline dataset of indicators
which capture the breadth and complexity of poverty in each community.
The Multidimensional Poverty Index, created by University of Oxford
researchers in collaboration with the UN Human Development Report
Office, points the way to the type of fine-grained analysis that
is possible.[13]
4.4 Third, and finally, the successor to
the MDGs must contain a clear framework of accountability that
reflects the potential contribution of each actor—not only
from aid recipient governments, but also traditional donor governments
and emerging powers, as well as national and international NGOs
and major private-sector players, including multinational corporations.
With these key elements in place, there would be the possibility
of a successor to the MDGs that makes poverty eradication a reality.
This is Christian Aid's driving vision.
Figure 1
SPORADIC PROGRESS ON THE MDGS (% OF TARGET
ACHIEVED, TO MOST RECENT DATA AVAILABLE)
Notes: For each target and indicator in the MDG framework
with a specified target value and available data, progress is
shown as a percentage of the total required by 2015. Data for
1990 is earliest available baseline data from 1990-1999; data
for current progress is most recent available, 2005-09. Data is
from The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202010%20En%20r15%20-low%20res%2020100615%20-.pdf
with the exception of maternal mortality data, which is drawn
from M Hogan et al, "Maternal mortality for 181 countries,
1980-2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium
Development Goal 5", The Lancet, 375 (9726), 2010,
pp1,609-1,623.
Annex 1
EXTRACT FROM THE 2010 MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT
GOALS REVIEW SUMMIT OUTCOME DOCUMENT
23. We take note of the lessons learned
and successful policies and approaches in the implementation and
achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and recognize
that with increased political commitment these could be replicated
and scaled up for accelerating progress, including by:
(a) Strengthening national ownership and leadership
of development strategies;
(b) Adopting forward-looking, macroeconomic policies
that promote sustainable development and lead to sustained, inclusive
and equitable economic growth, increase productive employment
opportunities and promote agricultural and industrial development;
(c) Promoting national food security strategies
that strengthen support for smallholder farmers and contribute
to poverty eradication;
(d) Adopting policies and measures oriented towards
benefiting the poor and addressing social and economic inequalities;
(e) Supporting participatory, community-led strategies
aligned with national development priorities and strategies;
(f) Promoting universal access to public and
social services and providing social protection floors;
(g) Improving capacity to deliver quality services
equitably;
(h) Implementing social policies and programmes,
including appropriate conditional cash-transfer programmes, and
investing in basic services for health, education, water and sanitation;
(i) Ensuring the full participation of all segments
of society, including the poor and disadvantaged, in decision-making
processes;
(j) Respecting, promoting and protecting all
human rights, including the right to development;
(k) Increasing efforts to reduce inequality and
eliminate social exclusion and discrimination;
(l) Enhancing opportunities for women and girls
and advancing the economic, legal and political empowerment of
women;
(m) Investing in the health of women and children
to drastically reduce the number of women and children who die
from preventable causes;
(n) Working towards transparent and accountable
systems of governance at the national and international levels;
(o) Working towards greater transparency and
accountability in international development cooperation, in both
donor and developing countries, focusing on adequate and predictable
financial resources as well as their improved quality and targeting;
(p) Promoting South-South and triangular cooperation,
which complement North-South cooperation;
(q) Promoting effective public-private partnerships;
(r) Expanding access to financial services for
the poor, especially poor women, including through adequately
funded microfinance plans, programmes and initiatives supported
by development partners;
(s) Strengthening statistical capacity to produce
reliable disaggregated data for better programmes and policy evaluation
and formulation.
24. We recognize that the scaling-up of
the successful policies and approaches outlined above will need
to be complemented by a strengthened global partnership for development…
26. We recognize that climate change poses
serious risks and challenges to all countries, especially developing
countries. We commit to addressing climate change in accordance
with the principles and provisions of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, including the principle of common
but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
We maintain the Framework Convention as the primary international,
intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to
climate change. Addressing climate change will be of key importance
in safeguarding and advancing progress towards achieving the Millennium
Development Goals.
27. We recognize that attention must be
focused on the particular needs of developing countries and on
the large and increasing economic and social inequalities. Disparities
between developed and developing countries and inequalities between
the rich and the poor, and between rural and urban populations,
inter alia, remain persistent and significant and need to be addressed.
[…]
68. We recognize that all countries require
adequate, timely, reliable and disaggregated data, including demographic
data, in order to design better programmes and policies for sustainable
development. We commit to strengthening our national statistical
systems, including for effectively monitoring progress towards
the Millennium Development Goals. We also reiterate the need to
increase efforts in support of statistical capacity-building in
developing countries.
[…]
78. We commit ourselves to accelerating
progress in order to achieve Millennium Development Goal 8, including
through:
(a) Accelerating efforts to deliver and fully
implement existing Millennium Development Goal 8 commitments by
enhancing the global partnership for development to ensure the
achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015;
(c) Recognizing that the commitments made by
developed and developing countries in relation to the Millennium
Development Goals require mutual accountability;
(i) Enhancing and strengthening domestic resource
mobilization and fiscal space, including, where appropriate, through
modernized tax systems, more efficient tax collection, broadening
the tax base and effectively combating tax evasion and capital
flight. While each country is responsible for its tax system,
it is important to support national efforts in these areas by
strengthening technical assistance and enhancing international
cooperation and participation in addressing international tax
matters. We look forward to the upcoming report by the Secretary-General
examining the strengthening of institutional arrangements to promote
international cooperation in tax matters;
(j) Implementing measures to curtail illicit
financial flows at all levels, enhancing disclosure practices
and promoting transparency in financial information. In this regard,
strengthening national and multinational efforts to address this
issue is crucial, including support to developing countries and
technical assistance to enhance their capacities. Additional measures
should be implemented to prevent the transfer abroad of stolen
assets and to assist in the recovery and return of such assets,
in particular to their countries of origin, consistent with the
United Nations Convention against Corruption…
8 Then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan addressing closing
summit of UN Millennium Summit, 11 September 2000, http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2000/sg2658.html. Back
9
Doing Justice to Poverty, 2009, Christian Aid. http://bit.ly/jus2pov. Back
10
"Conservatives defend aid spending from rightwing onslaught",
The Guardian, 2 July 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/02/conservatives-defend-aidspending-rightwing-onslaught. Back
11
Department for International Development (DFID), The Politics
of Poverty: Elites, Citizens and States, Findings from 10 Years
of DFID-funded Research on Governance and Fragile States 2001-2010,
2010, http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/evaluation/plcy-pltcs-dfid-rsch-synth-ppr.pdf.
In particular, see the work of the Centre for Research on Inequality,
Human Security and Ethnicity (CRISE, http://www.crise.ox.ac.uk). Back
12
Combating Poverty and Inequality, Research and Policy Brief
10, 2010, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development,
http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/document.nsf/(httpPublications)/82BBE4A03F504AD9C1257734002
E9735?OpenDocument. Back
13
See the forthcoming Human Development Report 2010, and
the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative: http://www.ophi.org.uk/policy/multidimensional-poverty-index/. Back
|
