The 2010 Millennium Development Goals Review Summit

Written evidence submitted by ARTICLE 19

8 October 2010

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.