The 2010 Millennium Development Goals Review Summit

Written evidence submitted by WWF-UK

Introduction

1. WWF engagement with the MDG process: WWF had a small team attending the summit in New York, the team met with approximately 55 member states to discuss our specific positions and asks of the summit. We met with the UK government team independently and as part of a wider NGO meeting. We had also engaged with the UK government in the run up to the summit both through Bond and independently. For example on request we provided Andrew Mitchell with a brief on MDG 7 which was well received.

Key outcomes from the Summit

2. WWF welcome the fact that there is an agreed outcome document from the summit and the references within it to the environment, biodiversity and climate change.

3. However, the outcome document is weak on clear actions for implementation. Nor does the document capture commitments and discussion from the roundtable or side events that took place at the summit.

4. The success of the summit should be judged on action and delivery – rather than commitments and documentation. The summit did refocus attention on the MDGs, however it is as yet unclear what has changed as a result of the summit and what clear actions will be taken which make a difference to the lives of the world’s poorest people.

5. With regard to the specific text on MDG 7 on Environmental Sustainability, WWF welcome the links that are made to the CBD and UNFCCC. However we feel that the text on MDG 7 does not capture important points on economic value of ecosystem services.

6. Nor does the outcome text make specific reference to the need to address the MDGs as one specific and holistic package. There are so many interlinkages between the 8 MDGs and a successful outcome for one is dependent upon successful outcomes of all. Something that the EU and UK recognized and fought for but did not make the final text.

7. There appear to be some contradictions in the outcome text, for example it repeats the phrase of "sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth, poverty eradication and sustainable development". However, ‘sustained growth’ and ‘sustainable development’ are very different concepts. ‘Sustained growth’ may undermine prospects for ‘sustainable development’.

8. In the plenary speeches most of the heads of state from developing countries referred to climate change as a key challenge. However the outcome text does not reflect this priority strongly enough.

9. References to the links between the MDGs and environmental sustainability were present in summit but environmental sustainability was a long way from being "mainstreamed". Given the vital role that the environment plays in underpinning the delivery of all the MDGs this is concerning.

10. WWF have some concerns that MDG 7 is often sidelined particularly the aspects concerning biodiversity and environmental resources, the focus is usually on water and sanitation. Access to water for domestic use, water needs for agriculture, clean water for health are themselves dependent on the availability and integrated management of the freshwater resource.

11. The summit’s roundtables provided some good language on sustainable development, eg the need for ‘an environmentally sustainable paradigm for development’. Support for smallholder farmers was a theme that came up in the summit through the roundtables. However we are concerned that these issues which were strongly emphasized in the roundtables do not form part of the formal documentation for the summit, and therefore their outcomes and recommendations are lost.

12. The High level meeting on biodiversity happened in parallel to the MDG summit on Wednesday the 23rd of September. We think there was a missed opportunity in terms of linking the two events. This meeting on biodiversity made strong links between poverty, ecosystems, biodiversity and climate change. For example, Ban Ki-moon said that "Ecosystem services are directly linked to the bottom line. They are our natural capital … We need to show that protecting ecosystems can help us achieve the Millennium Development Goals and build resilience to climate change." It was unfortunate that these vital issues were not fed back into the MDG summit process.

13. A successful outcome of Rio+20 was called upon at many instances in our conversations with diplomats and also during the summit interventions. We welcome momentum around Rio+20 and suggest that the MDGs, poverty reduction and links to the environment and climate change need to be key themes at this summit.

14. There are very clear synergies between the UNFCCC, CBD and MDGs. However these three multilateral UN processes are largely happening in isolation of each other, this is not conducive for long term and sustainable impacts in poverty reduction, biodiversity or climate change. It is disappointing that in 2010, when key events were/are happening on each of these UN processes little effort was made to make the linkages which would strengthen delivery individually and collectively. Thinking in a ‘systems’ and ‘integrated’ way seems to be a weakness in the UN approach.

DFID’s role in delivering agreed strategies

15. Firstly we welcome DFID’s ongoing commitment to the MDGs.

16. We also welcome DFID’s emphasis on results and accountability, for example their push for an annual review of MDGs and a clear list of what different countries and governments are accountable for.

17. WWF welcomed DFID’s engagement with civil society in the run up to, and during the summit. However, we think that having a civil society representative as part of the UK delegation would have sent a positive sign to other countries about engagement with civil society. There are many precedents for civil society representation in UK government delegations including for the 2005 MDG Review.

18. DFID could have been more transparent in terms of sharing the specific input they were providing via the EU on the text. Without this it is difficult to know exactly what DFID’s input and influence was on the text and process. For example it is unclear to us whether DFID championed an integrated approach and stressed cross cutting issues like gender, environmental sustainability and human rights in negotiations with the EU.

19. We welcomed DFID’s engagement in the summit side event on water, and welcome their commitment to this agenda that is so critical for poverty reduction.

20. DFID were very clear from the start that their priorities for the MDG summit were maternal mortality and malaria – all central issues to poverty reduction. We would have welcomed DFID broadening this prioritisation and recognising that the MDGs are a holistic package and need to be achieved jointly rather than cherry picking particular MDGs.

21. On request WWF provided a brief on MDG 7 for the Secretary of State. Whilst this was well received we are unclear how it might have influenced the UK’s position and it is not clear if the UK delegation were championing environmental sustainability in the MDG process.

22. The UK delegation took part in the roundtable on ‘emerging issues’. However these were closed meetings and we do not know what input the UK delegation made. We would be keen to see any interventions and positions from the UK delegation at this critical meeting.

23. The UK were jointly hosting with the German delegation a lunch time session focusing on TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) on Wednesday the 23rd of September. However again since this was a closed meeting we cannot give feedback on what the outcomes of this meeting were and DFID’s role.

24. We welcome that DFID has recently been meeting with Defra and DECC at a Secretary of State level. However it is a pity that the UK delegation did not make the links between the High level meeting on biodiversity which happened in parallel to the MDG summit. We think there was a missed opportunity in terms of linking the two events, for example it would have been very powerful to have Caroline Spelman and Andrew Mitchell say something on the same platform about the links between the two agendas since they were in the same building on the same day.

25. DFID have appeared reluctant to talk about the impact of climate change and other ‘emerging issues’ on the MDGs, as they don’t want to ‘distract’ from achieving the 2015 targets. However, without addressing issues like climate change, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, any progress on MDGs will be quickly undermined.

26. Innovative financing was a theme that came out of the summit and we would urge DFID to support the proposal for a financial transaction tax and other innovative mechanisms to provide long-term and sustainable financing for international development and climate change adaptation and mitigation.

The role of the UN

27. The UN procedures for NGOs to engage in the summit were extremely difficult to navigate. This excluded many NGOs from participating in the summit. It is also unclear how the UN Civil Society hearing fed into the summit.

28. We appreciated that the plenary sessions were shown live online and the UN summit website is an excellent resource for accessing documents, video footage etc and tracking the summit.

29. As stated above, there are very clear synergies between the UNFCCC, CBD and MDGs. However these three multilateral UN processes are largely happening in isolation of each other, this is not conducive for long term and sustainable impacts in poverty reduction, biodiversity or climate change. It is disappointing that in 2010, when key events were/are happening on each of these UN processes little effort was made to make the linkages which would strengthen delivery individually and collectively. Thinking in a ‘systems’ and ‘integrated’ way seems to be a weakness in the UN approach.

30. The UN should push for, and possibly lead, a mechanism to hold governments to account for their commitments under MDGs eg annual review of MDG targets and commitments.

The role of the European Commission

31. We welcomed the EUs active engagement in the MDG outcome document and appreciated many of the interventions they made on the outcome document, particularly around the environment, climate change and biodiversity.

32. The EU should be very clear on how it is holding its member states to account for commitments to MDGs, suggestions include an annual review process, publishing all commitments, league table of countries etc

The role of NGOs

33. The role of NGOs in the summit was limited given the difficulties of accessing the UN building and closed meetings. We appreciate that there was civil society representation at the roundtables but would have further welcomed the roundtables being streamed online, or a clear written report with all the interventions at this roundtable.

34. NGOs have a role in holding governments to account for their commitments to the MDGs. Nevertheless it is ultimately governments and not NGOs who are responsible for delivery of MDG commitments.

The role of developing countries in securing and delivering Summit outcomes

35. In their speeches to plenary many heads of state for developing countries referred to climate change and the relationship between climate change and poverty. However this level of concern from developing countries is not captured in the outcome document.

36. Both developed and developing countries need to have mechanisms in place to ensure the delivery of commitments - if the summit is to have achieved anything other than rhetoric.

Looking ahead to after the MDG deadline of 2015

37. The MDGs are unlikely to be met by 2015. There needs to be a robust and ambitious framework in place for eliminating poverty that comes into force in 2015. Plans need to be developed now for what that new agreement looks like – but without detracting from the need to deliver the current goals by 2015.

38. There needs to be a two track strategy of pushing the MDGs while thinking about what comes next, this is likely to be complex, but is essential if we are to genuinely make progress on poverty reduction.

39. 2015 should be an opportunity to strengthen the current framework and also scale up the level of ambition. For example are goals to ‘half’ poverty and hunger truly ambitious? Surely it is unacceptable that in the 21st century our most ambitious goals still leave millions facing preventable hunger, disease and death?

40. One criticism of the current MDG framework is it focuses largely on the symptoms of poverty rather than the causes and drivers. The attention, and consequently the money, is focused on delivering against the MDG targets rather than tackling the root causes of poverty, such as inequality within and between countries, poor governance, unfair trade systems, environmental degradation, climate change. A post 2015 framework for poverty eradication needs to address this shortcoming.

41. The way that the eight goals are structured means that poverty is approached as a list of separate and isolated problems. The links between them and the underlying causes and drivers that link all the areas outlined in the framework are not sufficiently captured.

42. A future framework for poverty reduction will have to deal effectively with climate change, energy, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. All of these issues are undermining efforts to reduce poverty and meet the MDGs and they are not effectively dealt with in the current framework.

43. Rio +20 presents a ideal staging post for moving forward on a post 2015 framework. In particular this should be a key opportunity for ensuring that the links between poverty, environment and climate change are sufficiently captured in a post 2015 framework.

44. To be truly effective, a post 2015 framework should integrate the poverty reduction with other key UN processes, particularly the UNFCCC and CBD.

45. The accountability mechanisms of the current framework are weak with no penalties for countries who fail, this includes donor countries that pledge money and then do not follow through. Clear, and possibly legally binding accountability mechanisms should be built into the future framework from the start.

46. A future framework needs to address cross cutting issues including human rights, climate change, gender and environmental sustainability much more effectively than the current MDGs.

47. A future framework needs to focus on long term and sustainable poverty reduction. Efforts to deliver on the current targets could lead to interventions that only make a difference in the short term, especially if they do not address the underlying causes and drivers of poverty.

48. The UN Secretary general recognises that "Without a sustainable environmental base, we will have little hope of attaining our objectives for reducing poverty and hunger and improving health and human well-being." [1] . Ensuring environmental sustainability is the overall goal of MDG 7. It encapsulates a broad array of environmental issues including biodiversity loss, air pollution, forests, climate change, fish stocks, clean drinking water, sanitation and improvement of slums. However, communicating the role of ecosystems and biodiversity in poverty reduction is challenging given the complexity of the systems involved. Developing meaningful metrics and indicators that resonate with development audiences is difficult, and the metrics for MDG 7 in the current MDG framework are extremely weak. However, challenges of measurement and targets should not be an excuse for continuing to undermine the basic support systems of life on Earth. This needs to be reflected in the future framework.

49. The process to develop a new set of goals and targets needs careful consideration. It needs to be a consultative process that prioritizes the needs of poor people in developing countries and engages fully with civil society.

50. WWF propose that sustainable development needs to be the underpinning narrative for a post 2015 framework. This will ensure that results are long lasting, sustainable and reduce poverty for the long as well as the short term.