International Development CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Bond Beyond 2015

Beyond 2015 (www.beyond2015.org) is a global civil society campaign, pushing for a strong and legitimate successor framework to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The campaign currently brings together more than 420 civil society organisations from over 80 countries from around the world, uniting behind the vision that:

A global overarching cross-thematic framework succeeds the Millennium Development Goals, reflecting Beyond 2015’s policy positions.

The process of developing this framework is participatory, inclusive and responsive to voices of those directly affected by poverty and injustice.

The global campaign is supported by a number of national and regional hubs. In the UK the campaign is convened by Bond, the UK membership body NGOs working in international development, although the campaign is also open to non-Bond members. The Bond Beyond 2015 UK Group has over 75 member organisations, and we encourage our member organisations to make individual submissions. We likewise support the submissions made by other Bond groups on the post-2015 agenda.

1. Lessons learned from the adoption of the International Development Targets and the Millennium Development Goals: in particular how effective has the MDG process been to date.

1.1 Bond Beyond 2015 UK believes that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) process has been successful in rallying international support for poverty reduction, contributing to an increase in financial flows, and encouraging greater coordination of development efforts between governments and non-state actors. For example, total ODA has risen significantly since the implementation of the MDG framework, from nearly US$50 billion per year in 2000 to over US$131 billion by 2010.1

1.2 The MDGs also contributed to a notable shift in the type of assistance donors provided, seeing movement away from solely economic and productive sectors towards social sectors such as health and education, leading to improved outcomes in these areas. The benefit of such a shift, however, remains contentious, often cited as moving the development agenda from one narrow focus to another and thereby failing to encourage a more multidimensional approach to development.

1.3 In terms of progress, there has been some success in meeting some of the targets defined under the MDG framework. For example, the target of halving the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water has been met, increasing access from 76% to 89% of global population over 1990–2010. Likewise, primary education enrollment ratio has increased from 82% in 1999 to 90% in 2010. Whilst this meets the specific targets set out in the MDGs, it obscures evidence that suggests some 30% of all primary aged children not in school are children with disabilities.2 Furthermore, although the number of girls in school has steadily increased, progress towards the target of eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education has been uneven. In addition, preliminary data highlight that both the poverty rates and the number of people living in extreme poverty has been falling in all regions. The latter fell from 47% in 1990 to 24% in 2008, a reduction from 2 billion to 1.4 billion.

1.4 Whilst these figures are encouraging, they also disguise the experience of many marginalized and vulnerable groups who did not progress or were not visible under the MDGs due to the way in which goals, targets and indicators were set. Many groups, particularly those hardest to reach, remained static or even regressed against the indicators defined by the MDGs whilst the overall reporting at a national and global level showed progress. For some groups, no measurements are available. As a result of this, Bond Beyond 2015 UK is particularly concerned that the needs, perspectives and experiences of marginalized and vulnerable peoples and groups3 are heard and responded to within the post-2015 development framework. Key to achieving this is the collection of accurate data disaggregated by age and sex across the lifecourse that takes into account physical, mental, social and political barriers that may prevent the full participation of all groups in society.

1.5 At a national level, some countries have been left behind entirely. For example, no low income conflict-affected or fragile state has yet to achieve a single MDG.4 This undermines the achievement of the MDG framework as a whole. Indeed, the UN Task Team on the Post-21015 UN Development Agenda recognised that “violence and fragility have become the largest obstacle to the MDGs.”5 Although only 14% of the world’s population live in conflict-affected or fragile states, they contain a third of the world’s poor. In fragile states, one in three people is undernourished (twice as high as in other developing countries), child mortality is almost twice that of low income countries, and the malarial death rate is nearly 13 times higher in fragile states than elsewhere in the developing world. The reasons for this are multifaceted, with factors such as poor governance, poverty, lack of funding, failed health and other state systems and policy neglect posing considerable constraints. It is vital that the post-2015 development framework acknowledges and responds to the connections between human rights, development, peace and security, ensuring that conflict-affected states are not left behind again.

1.6 Overall, the MDG process has left us with some valuable lessons which need to be addressed within the post-2015 framework:

1.6.1Ownership and leadership: MDG indicators and targets were not created through consultative processes that included a wide range of stakeholders. This led to perceptions that they were created arbitrarily, especially regarding the way in which success was defined (for some indicators, an absolute level; for others, a percentage improvement). Furthermore, the legitimacy of the MDGs has been called into question by some developing countries and NGO groups because the framework was so heavily based upon an OECD proposal. Attempts to rectify this were made during the 2005 Global Mid Term Review, where some countries committed to align national policies with MDGs. Indeed, there were countries that worked on defining local MDGs and indicators, and included these in their national development strategies. A UNDP (2010) report, for example, found that 90 % of 30 countries sampled had locally adapted MDG policies (eg Albania, Bangladesh, Botswana, Nepal, and Tanzania). This accelerated efforts at a national level; however significant concerns around accountability and ownership remain.

1.6.2Scope and integration: Another critique of the MDGs is that they have not addressed development in a comprehensive manner. For example, they have failed to integrate human rights, equity, environmental sustainability and peace/conflict resolution adequately. Meanwhile, the social dimension is seen to have been prioritised without due consideration of the economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. By assigning narrow sectoral targets, the benefits of synergistic relationships between goals and information exchange across silos may not have been realised.

1.6.3Building technical capacities: The lack of capacity and/or resources at the national level to collate data for some of the indicators has meant that monitoring progress has been a major challenge throughout the MDG process. This has led to discrepancies and inconsistencies between national and international data sources and made processes of review more difficult.

1.6.4New challenges: The limited scope of the MDGs has not assisted many developing countries to fully address the governance-related issues such as the development of robust government institutions, social protection systems and an enabling environment for civil society. This has meant that many developing countries have been particularly vulnerable to sudden shocks or emerging global development challenges such as climate change, food crises, rapid increasing urbanisation and unsustainable resource use.

1.6.5Quality and effectiveness: the MDG framework has been criticised for being too focused on outputs and quantitative indicators as opposed to quality and the overall impact of interventions on people’s lives—especially regarding the poorest and most marginalised groups. For example, MDG2 to achieve universal primary outcome has led to a focus on the quantitative target rather than the outcome on quality of education. It is necessary to measure disaggregated data to prevent marginalized and vulnerable groups from remaining static or regressing, whilst enabling national and global targets to be met. Another criticism is that it has encouraged a donor-centric approach that has on occasion created aid dependency and an imbalanced partnership between donors and aid recipients.

2. How should the “Sustainable Development Goals” be established following Rio +20 relate to the “Development Goals” being considered by the High-Level Panel?

2.1 Bond Beyond 2015 UK is clear that there should be a single unified process leading to the definition of the post-2015 framework and a single set of international development goals which put poverty eradication as the overarching focus of sustainable development. To develop the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and post-MDG goals in parallel would be short-sighted and inefficient for the following reasons:

2.1.1It would hinder linkages between the two agendas and potentially lead to competing, rather than mutually reinforcing, goals.

2.1.2It is difficult to justify the cost of two high-level political processes, and may induce policy fatigue that in turn reduces the level of ambition.

2.1.3It will endanger meaningful stakeholder participation by splitting attention and resources between the two processes.

3. The coverage of future goals: should they be for developing countries only or should progress be monitored in all countries?

3.1 Bond Beyond 2015 UK believes that the framework should set out global goals, as well as contextualised national targets for both developed and developing countries. This is in order to ensure that the shared responsibility for impact and equity is included within the framework. With regard to monitoring, we believe that the framework should:

3.1.1lay out enforceable accountability mechanisms, as well as the process for accountability at a national, regional and global level. This must include national oversight and independent review mechanisms at the international level;

3.1.2include mechanisms for mutual accountability between governments and donors;

3.1.3include mechanisms for a governmental peer review process which includes civil society;

3.1.4enable citizens in developing countries to hold their governments to account in real time for progress on commitments made;

3.1.5include monitoring mechanisms with measures to disaggregate data so that the impact on marginalised groups can be properly addressed; and

3.1.6ensure that national processes involve meaningful consultation and scrutiny by parliament and civil society.

4. The process: are the right voices being heard? What are the opportunities for and constraints to global consensus?

4.1 As noted above, one of the criticisms of the existing MDG framework is that it was developed on a top-down basis, without adequate consultation of all key stakeholders. We welcome the UN-led process that has been established to develop the post-MDG framework. We also welcome the planned national and thematic consultations plus the proposed online “global conversation”, which our members will contribute to both individually and collectively under the umbrella of Beyond 2015.

4.2 To ensure legitimacy, we believe that the development of this framework must be completely open and transparent, participatory, inclusive and responsive to voices and expertise of those directly affected by poverty and injustice. To this end, Beyond 2015 is working with the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) on a research initiative called Participate, which is aimed at capturing the views of those living in poverty on the priorities for the post-2015 framework in time to feed into the High Level Panel’s report to the UN Secretary-General. This must be supported by a formalised and meaningful process for civil society engagement, including the most marginalised groups.

4.3 Perspectives of those living in extreme vulnerability and poverty matter in making decisions about how international development should happen. They matter, not only because they are the people most affected by development, but because their perspectives can shed light on how lasting change is possible. National governments, the UN and other key agencies are increasingly recognising the importance of engaging these marginalised perspectives in the post-2015 debate.

4.4 There is an extensive body of participatory research that has been carried out or is in the process of being carried out that can provide an invaluable contribution to this dialogue. The Participate initiative has been established to draw this work together, ensure that knowledge from the margins shapes post-2015 policymaking and that a future framework reflects the priorities of those directly affected by poverty and injustice.

4.5 Bond Beyond 2015 UK would have liked to see better civil society representation on the High Level Panel on post-2015 development, and are keen to ensure that civil society participation is facilitated through advance warning for consultation opportunities, funding to support the participation of representatives from around the world, and clarity on how civil society inputs will contribute to discussions and influence decision-making.

5. Targets: was the MDG “target-based” approach a success? Should it be retained? How should progress be measured?

5.1 The target-based approach of the MDGs has been a qualified success. The right targets measuring the right things can have a positive impact on achieving progress in development. At the sub-indicator level, targets that are specific, measurable, time-bound, and ambitious yet realistic, are necessary. It is notable that the MDGs with the least clearly defined goals have seen the least effective implementation. For example, MDG7 7.b on biodiversity loss calls for a “significant reduction”, but over the last decade the rate of species loss has accelerated. Similarly, MDG8 on global partnership had few measurable targets, meaning that there has been little progress on the structural causes of poverty or on developing corporate social responsibility and action from the private sector. It is fundamental that a target-based approach avoids creating perverse incentives and undermining equality. For example, the goals related to education (MDG2) and water (MDG7) have been met but not in an equitable way. While targets are useful for increasing accountability, progress also needs to be understood in more holistic terms with diversified methods of measurement. We reiterate that disaggregated data by age and sex across the course of a person’s life will be key to ensuring successful implementation of the post-2015 development framework.

6. Financing global goals: are new mechanisms needed?

6.1 The UK government has been leading by example through its commitment to meet 0.7% GNI by 2013, and Beyond 2015 UK commends this as evidence of a belief in global citizenship and responsibility between nations and communities. Cross-party and cross-governmental support for this issue will be essential to ensuring its long-term security.

6.2 There is scope for innovative financing in order to support implementation of the post-2015 development framework.

7. The role of the private sector and other non-state organisations;

7.1 Whilst the primary responsibility for delivering commitments under the post-MDG framework must rest with national governments, Bond Beyond 2015 UK recognises the important contribution that all actors, including the private sector and other non-state actors, can make to their realisation. This underlines the importance of involving all actors in the consultation process, as a means of securing broader buy-in and ensuring that the future actions of all actors support, rather than undermine, the agreed framework. All actors must be held to account and commit to the principles and standards of the framework.

8. Timescale: what period should the new framework cover? Was the 15-year timescale for the MDGs right?

8.1 Bond Beyond 2015 UK believes that the new framework should cover a timescale that is able to respond to the urgency of the environmental crises and social challenges faced globally, whilst having sufficient longevity to transform the pathways of development onto a more sustainable footing. Beyond 2015 UK recommends that whatever final period is agreed on, there are regular interim reports every two—five years.

9. The content of future goals: what would be a good set of global goals? What continuity should there be with the MDGs, and how should the unfulfilled MDGs be taken forward?

9.1 Individual members of Bond Beyond 2015 UK and other Bond groups will offer more detailed views on the content of future goals in their own submissions to the Committee, drawing on their programme experience and policy expertise on specific issues. Collectively, Bond Beyond 2015 UK believes that the framework should include the following:

9.1.1It should be in full accordance with international human rights laws and frameworks.

9.1.2It should lever the reform of existing structures that perpetuate poverty and inequality.

9.1.3It should recognise that international aid is only a part of a balanced approach to development and that sustainability is central to lasting progress.

9.2 Bond Beyond 2015 UK sees the four principles as central to this:

9.2.1A holistic approach: the future framework must capitalise on synergy across different sectors, and understand and respond to the complex interrelations between global development challenges. The post-2015 development framework must reflect an integrated and balanced approach.

9.2.2Inclusivity: the process through which the future framework will be formed must be transparent, open and participatory, recognising access to information and decision-making as the foundation of good governance, through engagement with people affected by poverty, particularly those who experience marginalisation.

9.2.3Equity and equality: ensuring that the targets achieve reductions in inequality both within and between nations, and that fair allocation of resources is given to both people and countries, including the most marginalised, which face the greatest challenges of sustainable development and poverty to allow a just transition to a world in which social, economic and environmental dimensions are equitably and sustainably managed. Gender equality as a fundamental cross-cutting dimension of poverty has received limited attention to date.

9.2.4Universally applicable: in order to address global challenges all countries, whether from global north or south, need to have obligations, ownership and accountability through the new framework. Global goals should be set aiming for the eradication of extreme poverty by addressing its root causes. Contextualised national targets are needed for developed and developing countries (inspired by the principle of common but differentiated responsibility) to measure and track progress towards sustainable development and ensure accountability.

9.3 Bond Beyond 2015 UK believes the successor to the MDGs should have sustainable development at its heart. It should build on lessons learnt from the MDGs as well as take into account shortcomings, specifically their failure to address structural causes of poverty, inequality and exclusion, and shortcomings in MDG7 to address environmental sustainability. It should incorporate the aims and ambitions of the existing initiatives which seek progress in all areas related to sustainable development, bringing together disparate frameworks, and create an enabling environment for greater progress within those fora. Fundamentally, any global development framework must be based on, and fully ensure, equal enjoyment of all human rights for all people. Beyond 2015 UK welcomes the report released by the UN Task Team, Realizing the Future We Want, and anticipate the inclusion of the three fundamental principles of human rights, sustainability and equality, supported by the four dimensions of inclusive social development, environmental sustainability, inclusive economic development, and peace and security6 in the future framework.

9.4 In terms of content, we believe that the framework should address the following issues:

9.4.1Root causes of poverty, conflict and injustice in all countries, from the richest to the poorest.

9.4.2Inequity, inequality and exclusion, with a particular focus on those countries and groups who have fallen furthest behind.

9.4.3Environmental sustainability and climate change.

9.4.4The responsibility of national governments to sustainably manage their natural and financial resources.

9.4.5The responsibility of the international community to support developing countries in the face of global challenges through respecting their ODA commitments as well as through innovative redistributive funding mechanisms which would generate additional predictive finance.

9.4.6The responsibility of developing country governments to deliver on development commitments.

9.4.7Transparency and accountability.

9.4.8Unmet targets and ambitions of the MDGs.

9.4.9Use a human rights based approach.

9.4.10Fragile and conflict-affected states.

October 2012