International Development CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Christian Aid

1 Introduction

1.1 Christian Aid is a Christian organisation that insists the world can and must be swiftly changed to one where everyone can live a full life, free from poverty. We work globally in 45 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 provide urgent, practical and effective assistance where need is great, tackling the effects of poverty as well as its root causes. We are part of a wider movement for social justice and are members of the post-2015 campaign “Beyond 2015”.

1.2 We welcome the opportunity to provide written evidence to the International Development Committee on Post 2015 Development Goals. We are happy to provide further written/oral evidence on any of the subjects covered in this submission.

1.3 We would like to draw attention to the submission by the “Beyond 2015 UK” group, which we fully endorse.

2 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

2.1 While there is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of the MDGs the UN Task Team Report provides a useful summary. Christian Aid can affirm that the MDGs have been very helpful in galvanising governments, donors and civil society to work towards a vision of eradicating poverty and accelerating human development. From a civil society perspective, the MDGs have also served as an “advocacy tool” for both global and national campaigns and this has been made easier by the articulation of specific, measurable and time-bound goals which whilst not perfect, have provided a degree of accountability. There is also clear political value in establishing global goals as a way of driving progress on key issues when many countries have divergent national interests—David Cameron made this point in his report on global governance to the G20 in 2011.

2.2 However, the strengths of the MDGs have also been their weaknesses. Goals and targets can both pull attention and funding in a particular direction, for the benefit of sectors which have been identified as priorities but to the detriment of things that are absent or poorly articulated. It is also the case that some goals have been easier to deliver on than others—the targets on child and maternal mortality for example, have significantly lagged behind, perhaps because they are less straightforward to influence. Christian Aid’s 2010 report has therefore suggested that “the approach (of the MDGs) has been most successful where targets relate to outcomes that are more directly influenced by additional funding.”1

2.3 MDG 8 in particular, has suffered from an overarching goal which was poorly articulated and from a number of targets which have been vague (eg “develop an open, rule-based, predictable, discriminatory trading and financial system”). Whilst some of the indicators around debt relief or market access are correct, they have been buried and hardly discussed. This has allowed highly important structural issues to be marginalised and for leaders in richer nations to side-step their responsibilities.

2.4 More fundamentally, Christian Aid believes that the MDGs themselves failed to translate the full ambition, articulated in the Millennium Declaration, into an operational set of goals, targets and indicators. The shared values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature and shared responsibility, were somehow lost in a list of goals which dealt primarily with material gains without reference to rights, power and human dignity. The next framework must focus on supporting those who currently live in poverty to take power over the constraints they face, and holding those in power accountable for their actions.

2.5 Christian Aid has identified three areas that must be enhanced in a post-2015 framework. Firstly, there needs to be more emphasis on the issue of inequality, including gender inequality. The headline figures on progress towards the MDGs fail to deal with distribution of outcomes by gender or by vulnerable groups and fail to take account of regional, or other geographical variations. The second aspect is that of environmental sustainability, pressing challenges around planetary boundaries, increased disasters and the failure to agree a binding international climate change agreement. A post-2015 agreement which does not fully deal with these challenges will be a flawed one. Finally, greater emphasis on democratic and participatory governance as a way of delivering change is needed. Whilst the Millennium Declaration clearly emphasises the need for citizens to be engaged and to have power in the development process, the practical application of the MDG framework has failed to deliver this. The approach must go beyond what states do (for example, deliver education) to how they do it—through greater transparency and participatory policy making leading to real political accountability.

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

3.1 The development of the SDGs must be fully integrated into the global post-2015 development framework. To develop SDGs and the post-MDG development framework in parallel would be both inefficient and short-sighted, and could lead to a number of negative scenarios: a) Hinder full and effective linkage between environmental sustainability and poverty eradication; b) Inefficient use of resources in a time of financial crisis; c) Inducing policy process fatigue and endanger meaningful stakeholder participation through duplication of effort or competition for limited time, effort and resources available for engagement

3.2 In terms of the relationship between the SDG and post 2015 discussions, it will be crucial that all development goals and targets—such as those aimed at ending hunger, improving health outcomes, increasing access to energy and water etc. are underpinned by the principle of living within the planet’s natural limits with fair and equitable access to essential natural resources (see section 9). If we fail to do this, we risk endorsing a development pathway which is unsustainable—one that prioritises economic growth at the expense of environmental sustainability and which could lead to increased carbon dioxide emissions and dangerous pressure on biodiversity, land, water and other natural assets.

3.3 The High Level Panel and the soon-to-be announced Open Working Group on the SDGs, must establish formal and informal means of communication over the coming year, so that the work of these groups is coordinated and coherent. Both processes must come together at the UN General Assembly in September 2013 to recommend work being taken forward as one comprehensive process.

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

4.1 Christian Aid believes that a new framework must apply to all countries, especially given some of the key global governance challenges of our age (such as the nature of financial flows and climate change). As the UN System Task Team have said, “The central challenge of the post-2015 UN development agenda is to ensure that globalization becomes a positive force for all the worlds’ peoples of present and future generations”2 This will require action on all sides to ensure that richer nations and other actors “do no harm” and are held accountable in a post-2015 framework for detrimental activities such as land grabs, water extraction for export crops, environmentally and socially destructive fossil fuel extraction, etc.

4.2 The framework should also be universal in the sense that all countries should be held accountable for progress on poverty and inequality at a national level. Development trends indicate that there are now more people living in extreme poverty in middle income countries (MICs) than in low income countries3, and that many MICs have very high levels of income inequality4. Whilst some countries such as Brazil have made some progress in recent years, there is still a lot to do and Christian Aid’s recent report into inequality in Latin America has highlighted that across the region, the income received by the wealthiest 20% of the population, is still on average 19.3 times more than for the poorest quintile.5 We would argue that richer countries themselves could still do more to promote gender equality (for example) and ultimately, our understanding of poverty does not have geographical boundaries. We would therefore argue strongly for a universal framework, underpinned by accountability mechanisms such as peer review or regular parliamentary scrutiny (eg in the UK context, an annual IDC inquiry into the UK’s responsibilities under a post-2015 framework), to ensure that all countries are delivering against the goals.

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

5.1 The post-2015 framework must be developed in a way which is open and transparent, participatory, inclusive and responsive to those directly affected by poverty and injustice. Questions remain about how the UN Secretary General will bring together the recommendations from the High-Level Panel, the Open Working Group and the evidence collected through the UN thematic consultations and national conversations. The timing of the High Level Panel has not been very helpful (taking place before the other consultations) and we hope that the UN will adequately resource the national consultations and also ensure that they reach marginalised groups who are often excluded from political decision-making.

5.2 There are clear challenges to building consensus on the post-2015 agenda and the recent UNFCCC climate change negotiations are a strong example of short-term national interests taking precedence over global interests. Action to reduce emissions has understandably generated tensions between underlines the importance of delivering on existing promises, to build trust in negotiations and as a prerequisite for moving forward.

5.3 Vulnerable and low-income countries have also suffered from a lack of power and capacity in many international fora. In the context of the High Level Panel, we hope that the choice of co-Chairs, will ensure that this does not happen, and that the SDG Open Working Group will have strong representation from poorer countries. We hope that a wide range of stakeholders will be involved in the discussions and Christian Aid for its part, along with other members of the Beyond 2015 coalition, will be working with our local and national partners around the world, to strengthen their voices.

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

6.1 Christian Aid does see value in targets but we would argue that getting them right is essential.

One of the areas where the MDGs have been weak is in their measurement of inequality and distribution of outcomes.6 For example, even in China, which has been celebrated for its economic growth and its contribution to bringing people out of extreme poverty, maternal deaths remains high in the Western provinces, 87% of which are among ethnic minority groups.7 Post-2015 goals must actively drive a reduction in inequalities and there are a number of options including the adoption of universal access targets, the weighting of progress on all indicators using equity criteria, and the targeting of particular vulnerable or marginalised groups.8

6.2 Christian Aid would like to see any post-2015 goals delivered in a sustainable and resilient way.9 How we therefore articulate progress on an area such as food security will be critical—is the end goal an increase in agricultural productivity above all else, or do we want to prioritise a means to an end that will be more empowering, better for the environment and more resilient to shocks? If it is the latter and we are serious about delivering equity in the context of a constrained world, then targets will need to be formulated for driving this.

7 Financing global goals: are new mechanisms needed?

7.1 Financing global goals will be a clear challenge in the current political and economic context. As the recent UN report on MDG 8 has shown, ODA levels fell 3% in 2011 and there was a financing gap of $167 billion between what had been committed (in accordance with the UN target of 0.7%).10 Despite the continuing need for aid, a number of countries are regrettably cutting their budgets, a step which the UK has laudably chosen not to follow. It is in this context, that even more finance is required to help countries mitigate and adapt to climate change and it is disappointing that so little progress has been made on this front.

7.2 There is also a need to take a more structural approach to financing development. Whilst the financial crisis has clearly hit economies across the world, it would be wrong to suggest that we do not have amongst us the resources to tackle poverty. Tax Justice Network, of which Christian Aid is a member, has estimated that $11.5 trillion, a third of global assets, are currently held offshore, money that could be harnessed for investment in essential services. Christian Aid’s research has shown that there is a direct relationship between this finance and development, and that often MNCs are using complex accounting methods to hide profits and move money offshore to avoid taxation, at an estimated loss of $160 billion to developing countries. As a result, we have been campaigning to end tax haven secrecy, for the automatic exchange of information between jurisdictions, and for country-by-country reporting (a recommendation endorsed by the IDC in its recent Tax & Development inquiry). We regard these measures as essential in mobilising more domestic resources for the financing of poverty goals.

8 The role of the private sector and other non-state organisations

8.1 Christian Aid believes that addressing and harnessing the potential of the private sector is crucial. There is potential for the private sector to contribute to job creation, inclusive growth and sustainable use of resources but the post-2015 framework must recognise the private sector as a diverse and heterogeneous actor.

8.2 Christian Aid recommends that the primary focus must be to unlock the potential of micro and small business. Currently 90% of employment in developing countries and 83% in developed countries is created by this sector and thus the impact, and potential impact, on growth, jobs and development is significant and must be harnessed to make post 2015 a success. The catalytic role of micro and small enterprises is only established when a conducive business environment exists. The policies, regulations and frameworks must promote their interests so that potential is harnessed to create jobs and opportunities for poor men and women. It is crucial that the correct structures and future trajectory is established by governments to inform that growth is equitable and sustainable.

8.3 A post-2015 framework must also promote sustainable and responsible business, particularly amongst TNCs/MNCs. The practices by business that are harmful to society and the environment must be challenged and one way of doing this may be through targets that incentivise good practice.

8.4 Greater transparency and accountability of business policy, practice and actions in the short and long-term, will be essential. The post-2015 framework must seek to create solutions and find ways to challenge the abuses that prevail and establish a new positive trajectory where trust and shared values are created between business and society. It is crucial to increase transparency of social, environmental, economic and governance issues so that accountability can be established and a balance of information available for all actors.

8.5 The contribution of civil society, including faith-based organisations, to the continued fight against poverty, will also be significant. Christian Aid partners have been among those working to deliver on the existing MDGs (for example, tackling HIV by increasing access to ARVs) but also campaigning on development issues and holding their governments to account. In the case of tax, Christian Aid has been working with networks such as Tax Justice Network—Africa, who have sought to engage in national level debate around tax policies that will benefit the poor. In order to play this role effectively, civil society needs the political space to play a scrutiny role, and the transparent publication of data and information (which is often lacking in the context of tax). Any post-2015 settlement should include a clear commitment to civil & political rights, and also to transparency and accountability.

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

9.1 The new framework must incentivise immediate action whilst also allowing countries to take a longer term view on issues such as sustainability. Having a longer term horizon, with achievable milestones on the way may be a way to achieve both goals.

10 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?

10.1 A post-2015 framework must include a new focus on sustainability, equality and participatory governance. A universal framework that will drive progress on global governance issues (such as financial regulation) and which will also empower communities at the local and national level to hold their governments to account for national-level poverty reduction and sustainable development is fundamental.

10.2 We believe that a number of principles should underpin every goal and that for a number of areas, there should be a commitment to mainstreaming throughout the framework. This is especially the case for environmental sustainability—there is strong rationale for a headline goal on the environment which will act as a rallying call, but there is also the need to ensure that any goals with natural resource-implications, such as food, water and energy, are framed in a way which is consistent with what we now know about planetary boundaries.11 A more sustainable trajectory is possible and to take just one example, it would actually only require a 1% increase in overall carbon dioxide emissions to give 1.3 billion people access to electricity.12 Coupled with changes in the way in which the richest 20% consume, this is entirely achievable but will require commitment at the highest political level. The UK Prime Minister has talked about a “golden thread” in respect to governance issues, but we would argue that environmental sustainability is the stitch we cannot afford to drop. Without this, the golden thread will be at risk of unravelling.

10.3 Christian Aid therefore believes there would be value in adopting the following approach across a number of goals (such as food, water and energy):

Establishing targets that would be clear about low-carbon development, climate-resilient and resource-efficient pathways (eg universal access to clean energy).

Establishing principles for good, transparent governance of natural resources (eg land).

Establishing targets for richer nations to reduce their environmental footprint in line with the consensus on planetary boundaries.

10.4 Christian Aid would like to see a commitment to resilience and disaster risk reduction, to reduce the impact of disasters on men, women and children, underpinning all of the goals.

10.5 In the area of gender equality, Christian Aid supports the approach articulated by the Gender & Development Network (GADN), which proposes both a stand-alone goal, and the mainstreaming of gender throughout other goals to ensure that women and girls are empowered to access essential services and to fully participate in decision-making processes.13 As already articulated in this submission, we would like there to see targets under any post-2015 goals fit for the task of tackling inequality and power imbalances.

10.6 In terms of other stand-alone goals, there is still more work to be done here and we do not want to pre-empt the outcome of in-country consultations run by both the UN and the Beyond 2015 Participatory Research Group. However, there are a number of interesting proposals that have already been put forward including the CIGI model which has suggested a number of new goals, including one on equitable economic rules.14 Christian Aid could support a goal, along these lines, although it is important to guard against an “MDG8” scenario, where all structural issues are bundled under one broad goal. We do not have a fixed view on how to best to resolve this but it might be worth exploring a number of goals in this area, for example one on financial flows which could set targets for ODA but also domestic resource mobilisation including a commitment to tackle tax-dodging and strengthen national tax systems. Building on recommendations from the recent IDC report on Tax & Development, we would strongly urge the UK Prime Minister to incorporate tax into his “golden thread” alongside the important issues of accountability, transparency and the rule of law etc.

October 2012