International Development CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by The Church of England and Public Affairs Council
Summary of Main Points
The MDG process sharpened political attention and public engagement with poverty reduction efforts in a way that few could have predicted and even anticipated;
The post-MDG agenda should not be defined by a group of experts and technocrats working behind closed doors in a way that leaves unchallenged the donor centric model of development;
A consultation process that is both wide and deep opens up the possibility of setting a post-2015 agenda that is genuinely universal in nature and not one that is perceived as limited to low-income countries or to sub-Sahara Africa;
A target based approach post-2015 ought to be retained, but it is important to remember that targets work best when they are inspiring, clear, few in number, ambitious but feasible and above all measurable;
The new framework needs to challenge the existing donor centric model of development by recognising that ODA, while important, is not the only source of external finance and that external finance is not all there is to human development and well-being;
The new time frame needs to provide adequate scope to accomplish the major transformations envisaged, but it should not be stretched such that it diminishes political accountability or public engagement; and
Any new framework should seek to operationalise fully the values and principles enshrined in the Millennium Declaration in a way that recognizes new global challenges and the changes in the geopolitical landscape that have occurred since the Millennium.
About the Mission and Public Affairs Council
1. The Mission and Public Affairs Council (MPAC) is the body responsible for overseeing research and comment on social and political issues on behalf of the Church. The Council comprises a representative group of bishops, clergy and lay people with interest and expertise in the relevant areas, and reports to the General Synod through the Archbishops’ Council.
About this Submission
2. In preparing this submission the MPAC consulted with the Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Church of England dioceses as well as Anglican mission and development agencies. This preparation reflects the fact that the Church of England is part of a world wide Anglican Communion consisting of some 85 million people in over 165 countries. It recognises that in many parts of the world, but in none so much as in conflict-ridden and fragile states, it is the Church that is the sole provider of basic provisions and services.
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?
3. The decision to lift selected targets from the Millennium Declaration and to place them in a free-standing list has proved highly effective in keeping these targets in the limelight for a far longer period of time than other summit declarations. This sharpened political attention and public engagement with poverty reduction efforts in a way that few could have predicted. Today, the MDGs are at the heart of many development countries’ national strategies and provide a framework for donor support. This staying power means they are viewed differently from all other global promises for poverty reduction. For many the MDGs now represent a global agenda for development. For others they amount to the world’s biggest promise—a global agreement to reduce poverty and human deprivation at historically unprecedented rates through collaborative action.
4. From the perspective of the Church of England, the MDGs have provided a broad narrative within which we frame development. This narrative has animated our networks and our relations on development with those around the Anglican Communion. The 2008 Lambeth Conference Walk of Witness, when Bishops and their spouses from around the Anglican Communion marched through Central London, is one such example. On a day-to-day basis our dioceses, networks and mission agencies have used the MDGs to mobilise parishes and clergy around global justice issues. The companion links between our dioceses and other parts of the Anglican Communion have equipped us to better understand the MDGs. The goals have also been taken up with fervor by Church of England schools: the Diocese of Lichfield, through its Board of Education, now has over eighty global school-school links in which the MDGs feature highly. The MDGs have also become a meeting place where faith communities, both here in the UK and further a field, come together to campaign for the global common good and to share best practice.
5. This ever expanding support for the MDGs over the last decade has been instrumental in shaping the development consensus and in providing the political space for governments, not least our own, to take a more progressive stand on development. That there is now cross-party support here in the UK for the 0.7% ODA target is itself a sign of progress. This consensus has served the MDGs well, but at times the resulting debate has focused too heavily on growth, aid and governance to the detriment of other issues. It has encouraged a paternalistic model of development that can disenfranchises and dis-empower communities “in development”. People are not just beneficiaries of development they are agents of their own development.
6. This submission does not attempt a systemic evaluation of the MDGs. We are aware, however, of the emerging body of data listing those countries that are off-track vis-à-vis the global targets and the lack of progress in reaching specific global targets. We recognise the difficulty in assessing whether the progress in development has been the result of the MDGs or other factors. We also note that the general increase in ODA helped to finance broader foreign policy objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan and that current ODA levels still fall short of that which was promised by G8 countries at the 2005 Gleneagles summit. We recognise that the cumulative effect of such analysis invites an overly pessimistic assessment of the MDGs.
7. It is obviously important to reflect on and learn from these studies, but the review process should not become too technocratic such that other views are not heard. Archbishop Albert Chama of Central Africa notes: “The success of the MDG project is best witnessed through the eyes of a woman who can finally escape an abusive relationship because through her involvement in a microfinance project she can provide for herself and her children. It can be viewed also through the eyes of an orphaned child, who does not have to go to bed hungry and who can also attend school regularly.” Success is about individual lives being transformed. The impact of the MDGs cannot be captured by statistical trends alone. Context is everything.
The process: are the right voices being heard? What are the opportunities for and constraints to global consensus?
8. The post-MDG agenda should not be defined by a group of experts and technocrats working behind closed doors in a way that leaves unchallenged the donor centric model of development. The High Level Panel of Eminent Persons and the UN Task Team must consult widely in order to collect and collate ideas from a broad range of citizens and stakeholders. If, as we believe, the MDGs have influenced local priority setting, shaped national and sub-national budgets and enhanced community participation, then it is important that these perspectives and voices are drawn into the review process. It might be naïve to expect that a practical proposal from a faith based NGO in rural Kenya receives as much attention as an idea from the Gates Foundation, but steps need to be taken to ensure that the voices and expertise of those directly affected by poverty and injustice are heard and valued. As a Church we are committed to facilitating this process. New technologies and participative methods present creative opportunities for more inclusive post-2015 planning. These methods should be embraced.
The coverage of future goals: should they be for developing countries only or should progress be monitored in all countries?
9. A consultation process that is both wide and deep opens up the possibility of setting a post-2015 agenda that is genuinely universal in nature and not one that is perceived as limited to low-income countries or to sub-Sahara Africa. If development is about providing human flourishing for all citizens, then no country has achieved that objective. All countries are in one way or another “in development” and as the impact of the financial crisis illustrates development is not always one-directional. Wherever possible post-2015 goals and targets that have universal relevance—nutrition, gender equality, youth unemployment and climate change—should be formulated as such. This would ensure that connections are made with the Rio+20 agenda for sustainable, equitable and inclusive development.
Targets: was the MDG “target-based” approach a success? Should it be retained? How should progress be measured?
10. The MDGs show that a set of clear and measurable targets can be a driver of transformative change. The world will not achieve all the MDGs, but these global targets have nonetheless galvanized political commitment as never before. A target based approach post-2015 ought therefore to be retained, but it is important to remember that targets work best when they are inspiring, clear, few in number, ambitious but feasible and above all measurable.
11. Targets work when the subject in question can be measured with a degree of objectivity. This has not always been the case with some MDGs. The lack of a universally accepted definition of “poverty” means it is difficult to know with any degree of precision how many people have been lifted out of poverty. Similar problems arise when it comes to ascertaining how many people have gained access to “safe water” or how many “slum dwellers” have had their lives improved. If an evidence based approach is to be pursued post-2015 then it needs to develop reliable indicators for desirable targets. The usefulness of a results based approach to development critically depends on the measurability of results.
12. The MDGs have always been a challenge but they were never formulated as merely aspirational. They were drawn up on the basis of global trends observed in the 1970s and 1980s. As a Church we are committed to the ending of all poverty and to ensuring that everyone can live life in all its fullness. We have supported the MDGs on the grounds that they represent a numerical statement of what is feasible at the global level. If a target based approach is used post-2015 then it needs to avoid developing an unwieldy list of lofty pledges that while impressively ambitious fails to mobilise the constituencies necessary to achieve the transformative change. Our partners from around the Anglican Communion repeatedly tell us that they hope the post-2015 targets will be challenging but realistic.
13. We have always understood the MDGs to be global targets rather than national or regional targets. This distinction has at times been lost in the public’s understanding of the MDGs. Any post-2015 framework must make clear that global targets need to be adapted to the specific realities of each country. This is crucial to securing the necessary political commitment and broad public support for achieving the goals, but such a process should only be undertaken once the new global targets have been agreed. The MDGs post-2015 must provide a framework for countries to rethink development in their national context in a way that provides for the well-being and dignity of all citizens.
14. The MDGs helpfully left open the means by which the goals and targets ought to be achieved. Setting aside the evident difficulties that would be faced if world leaders were ever asked to agree a particular strategy for achieving human well-being, the MDG methodology has encouraged more collaborative action by allowing all parties to bring to the table that which they can offer.
15. Our own experience of responding lovingly to human need is that there are no techno-fixes, no standard recipe of success and that effective action plans are always context specific and best drawn up in consultation with the relevant local partners. This is not to say that any new framework should omit a statement of general principles for sustainable, equitable and inclusive development. Such statements would be helpful so long as they served as guiding principles. This list could usefully include reference to the appropriate role of economic growth, the place of external finance, employment creation, the role of the state and the role of civil society including faith communities.
16. The MDGs work well because they do not try to cover every major dimension of human existence. We have always seen the targets as illustrative of all dimensions of human development even those omitted, but we are conscious that others are more critical of the MDGs for excluding specific goals and targets. Despite this criticism, the post-2015 architects should follow the existing MDG model and avoid compiling an unfocused and interminable wish list that, while comprehensive, fails to focus political attention or inspire the wider public.
Financing global goals: are new mechanisms needed?
17. The impact of the economic downturn on all Millennium Development Goals has been far reaching. Public, and in turn political, support to fund development is wavering in some OECD countries, even, we note, here in the UK, while the substantial deceleration in economic growth in developing countries has affected the fiscal space available for investing in the MDGs.
18. The challenge here is for civil society to press governments to maintain the political will to fund ODA, even though aid cannot solve all the problems and ODA is not the only external source of finance. For many countries remittances from migrants offer a much larger and more stable source of external financing. Nor should it be assumed that external aid is all there is to development—access to markets and technology, especially green technology—is arguably more important in a country’s strategy for development than any external financial assistance.
19. The growing strength of middle income and emerging economies increases the levels of ODA available globally. It is noteworthy that China and India dedicate a larger share of their aid to infrastructure, transport, mining and other productive sectors. These flows are still smaller than the flows from traditional donors, but they are increasing faster than traditional ODA. We suspect that over time this trend will challenge the current focus of ODA on social development issues.
20. These same countries now have the resources to finance their own national development strategies in a way that tackles unacceptably high levels of inequality. This change gives emerging economies much more control over how to invest in social development, breaking the hegemony of the traditional donor. It also strengthens the links between economic and social development—between basic services and taxation.
21. Taken together this suggests that for most of the worlds poor, especially the 70% who live in middle income countries, ODA in the traditional sense may over time become less relevant. Development goals in a post-2015 framework need to reflect this reality and be formulated in such a way that the poor in middle income countries benefit from development in their countries.
Timescale: what period should the new framework cover? Was the 15-year timescale for the MDGs right?
22. Taking 1990 as its base line, the architects of the MDG-period equated the MDG-period with that of a generation—ie 25 years. The new time frame needs to be adequate to accomplish the transformations envisaged, but it should not be stretched such that it diminishes political accountability or public engagement. If there are moves for an extended timeframe then any long term targets need to be accompanied with clear intermediate targets.
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?
23. The MDGs were framed by the Millennium Declaration—a declaration that captures an array of challenges and a particular understanding of development dominant during the 1990s. No comparable document exists today. The world has changed arguably too much for the Millennium Declaration to serve as the basis for addressing the challenges that face us beyond 2015. The rise of the South, population dynamics, growing inequalities within countries and climate change are among the major changes in the global context that cannot be ignored. The values and principles embedded in the Declaration are however timeless. Perhaps, it is these values and principles rather than any specific goal that needs to be carried over and more fully operationalised to meet the new challenges.
24. This submission makes no recommendations as to what global goals should replace the MDGs other than to stress that any goals should emerge from a participatory, inclusive and bottom-up process. We obviously have particular issues and priorities close to our heart that we would like reflected in a post-2015 agenda. That is only natural. But we think all parties ought to step back from selling a particular agenda or prescriptive view of human development to focusing instead on ensuring that the concerns of all are heard and discussed.
25. The process is in many ways as important as the outcome. If future consultations take the principles and values of the Millennium Declaration as their starting point, and if the post-2015 architects keep to the MDG methodology (clarity, conciseness and measurability), but with lessons obviously learnt, then it ought to be possible to secure a renewed vision of global development rather than simply a list of good intentions. For our part we are committed to working with our partners from all around the Anglican Communion to ensure that their voices are heard fully and directly in the consultation process
October 2012