International Development CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Oxfam GB

Oxfam GB welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Committee’s inquiry on the post-2015 development goals. Oxfam works with partners around the world to find lasting solutions to poverty and injustice. Currently, we work in more than 70 countries and respond to an average of 30 emergency situations each year. Oxfam believes that people are entitled to five fundamental rights: a sustainable livelihood; basic social services; life and security; to be heard; and equity. We work to support people in realising these rights and fight poverty and suffering through campaigning, long-term development work, and emergency response. Oxfam GB is a member of Oxfam International, a confederation of 15 Oxfam affiliates around the world. Oxfam is a member of BOND Beyond 2015 UK and supports the evidence that has been submitted.

Summary

1. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have been important for the poverty-reduction agenda, particularly as a tool for donor or developing country governments to express political commitments, make aid efforts more joined-up, advocate for increased financing, communicate to publics and be held accountable by civil society.

2. Key weaknesses that should be addressed in a post-2015 framework include the insufficient national ownership by Southern governments (particularly in the process for defining goals) and the lack of focus on the environment, inequality and armed conflict/violence.

3. The vision of a post 2015 framework should be for one set of global goals with commitments for developed and developing countries, which aim to re-orientate economic development toward ending poverty and inequality, and fulfilling human rights, while remaining within natural resource boundaries. Building political consensus on this overarching vision should be the priority purpose of the High Level Panel on post 2015.

4. The persistence of two parallel tracks on the MDGs and SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) creates confusion and duplication of efforts. This should be resolved by ensuring “environment” (associated with the SDGs) is core to the High Level Panel’s work and by joining the two tracks into one process by the UN General Assembly in 2013 at the latest.

5. The current process is policy-heavy and focused on expert insiders, particularly the northern donor community and UN institutions. There is an urgent need for funding civil society engagement in the South—specifically including women’s groups—in order to build buy-in and ownership, and reflect the full range of voices from those societies.

6. New financial resources will be needed to deliver a post 2015 agenda. This should come through donors meeting their 0.7% aid commitments and by tax reforms which raise resources and prevent losses, including through a Financial Transacton Tax, ending tax haven secrecy, increasing transparency in corporate reporting of profits and taxes, and promoting progressive taxation to fund national budgets.

7. The immediate priority should be to build consensus on the purpose and the vision of any post 2015 goals (see above). Beyond this, key building blocks should include:

Having a limited number of goals in order to focus action.

Raising ambition on existing MDG by setting “zero” targets (eg zero hunger).

Shaping thematic goals and targets around cross-cutting areas of:

ending deprivation and achieving economic well-being;

achieving social equity; and

respecting natural resource thresholds and increasing resource efficiency.

A priority focus on gender equality, including by exploring having a specific goal on gender, in addition to mainstreaming gender equality across the targets and indicators of other goals. Other issues requiring particular attention include resilience to disasters and shocks, and the reduction of armed conflict/violence.

A framework which combines global goals which all countries are committed to achieving, with nationally specific targets differentiated by country context and need.

Setting global environmental targets in line with what scientific assessments show is needed to stay within critical natural resource thresholds, regionally and globally, and thereby maintain long-term economic development and end poverty.

Holding governments accountable for their responsibility to protect and fulfil the rights of their citizens in order to live dignified lives, but also calling powerful public institutions and the private sector to fulfill their duty to respect human rights.

For business, this means improving their due diligence processes, transparency and reporting so that they avoid doing harm, and become more accountable for both the positive and negative development impacts of their activities.

Setting a time period for new goals of ten years, or no greater than two electoral cycles, to ensure urgent action and accountability.

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

8. Oxfam believes the MDGs remain a crucial framework for driving poverty reduction. Their agreement in 2000 was a pivotal moment in the fight against poverty, and it is incumbent on governments around the world to stand by the political commitment they demonstrated in signing up to the goals. Delivering on all the MDGs remains the highest priority through 2015.

9. One of the most positive aspects of the MDG approach is that the framework is based on a set of concrete goals and predominantly quantifiable targets that were relatively simple and straightforward to understand, explain and monitor progress. This has enabled governments and civil society organisations to advocate for donor finance and support to achieve those goals, and communicate more easily to their publics about poverty and development.

10. Many governments have adopted MDG language and many have increased social spending over recent years. According to one UNDP study of 30 countries, 10 had added or modified goals. Such steps imply at least a measure of local ownership of the MDGs among a wide variety of countries.1

11. At the same time, the content of the MDG framework could and should have been stronger. The MDGs are limited to only halving extreme poverty, and they were agreed on the basis that they were achievable and the minimum standard for progress. The MDGs are also weak because they fail to address inequality and exclusion, environmental sustainability, and issues associated with violence and conflict.2 With more than half of the world’s poorest people living in conflict-affected and fragile states, conflict prevention/resolution and governance are vital to achieving the poverty agenda of the MDGs, as is directing and spending aid in a relevant way.

12. Moreover, the process for formulating the MDGs was not participatory. It was driven by donor governments. Developing country governments and national parliaments were not closely involved, neither were interested citizens. The lack of citizen participation in the development of the MDGs weakened the on-going pressure in developing countries to deliver on their targets.

13. It is critical to build collective understanding on how an MDG-style model of voluntary goals and targets can lead to direct benefits for people living in poverty. This can help identify what the shape and content of goals should be. With the right political will, resources and ambition, a renewed set of global goals could assist in:

Defining a common vision and set of priorities for the international community (UN, national governments, stakeholders), which promotes greater focus and coherence.

Influencing decision-making at the national level as countries develop their own goals, policies or programmes, or via shifts in intangible norms (eg women’s rights) which lead to longer-term changes in laws, practices and behaviours.

Increasing or channelling finance flows into specific areas.

Facilitating dialogue and increasing accountability in policy implementation—for instance, between states and intergovernmental bodies, states and their citizens, aid donors and recipients, and citizens and socially responsible businesses.

Increasing the quality and collection of data, which can inform policy-making, assist accountability and be a tool for peer review (eg global league tables).

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

14. Oxfam believes there should be a single set of global development goals—relevant to all countries—for the post-2015 period which aims to re-orient economic priorities towards a new prosperity for all that respects critical global and regional natural resource boundaries. This would bring together into one framework the poverty agenda of the MDGs with the sustainable development agenda of the SDGs. There should be one intergovernmental process to deliver this. As such, the current situation of two overlapping but distinct tracks is creating confusion, duplication and is a burden on governments and civil society. It also creates a risk of separating the poverty and environment agendas, when the two are inextricably linked, particularly as the natural resource consumption of the richest undermines the development prospects of the poorest people.

15. Practical steps that could help overcome the challenge of two parallel tracks include: ensuring that key contributions of the SDG discussions at Rio (environmental focus, global goals) are supported by the High-Level Panel; getting agreement on a single track to start no later that the UN General Assembly/MDG review Summit in 2013 (when the High Level Panel findings should be presented and a possible mid-way point for the SDG open working group); and adopting the more neutral language of “global goals” or “global development goals”, rather than the persistence of “MDG/SDG” labels which create silos.

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

16. The goals should be for all countries, developed and developing. This recognises the universality of the problems: human rights, poverty and inequality are also challenges in developed countries; and many of the drivers of environmental stress felt in poor countries and communities, such as climate change, emanate from the actions of rich countries and elites.

17. Universal goals will require careful crafting and consensus-building to ensure that they foster joint responsibility by governments, are relevant to all countries but allow varying commitments at the national level according to need, context and responsibility (“common” but differentiated responsibility) and prevent international “leakage” of social or environmental consequences.

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

18. Much of the debate around the post 2015 goals has been highly policy heavy, and overly geared towards engagement with the UN process and a policy elite of development insiders. The process has also tended to understate the importance of public engagement as a driver for the outcomes sought from this process. There is a need for a far more diverse coalition for change to achieve global influence—of women’s rights, human rights and other movements, also at continental level; and a broadly shared understanding of the opportunities, priorities and plans. Full and proper engagement of developing country governments and civil society in the developing countries is absolutely critical to the legitimacy and success of any future framework. The poorest countries need to have particular weight in designing the goals. Without this, the prospects for real change on the ground will be dramatically weakened. The UN donors, and governments needs to provide space and critically also funding for autonomous action by civil society.

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

19. The positive aspects of the primarily specific, measurable and time-bound goals, targets and indicators of the current MDG framework need to be retained. In addition to global goals, every country should make specific national commitments on how they will deliver these (for instance, by meeting 0.7% aid commitments).

20. Targets and commitments need to be linked to a far more robust accountability framework. One of the challenges to MDG delivery has been the lack of global or national mechanisms for scrutiny or leverage to ensure governments meet the commitments they signed up to. Options to address this would include the introduction of annual reporting by the UN on progress, peer-to-peer country review (with use of improved data for comparison) and reporting to national parliaments.

Financing global goals: are new mechanisms needed?

21. Financing global goals will require donors to meet existing, long-standing promises and for all countries to agree new financial mechanisms. In 2005, the G8 promised a $50 billion increase in ODA by 2010. By 2010, DAC donors had delivered $20 billion below that target. In 2011, aid fell by 2.7%—the first fall since 1997. In 2000, world leaders made a promise to the world’s poorest people in the name of the MDGs. Today, the MDGs and the financing of them remain are wildly off-track. This is an unprecedented breach of faith. Given the UK’s own commitment in this area, it should use its leadership role to press other donors to deliver on their 0.7% (GNI) ODA commitment.

22. The best method to raise new financial resources is through a Financial Transaction Tax (which could raise as much as $400 billion annually), with a commitment that half of the revenue will go to climate change and development, and a mechanism for raising revenues linked to emissions in the shipping sector.

23. Support for raising more revenue from tax and domestic resources is also vital to support poor countries in recouping money that they can channel to development. Secrecy jurisdictions (tax havens) that allow companies and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of taxation must be ended. This specifically means governments supporting measures such as automatic multilateral exchange of fiscal information, and country by country reporting for multinationals to guarantee more transparency on profits and taxes.

24. In any country where there is poverty and inequality, governments should ensure that they operate progressive tax policy that builds fairer and safer societies, and that can be invested into public services and other priority areas crucial to ending poverty. It is crucial that citizens have access to adequate information about public finances, taxation and international donor funding, and that there is political space and capacity at national and international levels to enable citizens and civil society organizations to use financial information to influence policies in the interests of people in poverty.

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

25. Beyond a reference to the need for partnership with the private sector as an important element in social and economic development in MDG 8, there was relatively little consideration of the role of business when the MDGs were originally conceived. In 2008, the MDGs Business Call to Action (BCtA) was launched with the objective of galvanising business commitments and the development of inclusive business models with the potential to deliver positive commercial and development impacts. The BCtA provoked some new and expanded initiatives and learning about how to measure business impacts on development.

26. Encouraging business to understand and address its impacts (positive or negative) on social and environmental development remains crucial for the achievement of the MDGs and whatever succeeds them post-2015. The private sector (from the largest multinational company to the smallest micro-enterprise) will play a central role in driving economic growth that will in turn create jobs and livelihood opportunities; the nature of private sector investment, and the approach to doing business, will determine who benefits from that growth and what opportunities it provides for people to work their way out of poverty.

27. Of overarching importance for post-2015, therefore, is the need for governments to establish and uphold a business regulatory framework that ensures respect for human rights and the natural environment, and that encourages and incentivises companies to maximise their potential to contribute to poverty reduction and sustainable development. The private sector cannot and should not substitute for the role of governments in investing in the provision of essential services (health, water and education) and other areas (such as agricultural extension, access to basic energy) where markets will not reach.

28. A key issue affecting governments’ ability to deliver the public services—health, education, water—so necessary to alleviate poverty is access to financial resources. These resources should in large part derive from taxes, but it has been estimated that revenues forgone by poorer countries due to corporate tax avoidance and evasion amount to between USD 100 billion to USD 160 billion.3 This is equivalent to the estimated shortfall in development finance needed to achieve the MDGs.

29. A post-2015 framework may provide a useful frame of reference to guide business’ understanding of where and how their business activities offer risks and opportunities in contributing to development. However, it is inappropriate and unrealistic to propose the establishment of business-specific objectives as part of the post-2015 agenda. The primary responsibility must remain with national governments, accountable to their citizens, including the responsibility to hold the private sector to account for its performance.

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

30. To help ensure prompt action and accountability, any global goals agreeds should not span a time period greater than two electoral cycles or 10 years, with comprehensive monitoring of progress every five years. A 10 year horizon reflects the ambition required for a visionary framework, the urgency of action needed to address poverty and ecological stresses, and will ensure influence over the short-term horizons embedded in political and investment cycles.

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?

31. A post-2015 framework depends on three key factors i) generating the political will to adopt and deliver an ambitious set of global goals which aim to end poverty and protect human rights, whilst remaining within critical natural resource thresholds ii) generate the requisite level of finance to help achieve those goals; and iii) agreeing a robust enough accountability framework to ensure stakeholders make good on their promises.

32. As stated above, we need to finish the job of achieving the MDGs (global poverty, infant and child mortality, child literacy rates etc)—and then build on them by going to the highest level of ambition. In this context, discussions of moving from proportional to “zero” goals—for instance to end extreme poverty not simply halve the proportion—represents the scale of ambition needed. The Secretary General’s “Zero Hunger” challenge launched at Rio is a helpful model also because of its vision and holistic approach to the economic, equity and environmental aspects of food system reform.4

33. Oxfam believes that other key criteria for a new set of goals are that they:

Contain a limited number of headline goals, such as the eight goals approach of the MDGs. This will help deliver more concerted action than a longer list.

Further the universal realisation of human, political, economic and social rights necessary for the sustained reduction of poverty and exclusion. This requires integration of essential services such as health, education, water and sanitation, reduction of disaster impacts among others, as well as social protection, decent jobs, and a reversal of the trend towards greater income inequality.

Underline the responsibility of the state, as well as investing in the state’s capacity, to meet these rights. This includes specifically increasing progressive taxation to fund state delivery and oversight of essential public services that also fight poverty and inequality, and a redistributive agenda to create fairer societies.

Ensure that economic development respects critical natural resource boundaries at the relevant scale. In high-income countries, this requires absolute de-coupling of GDP growth from natural resource use, absolute reductions in global natural resource use in critical areas (such as greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity and natural habitats loss and others)—all while ensuring equitable distribution of resource use and risk between and within countries, and expanded access to and improvement management of natural resources for people living in poverty.

Acknowledge that gender inequality is a root cause of poverty and risk, and must be addressed by elevating women’s voice and agency in addition to meeting needs. The new framework should ensure gender justice is integrated into all goals, targets and indicatorsas relevant, but also has a specific goal to promote gender equality. To do this it should use a rights-based approach and build on women’s rights instuments.

Build the resilience of poor and vulnerable people to safeguard their lives and livelihoods in the face of shocks, stresses and uncertainties.

Protect human security and development efforts by addressing regional and global factors, and key drivers of violent and armed conflict, such as irresponsible arms transfers and excessive military spending.

Reinforce inclusive governance, transparency, accountability, and citizen participation.

10 October 2012