International Development CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Tearfund
Executive Summary
1. Tearfund welcomes this opportunity to contribute to the International Development Select Committee inquiry on the post-2015 agenda. Tearfund is a Christian relief and development agency working directly in response to disasters and in partnership with organisations in more than 50 countries, working alongside or through networks of local churches.
2. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are at the heart of our work. Our partners have significant expertise delivering transformational change across all the goals including HIV, water and sanitation, environmental sustainability and food security. We have called for an approach which recognises the interconnectedness of the MDGs and feel that this interconnectedness should also be recognised in the post-2015 agenda.
3. Our written response to the inquiry details Tearfund’s position in regards to process, coverage, financing, content and delivery of the post-2015 framework. In summary our recommendations of what is required are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Question 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
4. The MDGs, targets and indicators provide a political mandate, a common language and a moral framework to mobilise action on eradicating the symptoms of poverty. The simplicity and comprehensive nature of the MDGs was instrumental to securing its global consensus.
5. Achieving this level of agreement and awareness has been valuable, but with less than three years to go, many of the targets are unlikely to be met globally, and all fragile and conflict-affected states have failed to meet a single MDG target.1 Where progress has stalled, the MDGs have not helped to break the political deadlock behind some of the structural causes of poverty and inequality—such as climate change, financial transparency and corruption.
6. The simplicity of the MDGs meant that they focussed more on the symptoms of global poverty while failing to address some of the structural and systemic causes.
7. With the current process leaders seemed tempted to pick out specific areas for support but failed to fully recognise the inter-connectedness of the MDGs. Despite some positive commitments from donor and recipient governments to improve child and maternal health, little attention was paid to sanitation, a target which, at current rates of progress, will not be met in sub-Saharan Africa until the 23rd Century,2 even though diarrhoea is one of the biggest causes of infant mortality.
8. The focus fell too heavily on developing countries to improve without considering the contribution that developed countries institutions and lifestyles made on exacerbating and perpetuating poverty (through trade rules, debt burden, unmet aid promises, a lack of transparency etc) and undermining environmental sustainability.
Question 2: How should the “Sustainable Development Goals” being established following Rio +20 relate to the “Development Goals” being considered by the High-Level Panel?
9. The development goals considered by the High Level Panel must have a vision for a sustainable world at its heart. While a separate process for establishing the SDGs was established at UN Conference in Rio this year, the outcomes of these two processes must lead to one coherent post-2015 framework which addresses equality and sustainability, rather than having two parallel frameworks.
10. The SDGs Working Group, once established, must collaborate with the High Level Panel. Collectively they must:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Question 3: The coverage of future goals: should they be for developing countries only or should progress be monitored in all countries?
11. Tearfund believes that the issues of poverty are interconnected and that future goals must reflect the degree of universality and responsibility for all nations.
12. Coverage of the goals should extend to all national governments who should be accountable for owning and delivering the new framework supported by international bodies. Underneath a set of universal goals should sit national level targets which are context-specific and acknowledge common but differentiated responsibilities in relation to the overarching global framework. For example:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
13. All commitments should be publicised at global and national levels to allow for greater accountability. Meaningful data on the goals and targets gives citizens the opportunity to hold their leaders and national governments to account. An independent level of scrutiny and monitoring both at national and international settings will be required to ensure that reviews are regular, robust and credible.
Question 4: The process: are the right voices being heard? What are the opportunities for and constraints to global consensus?
14. It is important that the voices of all, including poor and marginalised communities are heard. This creates greater ownership, legitimacy and accountability as key stakeholders across the world recognise that they have rights and responsibilities in achieving the goals set.
15. Nonetheless there are inevitable constraints when it comes to making this happen in practice. We acknowledge the work of the UN to promote participation so far and urge them to prioritise the country dialogue processes which are being planned.
16. These consultations must be routinely reviewed to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The UN must invest in building the capacity of the countries that are appointed to hold official consultations so that they are well equipped to ensure all can contribute.
17. The High Level Panel and forthcoming SDG Working Group should also engage with civil society collectives such as Beyond 2015 and, where applicable, national governments should liaise with their respective Beyond 2015 national hubs to facilitate an open communication channel.
18. Tearfund has been working through the Micah Network3 to publicise the UN consultation on the post-2015 agenda to local churches and Christian organisations around the world and will continue to provide regular updates to interested partners.
Question 5: Targets: was the MDG “target-based” approach a success? Should it be retained? How should progress be measured?
19. One of the strengths of the MDG “target-based” approach has been that it provides a universally agreed, time-bound, numerical set of targets. This provided an incentive for collecting and standardising more data on poverty trends, making it easier to assess where progress is and isn’t taking place—although data is still patchy which makes robust monitoring and evaluation difficult.
20. However these targets at times focussed on the broad headlines which mask great inequalities in progress.4 As well as some countries being off track on most targets, we know that in many countries gaps between rich and poor have widened and although some groups have benefited from development, others have been left behind.
21. Within the new framework, national targets should be set for progress amongst specific vulnerable groups as well as overall progress. Data must be disaggregated by gender, age, disability, ethnic group etc to improve evaluation.
22. Existing sectoral mechanisms for collecting data nationally in a way which is easily collated and compared globally to give a broad overview of the dynamics of poverty should continue to be improved and expanded.
23. The Millennium Declaration set out a vision for a fairer future and that the goals were not intended to be individual ends in themselves, but rather as indicative measures to track progress towards this greater end. In the same way, the new framework should set out a vision for a more equal and a sustainable future where absolute poverty is eradicated, and articulate a theory of change as to how progress towards this end will be achieved. This will help to identify the right kind of goals and targets. Progress must be consistent across the goals otherwise any efforts will be reduced. For example great strides made in economic growth are undermined if unsustainable consumption patterns emerge.
Question 6: Financing global goals: are new mechanisms needed?
24. The new framework must go beyond aid to look at all of the resources—both financial and natural—mobilised to achieve the vision to eradicate poverty and ensure sustainable development. These resources require better management by all nations. We propose the following finance mechanisms:
Aid
25. Due to current levels of inequality richer nations must continue to financially assist poorer nations and development aid will be a small but significant part of this. This requires countries like the UK to meet its target of 0.7% GNI on overseas aid which should continue to be scrutinised carefully. Aid remains necessary especially in fragile or conflict affected states or nations that remain trapped in poverty due to the structural inequalities.
Climate finance
26. Through the UNFCCC process, developed nations have committed to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor countries cope with climate change. As climate change is a new and additional problem on top of the underlying poverty that was recognised when the 0.7% commitment was made, this money needs to be additional to aid. Private finance will play some role, particularly in helping emerging economies to pursue green growth opportunities but it is clear that supporting the most vulnerable to adapt will not attract private finance in the same way and will require public financial support.
27. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation released a report5 about innovative financing solutions which could help provide new revenues both for climate finance and for development. Recommendations were made for an international levy on bunker fuels (for shipping and aviation) and for a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT). But political progress on turning these ideas into a reality, and on ensuring that resources are channelled to benefit the poorest, has been slow. This requires more political attention and leadership.
28. One area where we believe progress could be possible in the near future is on the introduction of a levy on global shipping fuel. This could generate $25 billion per year by 2020, $15 billion of which would be returned as rebate to developing countries. A levy on international shipping would be affordable as it marginally increases the cost of imported goods. It would also be fair, as atmosphere industries polluting would be paying an appropriate price and, with a rebate mechanism, the tax would also only be paid by developed countries. The additional money could then be channelled to the Green Climate Fund to support vulnerable communities to tackle the impact of climate change. We are looking from UK political leadership to help drive this forward within the International Maritime Organisation.
Mobilising national resources
29. Other revenue streams are required to make a greater contribution to more equal and sustainable development. For example, in 2008 revenues from oil, gas and mining in Africa were around nine times what the continent received in aid.6 The Gates report called for legislation in G20 countries that would require oil, gas and mining companies to publish payments they make to governments. Transparency will make it easier for communities to hold governments to account on spending. Rules have now been introduced in the US and are currently being discussed in Europe. It is important these are implemented globally, in the G20 and beyond.
30. Other efforts to tackle corruption are also important and the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) provides a comprehensive global legal instrument for tackling corruption. It is estimated7 that $148 billion is lost every year from Africa due to corruption and this can only flourish in an atmosphere of secrecy. This works out at approximately £3,000 per second, which would be enough to ensure that every person around the world has access to clean water and sanitation.8 And tax evasion and tax avoidance practiced by companies and individuals has reduced the amount of money available to governments to invest in poverty reduction. Investment is required in the development and enforcement of appropriate tax laws, particularly for multinational companies.
Question 7: The role of the private sector and other non-state organisations
31. The post-2015 framework offers opportunities for non-state organisations to have a significant role in shaping and delivering the goals if resources and expertise from different actors are combined and used strategically.
32. Within civil society faith-based organisations (FBOs) have a valuable role to play. For example according to the World Bank, faith groups account for half the education and health care provision in Sub Saharan Africa.9
33. FBOs must seek a greater understanding of government, NGOs and donors, to aid dialogue and help establish closer partnership. To support this, governments should foster collaborative relationships with FBOs, recognise their additional capacity and explore ways of providing support for the sector to contribute to the new development agenda.
34. Initiatives where businesses have teamed up with philanthropists, NGOs, donors or governments to tackle complex development problems should be encouraged. The value of cross-sector partnership must continue, recognising that each stakeholder has a valuable expertise or resource to offer.
35. The private sector, as with any other stakeholder (including civil society) must be independently regulated appropriately, comply with the law and be transparent in its operations.
Question 8: Timescale: what period should the new framework cover? Was the 15-year timescale for the MDGs right?
36. Tearfund believes that an overall timescale of 15 years could work well for the next set of goals. Within this period it might be beneficial to include shorter and longer term targets given that some changes could be achieved quicker than others.
Question 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?
37. The new framework must draw on learning from the MDG experience as recommended in the UN System Task Team report “Realising the Future We Want for All”.10 In addition to building on the unfulfilled MDGs Tearfund proposes the following priorities for the new framework:
Inequality
38. Inequality should be mainstreamed across all targets. As stated, for all sector-based targets agreed, progress should be tracked according to particular demographic groups. An explicit aim of the post-2015 framework should be a more equal use of the world’s resources, with “fair-shares” worked out for key areas like carbon emissions, and national level targets set to bring use of key resources in line with these “fair share” targets. In addition, there should be a separate and specific goal on gender equality which goes beyond access to services and tackles equal rights from issues such as employment to political participation.
Environmental sustainability
39. Environmental sustainability needs to be at the very core of the post-2015 agenda. This thematic goal should build on and enhance existing commitments made within the UNFCCC. Within the goal should sit targets for safe and equitable use of energy, water and food which ensure access for those most in need and reduced consumption for those over consuming. The proposed SDG targets on food, water and energy must be integrated or fully aligned with this goal.
40. It is impossible to set targets for growth without linking these strongly to environmental sustainability targets, given that continued growth along the current environmental trajectory will lead to catastrophic climate change and has already passed significant planetary boundaries. The only kind of growth that our planet can now sustain is green growth and therefore, themes of economic growth and the environment need to be linked at this stage to ensure that the post-2015 framework is coherent and logical.
Conflict, fragility and natural disaster resilience
41. No fragile or conflict affected state has met a single MDG target11 so building the capacity of post-conflict countries to achieve any goals must be prioritised. The post-2015 framework must reflect the Peace Building and State Building (PBSB) goals agreed in the New Deal at Busan.12
42. Natural disasters have a huge impact as usually the poorest are most vulnerable to disasters and less able to cope. 90% of natural disasters are caused by climatic events13 which are likely to get more extreme as our climate changes. Increasing poor communities’ resilience to disasters is crucial. The Hyogo Framework has been an important step forward for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). The post-2015 framework should build on the experience of Hyogo and include targets for increased resilience to disasters.
Governance
43. The post-2015 framework requires effective governance in order to deliver development goals, both from a grass-roots and a global perspective. A global goal related to good governance should focus on improving participation, accountability and transparency and a menu of appropriate national-level targets should be found for each.
Health and education
44. The post-2015 framework requires an overarching goal to improve access to public health. Countries should be encouraged to set ambitious targets on areas of national priority and supported to deliver progress across the board. This may differ per country but could include targets on HIV, TB, malaria, diarrhoea as well as non-communicable diseases such as cancer.
45. Finally, education helps citizens to engage in public life and to hold governments to account. The new framework could include an overarching goal on education with national targets set for appropriate progress in either enrolment, completion or attainment.
October 2012
References
1 OECD et al (2011), Conflict, fragility and armed violence are major factors preventing the achievement of the MDGs http :// www . oecd . org / international %20 dialogue /46006119. pdf
2 Frank Rijsberman and Alix Peterson Zwane (2012), Copenhagen Consensus 2012 Sanitation and Water Challenge Paper, http :// sanitationupdates . wordpress . com / tag / millennium - development - goal /
3 Micah Network is a global Christian community of organisations committed to equipping the local church to deliver global change http :// www . micahnetwork . org / mission
4 UN Task System Report (2012), Addressing inequalities: The heart of the post-2015 agenda and the future we want for all http :// www . un . org / millenniumgoals / pdf / Think %20 Pieces /10_ inequalities . pdf
5 The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2011), Innovation with impact: Financing the 21st Century http :// www . thegatesnotes . com / Topics / Development / G 20- Report - Innovation - with - Impact
6 WTO, International Trade Statistics, 2009, http :// www . wto . org / english / res _ e / statis _ e / its 2009_ e / its 09_ merch _ trade _ product _ e . pdf
7 Smith, Pieth and Jorge (2007) The Recovery of Stolen Assets: A Fundamental Principle of the UN Convention Against Corruption, briefing paper
8 World Water Council (2006) http://www.financingwaterforall.org/fileadmin/Financing_water_for_all/Reports/FullTextCover_MDG.pdf
9 Millennium Challenges for Faith and Development: New Partnerships to Reduce Poverty and Strengthen Conservation, speech to the Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington, 30 March 2004
10 UN System Task Team (2012), Realising the Future We Want for All http :// www . undp . org / content / dam / undp / library / Poverty %20 Reduction / Realizing %20 the %20 future %20 we %20 want . pdf
11 OECD et al (2011), Conflict, fragility and armed violence are major factors preventing the achievement of the MDGs http :// www . oecd . org / international %20 dialogue /46006119. pdf
12 International Dialogue on Peace Building and State Building http://www.oecd.org/international%20dialogue/anewdealforengagementinfragilestates.htm
13 USAID http :// transition . usaid . gov / our _ work / cross - cutting _ programs / water / water _ disasters _ climate _ change . html