International Development CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by WWF-UK

Introduction

1. WWF-UK welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the International Development Committee’s Inquiry into the post 2015 development goals. WWF has extensive experience in climate change, biodiversity and ecosystems, management of natural resources and making the environment work for the poor. WWF-UK is the UK arm of the global WWF Network, one of the largest environmental organisations in the world, with more than 5,000 staff active in over 100 countries. We work in partnership with local communities, civil society organisations, governments, multinational agencies, and the private sector on the issues of freshwater, biodiversity, climate change, forests, marine, sustainable consumption, economics, food, energy and minerals. WWF celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2011, recognising its achievements since 1961 and looking forward to future challenges.

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?

Lessons from the adoption of a global framework for development

2. The MDGs were particularly successful in generating global momentum around international development: the importance of maintaining the “spirit of the MDGs” is often referenced at international discussions on the post-2015 development agenda. Strengths included

having focus which helped establish priorities;

concrete targets against which progress could be measured;

a simple and straightforward system that was easy to understand, explain and monitor. This was particularly important in building public support for international development; and

increased resource flows; between 2000 and 2008, absolute spending on social-sector focused aid doubled, suggesting that the MDG framework galvanized support among the donor-community, while total ODA rose from nearly $50 billion per year in 2000 to $131 billion by 2010.1 ^, 2

3. There are many lessons to be learnt from the experience of having a global development framework and it is important that these are taken into consideration when shaping the successor to the MDGs. In particular, the process of forming the framework is important. It needs to be open, inclusive, participatory and transparent, in order to have legitimacy with governments, civil society and the private sector. The MDGs were created by a relatively limited number of countries that were able to drive the development agenda forward at the start of the millennium. As 2015 approaches, the global landscape has changed significantly; it is much more fragmented, with geopolitical power more diffuse. Multiple stakeholders are engaging with the post-2015 development agenda, meaning there are many different proposals and priorities for new development goals. The High Level Panel of Eminent Persons convened by the UN General Secretary has an important role to play in building consensus and amalgamating the best of the proposals, while prioritising to ensure effective outcomes and raise the level of ambition. This will require the Panel to draw together different strands, demonstrating an effective model of multilateralism to shape the global post-2015 agenda with poverty eradication and sustainable development at its core.3

4. The MDG framework has influenced policy change and development by providing political space and support for programmes which with positive social and environmental outcomes. Programmes undertaken by WWF in Colombia, Philippines and East Africa testify to this and have incorporated stakeholder engagement to ensure positive environmental outcomes.

5. In Colombia, through the MDG Achievement Fund, a programme on ecosystem integration and climate change adaptation has strengthened coordination and integration of environmental issues within the national development agenda, with an emphasis on reducing vulnerability due to environmental degradation and climate change in the poorest and most affected sectors and groups.4 This has in turn impacted on the political priorities of the government, leading to the National Poverty Eradication Strategy, the National Strategy for Integrated Water Resources Management and the Comprehensive National Climate Change Action Plan.

6. In Mozambique, work on mainstreaming the environment and adaptation to climate change through the MDG framework addresses the risks from climate change to poverty reduction efforts in areas of Mozambique. Climate change particularly threatens arid and semi-arid areas, river basins and coastal areas, and the MDG response seeks to ensure environmental issues are incorporated within central and local level plans and programmes. This can help improve the capacity of communities to cope with the changes and to diversify livelihoods options. WWF has promoted initiatives which include natural resource management as well as regulatory frameworks which are democratic, participatory, representative, accountable and inclusive.5

7. In the Philippines, climate change threatens to hamper attainment of the MDGs because of the country’s limited capacity to undertake climate risk-based planning and project implementation. WWF’s Climate Change and Energy Programme focuses on increasing the resilience of vulnerable areas through local stakeholder engagement, capacity-building exercises, public-private cooperation and policy-making that paves the way for the implementation of the country’s National Climate Change Action Plan.6 Working with the Philippine Climate Change Commission, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the National Economic and Development Authority, and other key agencies, WWF is supporting the implementation of adaptation measures on the ground.

The impact of the MDG process on the environmental sector

8. Generally, however, the environment was weakly incorporated within the MDG framework. MDG7 is the only goal which directly refers to environmental sustainability, despite all human development requiring a healthy and functioning environment as its foundation. MDG7 did not have concrete and measurable targets, with the result that sustainable development and protection of biodiversity have made little to no progress throughout the last decade. Targets which had quantifiable measures attached, such as those on access to water and sanitation (7c) and improving living conditions for slum dwellers (7d), were easier to focus on and therefore became dominant.

9. The High Level Panel needs clarity on its approach, clearly articulating whether its focus will follow a relatively narrow and sectoral approach (as in the current MDG framework) or whether it will adopt a broader systemic approach.7 Taking into account the guidance provided by the UN Task Team report “Realizing the Future We Want”,8 the Panel will need to address the challenges presented by unsustainable use of natural resources, global inequality and an inequitable economic system. WWF believes that in order to achieve transformational change, a broader approach, addressing these inter-connected elements of sustainable development together, is essential. While the post-2015 agenda should maintain a focus on human development, it must be recognised that it is often the poorest and most vulnerable who are affected by environmental degradation. Ensuring environmental sustainability is key to long-term development outcomes. Global inequality and unsustainable natural resource use threaten to undermine human development. In order to achieve global development outcomes over the long-term, it is essential to bring environment to the heart of this framing, with each nation accepting their common but differentiated responsibilities to achieve sustainable development.

10. Currently environmental impacts are often overlooked or a low priority, despite growing scientific evidence of the urgency to live within environmental limits. In 2009, the Stockholm Resilience Centre identified that three out of nine planetary boundaries have been breached.9 Planetary boundaries look at earth systems on which we all depend and which provide us with ecosystem goods and services. These include, among others, the climate, the phosphorous and nitrogen cycles, freshwater, land use and biodiversity. It is clear that damage to these fundaments of life threatens human development. The current development paradigm, based on economic growth and unrestrained consumption, leads to further biodiversity loss, climate change, and interruption of the nitrogen cycle and we are now living beyond safe natural resource thresholds. Each year more of the planet’s natural capital is used, leaving a greater deficit to be paid by vulnerable groups now and by generations to come10. This has stark implications for progress towards poverty reduction under the MDGs.

11. The environment has been and remains highly contentious in international politics and development discourse. This is often because of weak governance of natural resources at global, national and local levels, coupled with intense competition for valuable resources in the pursuit of short-term economic growth. The lack of transparency and accountability in governance of resources provides vested interests with the opportunity to have disproportionate influence and benefit. Government and market failures mean that the costs of unsustainable resource use and environmental degradation are not sufficiently factored into prices, policies and investment decisions. Private actors benefit from unsustainable activities, while the costs are borne by society at large and, in particular, poor people and future generations. There is a need to align economic incentives with sustainable development and poverty eradication.

12. The contested nature of rights, use and access of natural resources is seen in both developed and developing countries in relation to land tenure and concessions, mining, forest management, and natural resource management, among others. The pattern of unsustainable environmental management by powerful actors at the expense of poor and disenfranchised peoples and communities was not tackled by the MDG framework, which was symptomatic rather than systemic in its approach. Redefining this approach must be a priority for the political leaders and decision-makers who will decide on the foundations of the successor framework. Equality of governance, rights and democratic participation, and equity of access to, and use of, resources must be at the heart. Fundamentally, the current MDG framework has had limited benefits for the environment and thus for sustainability.

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

13. As the objective of each process is the same—to establish a global over-arching cross-thematic development framework to follow on from the MDGs, the proposals for sustainable development goals (SDGs) being taken forward by the intergovernmental Open Working Group need to be fully integrated with the development agenda defined by the High Level Panel on post-2015 development. At present, allowing both groups to develop proposals in isolation risks divergence or proposals which could undermine or conflict with each other. Government and public support for international processes risks being undermined unless the processes are integrated and streamlined. The UN is prepared for a system-wide approach to development which national governments should be prepared to facilitate. Furthermore, processes that are not coherent and coordinated are more difficult for civil society to input into effectively.

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

14. A global framework will be essential to addressing the global environmental challenges we face on this planet. Whilst social development issues can often be dealt with at the national level, the same is not true of environmental problems. A healthy planet is dependent on global interconnected systems, such as the climate system, the nitrogen and phosphorous cycle, and marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Natural resources, goods and services often transcend national boundaries, and must be managed globally to ensure equitable outcomes for all. Global issues, such as global governance or climate change, need global solutions. Global solutions can only be conceived or achieved if there is support for strong multilateral action.

WWF believes that there is now an opportunity to reflect on the common and dominant practice of development based on the concept of limitless economic growth. The model of limitless growth will result in undesirable environmental outcomes and scarcity of important finite resources as well as negative impacts on quality of life in developed and developing countries. Measuring material living standards as an indicator of quality of life is now regularly being challenged (eg GDP+ at Rio CSD). There is growing understanding that more holistic wellbeing measures do not necessarily rise with economic growth, while rates of depression and social disease may increase. Evidence suggests that shifting attention away from increasing material wealth to the social environment and quality of social relations will be of greater benefit to developed nations, and that equality within country is essential to this.11 ^, 12 ^, 13

15. The universal framework must be based on global principles of universality, inclusivity and equality and should therefore address poverty in all situations. The framework should reflect common responsibilities but allow for differentiated responses and obligations reflecting each country’s particular situation; this will give greater legitimacy to the process and outcomes. This means the framework must be flexible so as to allow each country to define targets which reflect the national context, needs and challenges.

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

16. One of the most frequent criticisms of the MDGs is that the process of establishment did not involve adequate consultation of all key stakeholders. The current UN-led process which includes multiple national and thematic consultations alongside the proposed online “global conversation” appears to remedy this, although we need to be clear about how the various consultations will input to the decision-making process.

17. Any global development framework needs to respond to the experiences and needs of people living in poverty,. Therefore it is fundamental that their voices are heard within the process. We highlight the Beyond 2015 initiative, in collaboration with the Institute of Development Studies, that will capture the priorities of those living in poverty. This must be supported by a meaningful process for civil society engagement which includes the most marginalised groups.

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

18. The target-based approach worked best for economic development and some social development goals. Setting targets and indicators of success meant progress could be tracked and measured. However, environmental goals are usually much harder to quantify and usually operate within a longer timeframe.

The Millennium Development Goal Framework

19. While the environment is an essential underpinning to achieving the MDGs, only MDG7 on environmental sustainability is focused explicitly on the environment. The goal initially had four indicators:

integrating sustainable development into country policies and programmes;

reducing biodiversity loss;

halving the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation; and

improving the lives of slum dwellers.

Additional targets were added in 2002 on: fish stocks; marine networks; renewable energy in the global mix and energy supply to African households; and production and use of chemicals that are harmful to the environment.

20. Under the MDG framework there are few quantitative goals relating to the environment. Many of the targets are yet to be defined or agreed. The result is that the goals are often interpreted as recommendations, compounded by a lack of shared understanding of what sustainable development should be. This results in piece-meal or ambiguous progress at best.

21. Meanwhile, empirical evidence shows that goal-setting can work when clear quantitative targets are set. Historically this has been most effective when dealing with well-defined issues and issues where technologies exist or can be developed to solve environmental problems. Examples of environmental agreements with specific numerical targets that have been both effective and implementable include:

the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA); established in the 1960s it set a target for designated protected areas of 10% total land area. This has now been surpassed with nearly 13% of global land area formally protected; and

the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. This multilateral environmental agreement includes mandatory targets and timeframes within which reductions must be made. The impact has been the reduction of the ozone hole.

22. A major barrier to achieving environmental goals is the lack of sufficient, solid data and monitoring systems to measure progress. It is critical to have baseline information to allow progress towards targets to be tracked. For example, relatively little measurable progress has been made—or can be demonstrated—towards the target from the World Summit on Sustainable Development to “reverse the loss of biodiversity by 2010” since there are insufficient reliable comprehensive data on baseline biodiversity upon which to assess trends and progress.14

23. An important element to take into consideration is the level at which targets are set, and whether they are defined at national or at global level. ODI research on MDGs and post-2015 development frameworks has illustrated some of the problems associated with targets as they stand in the current framework. For example, in order to reach the target of reducing infant mortality rate (IMR) from the period from 1990—2015, Malawi and Vietnam had very different tasks ahead of them. Vietnam reduced its IMR from 56 per 1,000 to 15, thereby meeting the target at the national level, while Malawi, although reducing its IMR from 209 per 1,000 to 111 per 1,000, did not meet the target, despite having made a reduction of 98 deaths per 1000 compared to 41 per 1,000 in Vietnam. There is precedence of a combination of absolute and relative targets being used at the international level.

Financing global goals: are new mechanisms needed?

24. New mechanisms to fund activities designed to achieve global goals are urgently necessary. These should be designed to complement moves to establish a more sustainable and stable world economy, for example through introducing

(i)taxes on fuel used in international aviation and shipping;

(ii)a Financial Transactions Tax;

(iii)money redirected from the phasing out of subsidies for fossil fuels and unsustainable agricultural and fishing practices; and

(iv)payments from countries with high ecological footprints for benefits received from ecosystem services maintained in other countries.

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

25. Development frameworks set out the priorities for society; the private sector has to evolve its responsibility to society in response to international priorities. Increasingly there are private sector initiatives to develop more sustainable businesses and assume greater responsibility for their impacts and for creating positive return to society not just their shareholders.

26. If everyone lived like we do in the UK we would need three planets worth of natural resources to survive. There is gross inequity in consumption of resources around the world. The private sector has a role to play both in the UK, reducing the social and environmental impact of our consumption, and in developing countries to improve global development outcomes. Self interest becomes self preservation when resources in the supply chain become scarce and less secure. A sustainable business recognises its social and environmental impact and mitigates these in the business model.

27. Some examples of where private sector corporations have shown leadership and innovation which could be amplified across development more systematically:

(i)Supply Chain Integrity

28. WWF has worked across a range of supply chains of renewable commodities with major British retailers seeking to transform production (eg timber, tuna, cotton, soy) to be more sustainable thereby improving environmental and social outcomes. See examples in “Better Production for a Living Planet”.15

(ii)Sustainable Investment

29. The private sector needs to be involved in development through sustainable investments in microfinance, adherence to the Equator Principles,16 funding for direct sustainable agriculture ventures, social impact bonds, etc. Big Society Capital17 is a positive example of progressive social investment.

(iii)Corporate Reporting

30. The private sector has a role in improving its corporate reporting standards. Greater transparency of non-financial risks, give shareholders and investors information about corporate sustainability and thus implications for investment. Access to information from corporate reporting frameworks allows greater engagement across the whole supply chain to drive better business strategy, protecting labour and human rights, and mitigating negative environmental impacts. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Coalition18 of investors, NGOs and businesses, convened by Aviva, believe progressive companies understand that long-term value is enhanced by embedding long-term sustainability considerations into their business strategy and by fully disclosing their progress to investors.

(iv)Provision of sustainable energy, food, water, health and education

31. Energy: UK and western businesses have huge opportunities in providing energy access to poorer parts of the world in a way that leapfrogs western-style high-carbon infrastructures. For example, innovative enterprises are arising from the likes of Imperial College in London to provide off-grid renewable energy access to rural communities in Africa.19

32. Food: It is increasingly evident that high-impact foods (fortified foods, high in fat, sugar, and salt) bring great cost to the environment, human health and health services. Exporting western dietary aspirations to developing countries could be devastating to local and international economies. Private sector in developing countries should be promoting healthier, natural foods at an affordable price. Some corporate leaders are already taking greater responsibility for their supply chains. Further improvements need to be made to increase the access smallholders have to markets and to reduce post-harvest loss, moving from reliance solely on large scale producers and suppliers.

33. The food system is global and the private sector’s role in the UK will have an impact in developing countries. Supply chain integrity needs to be brought back into UK through point of sale advertising promoting more sustainable food consumption. Increasingly internalising the true costs of the externalities in supply chains needs to be factored into the market.

34. Water: Much of the beverage industry has woken up to water scarcity and is working with communities on integrated water stewardship. For example, WWF work with Coca Cola and SAB Miller to develop better practice in this field.

35. Health: Unilever and other FMCG companies are supporting hygiene initiatives to prevent the spread of disease in many developing countries. More technological healthcare is also being explored20 to provide people with local/self-diagnosis via “lab-on-a-chip” innovations.

36. Education: Wireless Internet access now connects poorer people to news, information and literature in the support of better governance and development. Wireless technology provides farmers and other small enterprises with rapid access to finance and market information. It also supports people in demanding human rights as we saw with mass mobilisation for the Arab Spring.

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

36. There are different implications for the environment and for development of the 15-year timescale of the MDGs. Whilst development interventions aim to have an impact within the current generation, with a potential aim on improving development opportunities for children, youth, and the following generation, environmental interventions often have a much longer time horizon. Although urgent action is needed now, changing the trajectory of environmental trends, particularly biodiversity loss, climate change, and the nitrogen cycles, will take decades. The phenomenon of “climate lag” means that even if all carbon emissions stopped tomorrow, the balance of the natural system has been altered to the extent that it would take decades to return to equilibrium. The post-2015 development framework must therefore link to the global climate deal planned from the UNFCCC in 2015 by ensuring that climate resilience and low-carbon development pathways are embedded throughout.

37. A long-term framework for action must have regular reviews every two—five years to monitor trends and assess progress. Though a long-term vision and goal is important to provide global consensus and a shared direction, it is also important that the post-2015 development framework is seen as a floor for ambition and does not limit what can be achieved overall.

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?

38. In order to ascertain the utility of the global goals, the following criteria provide useful guidance:

responds to transboundary challenges that can only be addressed through international action;

promotes resilience to climate change and facilitates climate adaptation;

embeds a low- or zero-carbon development pathway;

promotes a model of development based on shared use of natural resources within the context of a finite planet;

based on the principles of equity (of resource-use) and equality (human rights, democratic participation and governance); and

is universally applicable.

39. A progressive post-2015 development framework will respond to the interconnected dimensions of sustainable development; social, environmental, economic and governance. WWF-UK recommends the framing in the UN Task Team report, Realizing the Future we Want, as a strong basis for the deliberations of the IDC.

5 October 2012