제4회 서울시민사회포럼(SCSF)
Post-2015 개발프레임워크에서의 효과적인 개발협력을 위한 포용적이고 공평한 파트너쉽
일시 : 2013년 10월 7일(월) 14:00~18:00 장소 : 환경재단 레이첼 카슨 홀
제 4회 서울시민사회포럼
Ⅰ. 프로그램 Program
제 4회 서울시민사회포럼
The 4th Seoul Civil Society Forum (SCSF)
Inclusive and Equitable Partnerships for Effective Development Cooperation in the Post-2015 agenda framework.
2-6 pm on 7 October 2013, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Concept Note & Guidelines (version 5, 26 September 2013)
1. The 4th Seoul Civil Society Forum (SCSF) is an annual international conference on emerging trends and issues related to international development cooperation which is a joint initiative of KoFID 1, KCOC 2 in cooperation with KAIDEC 3 with the support of KOICA. 4 2. It is to take place at Rachel Carson Hall, Green Asia Foundation in Seoul, Korea from 2 to 6 pm on Monday of 7 October 2013.
3. The Forum, under the theme “Inclusive and Equitable Partnerships for Effective Development Cooperation in the Post-2015 agenda framework�, is expected to discuss multiple opportunities and challenges from international political processes which are UN Post-2015 Development Agenda / Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Busan Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC). 4. The proposed theme implies that CSOs are challenged to building more inclusive and equitable partnerships with governments, international organizations, parliamentarians, local governments and the private sector to tackle poverty, exclusion and inequality in line with international standards such as BPEDC in the context of Post-2015 development agenda. 1
Korea Civil Society Forum on International Development Cooperation (KoFID) www.kofid.org 2 Korea NGO Council for Overseas Development Cooperation (KCOC) www.ngokcoc.or.kr 3 Korea Association of International Development Cooperation (KAIDEC) www.kaidec.org 4 Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) www.koica.go.kr
5. Two prominent international civil society experts, Jeffery Huffines, CIVICUS Representative at UN in New York and Richard Ssewakiryanga, Co-chair of CPDE 5, Uganda National NGO Forum will address key emerging challenges and issues related to the Post-2015 agenda framework and Post-Busan GPEDC. 6. Several experts from CSOs and stakeholder groups in Korea will be invited to roundtable discussion to discuss inter-linkages of those processes in the context of the MDGs acceleration and Post-2015 development agenda based on their own expertise and experiences. 7. The Forum is a follow-up to the three previous meetings, namely the 1st Seoul Civil Society Forum on Aid and Development Effectiveness (Seoul, 1-2 Sept. 2011), the 2nd SCSF on Busan Partnership (Busan, 2-3 February 2012) and the 3rd SCSF on Effective implementation of Busan Partnership in Northeast Asia (Seoul, 21 September 2012) which were Korean CSOs’ continued efforts to promote effective development cooperation among CSOs in Asia and beyond. 8. The Forum is taking place in conjunction with the Seoul Post 2015 Conference (7 October 2013) hosted by the UNDP and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) and KOICA International ODA Conference (8 October 2013). Co-hosting organizations
9. KoFID was created in September 2010 as a national umbrella for policy advocacy and engagement with government and for international networking among CSOs in Korea engaged in aid and development effectiveness issues. It was a member of BetterAid Coordinating Group (BACG) and the Global Facilitating Group of Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness and is now serving a role as a North Asian focal point of CPDE after the two platforms got combined in Dec. 2012. It also served as the host of the Global Civil Society Forum (BCSF) in Busan on 26-28 Nov. 2011 prior to the 4th OECD HLF-4 (Busan, 29 Nov. to 1 Dec. 2011). It is composed of 23 individual CSOs and networks including KCOC. 10. KCOC (Korea NGO Council for Overseas Development Cooperation) was established in 1999 as a national platform among CSOs engaged mainly in service delivery in developing countries. As of August 2013, it consists of more than 105 CSOs. KCOC works to promote information sharing among member organizations and facilitate capacity-building and policy advocacy.
5
CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) http://cso-effectiveness.org/
The 4th Seoul Civil Society Forum (SCSF) Seoul, Korea / 7 October (Monday) 2013
Program Structure and Agenda
13:30-14:00
14:00-14:30
Registration Opening Session Welcoming Remarks: Lee Jae-Hoon, Jeong Hyun-Baek(Co-representative of KoFID) Introduction of program schedule and participants Introduction of program schedule and participants Session 1 : Inclusive and Equitable Partnerships for Effective Development Cooperation in the Post-2015 agenda framework. Moderator : Mr. Anselmo Lee, KoFID Steering Committee / KCOC Policy Center
14:30-15:30
15:30-16:00
16:00-17:30
17:30-18:00
Presentations: Session 1 : CSO Engagement with the Post-2015 development agenda process with focus on Open-ended Working Group(OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs) Agenda and UN General Assembly - Jeffery Huffines, CIVICUS Representative at UN in New York Session 2 : CSO Engagement with the Post-Busan Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation - Richard Ssewakiryanga, Co-chair of CPDE, Uganda National NGO Forum, Group Photo and Break Session 2 : Panel Discussion Panelists : Nam Boo-Won, Chair of Steering Committee of KoFID) Lim sojin, ODA Research Team, KOICA Nam Sang-Eun, Advocacy Team, World Vision-Korea Cho Young-sook, Chair of International Solidarity Center, Korean Women's Association United (KWAU) Q & A and General Discussion Conclusion and Closing remarks
발제자 및 토론자 소개 Speakers and Panel Profile
Jeffery Huffines
Jeffery Huffines joined CIVICUS in April 2009 to serve as Main Representative at United Nations Headquarters in New York. Based in Johannesburg, South Africa, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, is an international alliance working with organizations and individuals in over 100 countries to strengthen citizen action and civil society throughout the world. Mr. Huffines has served as Rio+20 NGO Major Group Organizing Partner since 2011 responsible for guiding multi-stakeholder engagement of NGOs in sustainable development activities at the UN. He also serves on the UN Post 2015 Strategic Outreach Planning Group and Beyond 2015/GCAP UN Working Group in New York and represents CIVICUS on the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness
Jeffery Huffines 는 2009년 4월부터 CIVICUS 뉴욕 본부 대표를 지내고 있다. 남아프리카 요하네스버그에 본부를 두고있는 CIVICUS: 시민참여세계연대는100개 이상의 국가에 있는 단체, 개인 회원으로 구성되어 있으며 국제적 차원에서 시민사회와 시민의 참여를 촉진하는 국제적 CSO이다. Jeffery는 2011년부터 Rio+20 NGO Major Group Organizing Partner로써 UN 에서 지속가능한개발을 위한 다양한 이해관계자들의 NGO 참여활동을 이끌고 있다. 그 외에도 UN Post 2015 Strategic Outreach Planning Group과 뉴욕의 Beyond 2015/GCAP UN Working Group 활동에 참여하고 있으며 CIVICUS를 대표하여 CPDE(CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness)에 참여하고 있다.
기타 약력사항 1996년부터 뉴욕에서 활동 2007-2011
NGO/DPI 이사회 의장
The Faith and Ethics Network for the International Criminal Court (FENICC)
공동의장
The American NGO Coalition for the International Criminal Court (AMICC) 상임고문위원 The UN Association/USA’s New York Council of Organizations 의장 The Committee of Religious NGOs at the United Nations 회장 The Tripartite Forum on International Cooperation for Peace 공동창립자 The NY NGO Network on the 2005 Millennium Summit 의장 The US Conference of Religions for Peace The U.S. Baha'i Community UN 대표 The Center for Global Affairs, New York University 겸임교수
Richard Ssewakiryanga Richard Ssewakiryanga is currently the Executive Director of the Uganda National NGO Forum (UNNGOF). This is a platform organization of over 400 civil society organizations in Uganda. Prior to joining the UNNGOF, he was the Team Leader of the Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Process (UPPAP) at the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. He was also part of the team of technical persons that spearheaded the revision of the Poverty Eradication Action Plan in 2001 and 2003. He is also a social development consultant and researcher and is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Basic Research in Kampala, where he has published on various social economic development topics including critical gender studies, popular and urban culture. Previously he worked as a Policy and Advocacy Officer for OXFAM GB in Uganda. He currently holds several positions of responsibility as the Chairperson for the Uganda Land Alliance (a CSO advocacy network on land), the President of the East African Civil Society Forum, a member of the African Peer Review Mechanism Governing Council and a Co Chair of the Civil CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) that engages with the OECD-DAC in Paris on issues on making aid work for the poor. He holds post graduate training in the fields of gender and anthropology and development studies.
Richard Ssewakiryanga는 우간다의 400개 이상의 시민사회단체 협의체인 Uganda National NGO Forum(UNNGOF) 상임이사이다. 이사로 재임하기 전에는 우간다 재정부의 Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Process (UPPAP) 경제 발전 및 계획 팀장을 지냈으며, 2001-2003년에는 빈곤퇴치행동계획을 위해 구성된 팀의 일원으로 활동하기도 했다. 이 외 에도 그는 사회 개발 컨설턴트, 연구원을 지냈으며, 성 평등문제, 대중, 농촌 문화를 아우르 는 다양한 사회경제 발전 모델에 대해 연구하는 캄팔라의 Center for Basic Research 선임 연구원으로 활동했다. OXFAM 우간다의 정책옹호담당자를 지내기도 했으며, The Uganda Land Alliance 의장, The East African Civil Society Forum 회장, The African Peer Review Mechanism
Governing
Council
의원,
OECD-DAC
와
연계된
CSO
Partnership
for
Development Effectiveness (CPDE) 의 공동의장을 역임하고 있다. 젠더 연구와 인류학, 개발 학 분야의 석사 후 과정 연구 교육을 이수하였다.
CIVICUS 및 CPDE 소개
CIVICUS : World Alliance for Citizen Participation CIVICUS는 시민참여를 위한 세계연대로 1993년에 만들어졌으며 본부는 남아프리카공화국의 요하네스버그에 있다. CIVICUS가 포함하는 시민사회단체는 노조, 종교기반 단체, 직능 연합, NGO 역량개발 단체, 자선단체 및 다른 재정지원 재단 등을 포함한다. CIVICUS는 지난 20년 동안 참여적 민주주의와 시민들의 결사의 자유가 위협받고 있는 곳을 중심으로 시민들의 행동과 시민사회의 활동을 강화하려는 노력을 해왔다. 또한 CIVICUS는 더욱 정의롭고 평등 한 세상을 만들기 위한 활발하고 참여적인 시민들의 국제적인 거뮤니티가 되려는 비전을 갖고 있다. https://civicus.org CPDE (CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness, 개발효과성을 위한 시민사회파트 너십) CPDE는 2012년 12월, 케냐의 나이로비에서 설립된 국제 플랫폼이다. CPDE는 2011년 부산 세계개발원조총회 이전에 BetterAid와 Open Forum으로 나누어서 활동하던 두 네트워크가 통합하면서 새롭게 출발하였다. CPDE는 아프리카, 아시아∙태평양, 유럽, 라틴아메리카, 카리 브해 지역, 북아프리카, 중동, 남아프리카를 아우르는 다양한 지역에서 활동하는 종교기반의 단체, 여성단체, 노동 및 농촌 분야 단체, 국제시민사회단체로 구성되어 있다. CPDE는 GPEDC(Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, 효과적인 개발협력을 위 한 글로벌 파트너십)에 시민사회를 대표하여 공식 집행위원회 에 참여하고 있다. Post 2015 와 관련하여, CPDE는 개발재원을 포함한 글로벌 파트너십 분야에 적극적으로 시민사회의 의견을 전달하고 있다. www.csopartnership.org
* GPEDC (Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation)는 지난 2011년 부산세 계개발원조총회의 결과를 효과적으로 이행하기 위해 출범한 체제이며 사무국은 OECD 와 UNDP가 공동으로 담당하고 있다. GPEDC는 정부, 기업, 시민사회, 의회, 지방정부 등 다양한 개발협력의 주체로 구성되어 있다. http://effectivecooperation.org/
이성훈, 국제개발협력민간협의회 (KCOC) 정책센터장 Anselmo LEE, Director, Policy Center, Korea NGO Councils for Oversea Development Cooperation (KCOC)
Mr. Anselmo (Seonghoon) LEE is currently Director of the Policy Center of the Korea NGO Council for Overseas Development Cooperation (KCOC) and Executive Director of the Korea Human Rights Foundation (KHRF). He is also a member of Steering Committee of the KoFID (Korea Civil Society Forum on International Development Cooperation). Internationally he is serving as Co-convener of the Asia Development Alliance (ADA) and Northeast Asia Representative of the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) and board member of CIVICUS. 이성훈은 국제개발협력민간협의회(KCOC) 정책센터장과 한국인권재단 상임이사로 재직 중이며 국제개발협력시민사회포럼(KoFID)의 운영위원이기도 하다. 또한 국제적으로 아시아개발협력연대(ADA) 공동대표와 CPDE 의 동북아대표 및 CIVICUS 국제이사를 맡고 있다.
남부원, KoFID 운영위원장 Boo-won NAM, Chair of Steering Committee of KoFID
Mr. Boo-won NAM is presently General Secretary, National Council of YMCAs of Korea. He studied political science (B.A.) in Yonsei University, Seoul, and later global ethics in Birmingham University, UK as his MA. For the past 27 years, he has served YMCA as professional staff at many levels: Seoul YMCA, National Council of YMCAs of Korea, Asia and Pacific Alliance of YMCAs, and Gwangju YMCA recently. At present, he holds positions in civil society such as co-representative of Korean CSO Network and of Civic Peace Forum; Board member of the National Council of Consumer Organizations; Board member and Chair of International Committee of KCOC; Chair of Operation Committee, KOFID. He wrote a couple of thesis and essays on civil society and its movement including his MA dissertation "How strengthening global civil society could contribute to realizing cosmopolitan democracy". 한국 YMCA전국연맹 남부원 사무총장은 27년 동안 서울 YMCA, 한국 YMCA 전국연맹, 아시 아태평양 YMCA, 그리고 최근 광주 YMCA에 이르기까지 YMCA의 다양한 대표로 활동해왔 다. 현재 남부원 사무총장은 Korean CSO Network and of Civic Peace Forum의 공동대표, 한 국소비자단체협의회 이사, 국제개발협력민간협의회(KCOC) 이사이자 정책홍보위원장, 국제개 발협력시민사회포럼(KoFID)의 운영위원장으로 활동하고 있다.
조영숙 한국여성단체연합 국제연대센터장 CHO Young-sook, Chair, International Solidarity Center of the Korean Women’s Association United (KWAU)
Ms. Young-Sook CHO is a chair of the International Solidarity Center of the Korean Women’s Association United. She is focusing on her activities to monitoring and evaluating on the national/international implementations on the UN CEDAW, UN BPFA, UN Security Council 1325 Resolution, UN MDGs and also OECD/DAC gender guidelines based on women’s rights and gender equal stand points. She has been engaged in women’s and civil society movements since 1980s and well known women’s rights activist in the areas the legal and policy advocacy to protect and prevent victims of sex trafficking and prostitution especially for women and children.She majored in ‘History’ in university and studied ‘International Relations and Political Economy’ in graduate schools and had a MA in Gender Studies and Activism. She was a founding member of ‘Incheon Women Worker’s Association (1988)’ and worked Secretary General of the Korean Women’s Association United (KWAU). Recently, she established the Center for Women’s Human Rights and worked as a Executive Director from November 2005 until 2008. 주요경력: - 인천 일하는 여성의 나눔의 집 간사 역임(1988.2~1989.1) - 인천여성노동자회 조직부장 역임(1989.2~1993.12) - 한국여성단체연합 정책실장, 사무총장 역임(1996.4~2005.9) - 여성부 위탁 여성인권중앙지원센터 소장 역임(2005.11~2008) - (현) 한국여성단체연합 국제연대센터장(2009~) - (현) 여성인권을지원하는사람들 <북한이탈여성지원과연대> 이사(2010~) - (현) 국제개발협력시민사회포럼 운영위원(2010~) - (현) KOICA ⌜젠더분야 전문위원⌟(2012.9~)
남상은 월드비전한국 옹호사업팀 팀장 Sang-eun NAM, Advocacy Team Leader of World Vision Korea
Ms. Sang-eun NAM is presently an Advocacy Team Leader of World Vision Korea. She is also an operation committee member of KoFID (Korea Civil Society Forum on International Development Cooperation). In World Vision Korea she is in charge of advocacy and justice for children, particularly in child rights, protection and health. She has several years of work experience in humanitarian aid. She managed several humanitarian and emergency projects in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and in African Countries as a programme officer in World Vision Korea. Previously she also worked as a social worker in charge of community care and protection for children. Externally she was a member of the operation and policy committee in GCAP Korea. She has a Master’s degree in Social Welfare and Protection. 남상은 팀장은 현재 한국월드비전 옹호사업팀장으로 재직 중이며 KoFID 의 운영위원이다. 한국월드비전에서는 국제개발협력 정책과 아동인권 옹호를 총괄하고 있으며, 특히 국제적
수준의 아동보호와 아동보건분야에 집중하여 옹호활동을 진행하고 있다. 2001~2005년까지는 한국 월드비전 국제구호팀에서 아프가니스탄, 이라크, 이란, 아프리카 국가들에서 긴급구호 및 인도적 지원을 담당하였다. 대외적으로는 GCAP Korea 의 운영위원 및 정책위원을 담당한 바 있다.
임소진 선임연구위원, KOICA ODA연구팀 Sojin Lim, Senior Researcher of ODA Research Team, KOICA
Dr. Sojin Lim is currently working for the Korea International Development Agency (KOICA) as a senior researcher at ODA Research Team. In KOICA, she has conducted research projects on the issues of aid effectiveness and development effectiveness, the Busan Global Partnership, and the Post2015 Development Framework. She also has a various work experience in international organizations, research institutions, academic institutions, in NGOs, and in the private sector. She has a PhD degree in Development Policy from the University of Manchester. 임소진 박사는 국제기구 및 NGOs, 연구기관 그리고 민간기업에서의 다양한 경험을 바탕 으로 영국University of Manchester에서 개발정책학 박사학위를 취득하였다. 이후 2011년 부터 현재까지 한국국제협력단(KOICA) ODA연구팀에서 선임 연구위원으로 재직중이다. 임소진 박사는 KOICA에서 원조 및 개발효과성을 중심으로 한 부산 글로벌 파트너십과 Post-2105 개발의제, 그리고 개도국 역량개발에 대한 연구를 수행해오고 있다.
제 4회 서울시민사회포럼
Ⅱ. 발제문 Presentations
제 4회 서울시민사회포럼
[발제 1] Post-2015 개발의제와 시민사회의 참여-지속가능한발전목표(SDGs)를 위한 공개 작업반(OWG)과 UN총회 논의결과를 중심으로 CSO Engagement with the Post-2015 development agenda process with focus on Open-ended Working Group(OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs) Agenda and UN General Assembly - Jeffery Huffines, CIVICUS Representative at UN in New York
제 4회 서울시민사회포럼
[발제 2] 부산글로벌파트너십과 시민사회의 협력 방안-GPEDC의 집행위원회 (Steering Committee)의 논의 결과를 중심으로 CSO Engagement with the Post-Busan Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation Richard Ssewakiryanga, Co-chair of CPDE, Uganda National NGO Forum,
What should be the role of a renewed global partnership for development in a post-2015 setting? By Richard Ssewakiryanga Executive Director and Global Co Chair CSO Partnership for Effective Development Uganda National NGO Forum Plot 25, Muyenga Tank Hill Rd, Kabalagala Website: www.ngoforum.or.ug Twitter: http://twitter.com/r_ssewa Facebook:www.facebook.com/richard.ssewa Skype ID: richard.ssewakiryanga
At a recent event on climate change civil society organizations that were discussing the Post2015 agenda, the facilitator Nisha Pillai of the BBC introduced a new formulation of the Post2015 menu of option. She categorized them into three as: as the Christmas tree option, Bulls-eye option and the jigsaw option. In the Christmas tree option is about adding more and more priorities on the already heavy laden tree of priorities and hope that we shall achieve all them. What we end up with is too many priorities that are messy and sometimes hard to comprehend. In the Bull’s eye option we go for few selected and targeted areas of support. Here the priority is on getting it right – for instance working to eliminate poverty and while staying silent about the consumption patterns of the rich. The last option is the jigsaw puzzle option. Here we concentrate on the inter-linkages between different sectors and dimensions of development and try to establish how they can work together to create sustainable solutions. The notion of global partnerships over the years has straddled these three different options to development. But one thing for sure is that in all circumstances the preoccupation was to try and do something better for humanity. With all the dismal results of global partnerships for development over the decades, we cannot fault them for their good intentions. But on the second question of what we have learnt – I would like to offer the following lessons: 1. Global Partnerships for Development should be about global solidarity: The history of development planning and cooperation over the years has been a history of asymmetrical power relations with the
north-south divide as an enduring form of understanding how world is structured.
Today it is
becoming clearer to all of us that the problems in one part of the world are problems for all of us. If there is nothing we have learnt from the climate change movement – at least one lesson that we can relate to is that the world is interconnected and interlinked. So to solve climate problems we need better forms of negotiations that value different people from different ecosystems that make up the global ecosystem. In order for us to then be able to have a conversation around the global ecosystem we need to have a relationship of global solidarity that sees each one of us a citizens of a world that we have to build together. This does not imply abandoning our different identities and our political positions but it implies that to shape a better world is not about cutting out a pie from a cake that is not baked but it is about baking a cake together and having a pie. 2. Our faith in goals is limited faith: While we have celebrated the MDGs as important drivers on the road to transformation – we also know that the MDGs have got an inherent limitation. Like all goals, they are scored, they imply winners and losers, they are short term and they can lead to an attitude of the end justify the means. While at the same time we know that the world is differently structured, the world is about finding ways in which we can build a transformative world which is not goal-centric or goal driven. This is a reality we have to embrace going forward. 3. Development is more about jigsaw puzzles than bulls-eye target or Christmas trees: The interlinkages between different sectors that seem to be so far apart is now clear. The fact that we are focusing on governance and political questions within the context of development makes this point clear. We now know that how countries are governed has a lot to do with how development is delivered. There could be a few countries that can endure bad governance and enjoy development but these are the exceptions rather than the rule. We also know that building institutions in a manner that is sustainable is important in building strong states. That is why for example Belgium can run for over a year without a political leader and yet service delivery will not come to halt. I invite you to think of what would happen to Uganda if we did not have a President even for one month or many of other countries on the continent. Building institutions is therefore serious development business built on recognizing inter-linkages. 4. Citizen Voices and the Need to Listen: I will use the words of my good friend Jay Naidoo, former Minister of Communication of South Africa and Trade Union Activist who wrote in the preface for the Civicus State of Civil Society Report 2012 that; ‘Citizens always know better than the government or the market what works for them. The question is whether our political and economic elites are prepared to listen’. One of the new skills that development actors need to build going forward is listening. We need to listen to; the noise of citizen in protests; to the silence of citizens in jails, abused citizens in
shipping containers or boats of migrant laborers crossing from Africa to Europe or Latin America to North America, mothers in pain in hospitals dying from preventable causes or children under bushes and thickets in countries experiencing brutal wars. For example, the High Level Panel did meet and listen to over 5000 civil society organizations and over 250 CEOs of private sector companies - but what did they hear and how did it change their lives? This is a question that is easy to pose for a panel of ‘eminent’ persons’ but it is also a question for all of us working in development. Yes in the last one week we are all running heads over heals try to write a ‘response’ to the High Level Panel Report [I have counted 15 statements in the first 5 days of releasing the report] and hope that this will create change. If the panel listened to 5000 of us, then why should we think it is important for us to again write to the panel – was the listening not sufficient? Let us challenge ourselves to listen. If we look outside our meeting rooms we realize the number of strikes, demonstrations and violent conflicts in the last 2 years point to the need to all decision makers to listen and learn from our citizens. 5. It is time to build alternative models: I was reminded yesterday by a colleague about a discussion we heard as civil society in the lead up to Busan high level forum. We discussed that one thing that could be innovative and path breaking and initiate new discussions on development could be a Convention on Global Development Cooperation. Maybe the time has come that other than us trying to create new goals, new targets and other tired strategies; maybe we should create a Convention. The time to think outside and away from the box is now and this is an idea for us to ponder. I want to conclude by quoting a colleague from UNDP who gave us this analogy – that on the beaches of South Africa sardines annually are swept onto the shores and they die in millions. But one day two small boys playing on the beach had a different attitude to this phenomenon. One boy decided to throw back into the sea as many sardines as he could to save lives. The other boy was impatient thinking his friend was wasting time. He called him and assured him that his efforts were futile – there were millions dying and he is just saving a handful. The boy saving the sardines asked; if you asked one of the saved sardines would the one saved sardine think I am wasting time?
Ladies and gentlemen –
that is the dose of optimism and can-do attitude that we need as we tackle the global partnership agenda post2015. I thank you for listening!
제 4회 서울시민사회포럼
Ⅲ. 참고자료 References
[Chronology] Year
Date
Place
2011
NovDec
Busan, Korea
OECD 4th HLF on Aid Effectiveness(부산세계개발원조총회)
JUN
Paris, France
GPEDC launched
Nairobi, Kenya
CPDE launched
London, England
1st Steering Committee meeting
MAR
Bali, Indonesia
2nd Steering Committee meeting
MAR 14-15
New USA
York, OWG-SDG: Election of officers, adoption of agenda , General discussion
APR 17-19
New USA
York,
MAY 22-24
New USA
York, OWG-SDG: Food security and nutrition, sustainable agriculture, desertification, land degradation, and drought
JUN 6-8
Addis Ababa, DCF High-level Symposium on “A renewed global partnership for Ethiopia development for a post-2015 era”
JUN 17-19
New USA
July
Addis Ababa, rd 3 Steering Committee meeting Ethiopia
AUG
New USA
York, Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing
SEP
New USA
York,
OCT 10-11
Washington D.C.
2012
Meeting
DEC
2013
2013
OWG-SDG: Conceptualizing the SDGs, poverty eradication
York, OWG-SDG: Employment and decent work for all, social protection, youth, education and culture, health, population dynamics
New York, USA UN General Assembly
4th Steering Committee meeting
OCT 24-25
Switzerland
NOV 25-27
OWG-SDG: Sustained and inclusive economic growth, New York, macroeconomic policy questions (including international trade, USA, USA international financial system and external debt sustainability, infrastructure development and industrialization)
DEC 2-6
New USA
DEC 9-13
OWG-SDG: Means of implementation (science and technology, knowledge-sharing and capacity building; Global partnership for New York, achieving sustainable development, needs of countries in special USA, USA situation, African countries, LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS as well as specific challenges facing the middle-income countries
JAN 6-10
DCF High-level Symposium on â&#x20AC;&#x153;The future of development cooperation: Implications of the post-2015 development agenda
York, 2nd session: Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing
OWG-SDG: Sustainable cities and human settlements, sustainable New York, transport, sustainable consumption and production (including USA, USA chemicals and waste)m climate change and disaster risk reduction
FEB 3-7
OWG-SDG: Oceans and seas, forests, biodiversity, promoting equality, New York, including social equity, gender equality and womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s empowerment, USA, USA conflict prevention, post-conflict peacebuilding and promotion of durable peace, rule of law and governance
FEB 5th (TBD )
Nigeria
5th Steering Committee meeting
APR 15-16
Mexico
First High-Level Meeting of the Global Partnership
MAR 3-7
New York, 3rd session: Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable USA, USA Development Financing
May 12-16
New York, 4th session: Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable USA, USA Development Financing
AUG
New York, 5th session: Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable USA, USA Development Financing
2014
3-8
2015
SEP
New York, UN GA USA, USA
제 4회 서울시민사회포럼
[참고자료 1] Post-2015 1. SG report : A life of dignity for all: accelerating progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and advancing the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015 2. ADA Statement On the UN Secretary General Report on MDGs and Post-2015 Development Agenda (A/68/202) 3. IFP's post-2015 position 4. Special Event Outcome Document - 25 September
A/68/202
United Nations
General Assembly
Distr.: General 26 July 2013 Original: English
Sixty-eighth session Item 118 of the provisional agenda* Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit
A life of dignity for all: accelerating progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and advancing the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015 Report of the Secretary-General Summary The present report is submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution 65/1, in which the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to report annually on progress in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals until 2015 and to make recommendations for further steps to advance the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015. Renewed efforts are essential for achieving the Millennium Development Goals by the end of 2015. While providing an assessment of progress to date, the report also identifies policies and programmes that have driven success in the achievement of the Goals and can contribute to accelerating it. These include emphasizing inclusive growth, decent employment and social protection; allocating more resources for essential services and ensuring access for all; strengthening political will and improving the international policy environment; and harnessing the power of multi-stakeholder partnerships. A new post-2015 era demands a new vision and a responsive framework. Sustainable development â&#x20AC;&#x201D; enabled by the integration of economic growth, social justice and environmental stewardship â&#x20AC;&#x201D; must become our global guiding principle and operational standard. This is a universal agenda that requires profound economic transformations and a new global partnership. It also requires that the international community, including the United Nations, embrace a more coherent and effective response to support the agenda. As we make the transition to this new era, we need to continue the work begun with the Millennium Development Goals and ensure that extreme poverty is ended within a generation. In keeping with United Nations principles, this post-2015 framework can bring together the full range of human aspirations and needs to ensure a life of dignity for all.
* A/68/150.
13-40932 (E) 130813
*1340932*
A/68/202
I. Introduction 1. The worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s quest for dignity, peace, prosperity, justice, sustainability and an end to poverty has reached an unprecedented moment of urgency. 2. In 2000, the States Members of the United Nations agreed on a bold vision for the future that reaffirmed the fundamental values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for the planet and shared responsibility. 3. That vision, enshrined in the Millennium Declaration (General Assembly resolution 55/2) and rooted in the Charter of the United Nations, recognized the need to pool efforts as never before and to advance on three fronts simultaneously: development, peace and security, and human rights. Global challenges, local solutions; shared burden, shared gain: this remains the credo of international action for our collective well-being. 4. Among the promises made in the Millennium Declaration was a compelling pledge to spare no effort to free all women, men, girls and boys from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of poverty. The call itself was not new; the commitment to better standards of living is part of the purposes and principles of the United Nations. But what was new was the sense of possibility â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the conviction that through a combination of targets, tangible investments, genuine action and political will, countries and people working together could end poverty in all its forms. 5. The Millennium Development Goals gave expression to this resolve. Since their adoption, Governments, partners and an inspiring constellation of groups and individuals around the world have mobilized to tackle the many dimensions of poverty. Those efforts have generated unprecedented advances in human development. 6. There has been substantial progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals and several successes in reaching specific targets globally and in individual countries. However, the prospects for achieving all of the Goals differ sharply across and within countries and regions. More than a billion people still live in extreme poverty. Far too many people face serious deprivation in health and education, with progress hampered by significant inequality related to income, gender, ethnicity, disability, age and location. The prolonged global economic downturn and violent conflicts in recent years have exacerbated poverty, inequality and exclusion. Biodiversity loss, the degradation of water, drylands and forests and the intensifying risks of climate change threaten to reverse our achievements to date and undermine any future gains. 7. We must do everything we can to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by the end of 2015. That work is unfinished and must continue in order to secure the well-being, dignity and rights of those still on the margins today, as well as of future generations. By meeting our existing commitments, we will be in the best possible position from which to agree upon and implement a universal agenda for sustainable development after 2015. 8. At the same time, the world has changed radically since the turn of the millennium. New economic powers have emerged, new technologies are reshaping our societies and new patterns of human settlement and activity are heightening the pressures on our planet. Inequality is rising in rich and poor countries alike.
2
13-40932
A/68/202
9. A new era demands a new vision and a responsive framework. Sustainable development, enabled by the integration of economic growth, social justice and environmental stewardship, must become our global guiding principle and operational standard. This framework can bring together the full range of human aspirations and needs. It offers a template for mutually reinforcing approaches to global challenges. Sustainable development is, in short, the pathway to the future. 10. So the challenge remains, even as it has taken on new complexity and increased in scale: we must fulfil our promises and meet the aspirations of the world’s peoples, and we must summon the unity to realize the dream of the Charter and the Millennium Declaration. Ours is the first generation with the resources and know-how to end extreme poverty and put our planet on a sustainable course before it is too late. 11. The transition to sustainable development must not mean any diminishment whatsoever in the commitment to ending poverty. As underscored in the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2012 (General Assembly resolution 66/288), poverty eradication is an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. This is a matter of basic justice and human rights. It is also a historic opportunity. If ours is the generation that can end poverty, there should be no deferring this essential mission, no shrinking away from the task. In a world of great wealth and technological advances, no person anywhere should be left behind. No person should go hungry, lack shelter or clean water and sanitation, face social and economic exclusion or live without access to basic health services and education. These are human rights, and form the foundations for a decent life. 12. Nor can progress be achieved or sustained amid armed conflict, violence, insecurity and injustice. These ills often have roots in social and economic deprivation and inequality. In the same vein, poverty can be a precursor and breeding ground of instability. We know that upholding human rights and freeing people from fear and want are inseparable; it is imperative that we do more to act on this basic truth. 13. The present report is intended to galvanize greater efforts to end poverty and achieve sustainable and inclusive growth. We will need enlightened and courageous leadership in the halls of government and the engagement of responsible businesses and civil society the world over. I have drawn considerable inspiration from a dynamic United Nations-led process — a global conversation launched in 2012 on the priorities of a new development agenda that would build on the Millennium Development Goals. In a series of global, regional and national consultations in nearly 100 countries and through a social media platform, more than a million people have shared their views on “the world they want”. I am profoundly grateful to all who expressed their hopes and expectations and offered ideas and constructive criticism. The United Nations is strongly committed not just to listening to those voices, but also to amplifying and acting on what we have heard and learned. 14. In defining a new agenda, Member States can also benefit from the insights of a set of illuminating reports. My High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, co-chaired by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, President of Indonesia, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, President of Liberia, and David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, called for major transformative economic and institutional shifts: a new
13-40932
3
A/68/202
global partnership and a data revolution for monitoring progress and strengthening accountability. 15. Reports by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, the Global Compact Office, the United Nations System Task Team on the Post-2015 United Nations Development Agenda, the regional commissions and our partners in civil society and academia have also provided important inputs and recommendations for the formulation and content of the processes ahead. 16. The common ground in these contributions far outweighs any differences. Indeed, it is possible to see the emerging outlines of a new sustainable development agenda: universal in nature yet responsive to the complexities, needs and capacities of individual countries and regions; bold in ambition but simple in design; combining the economic, social and environmental dimensions while putting the highest priority on ending poverty and reducing inequality; protective of the planet, its biodiversity, water and land; rights-based, with particular emphasis on women, young people and marginalized groups; eager for new and innovative partnerships; and supported by pioneering approaches to data and rigorous accountability mechanisms. Guided by this far-reaching vision, a limited set of goals with sustainable development at the core, as called for at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, could be constructed to encapsulate current challenges and the priorities of the new agenda and to guide the transformation we need. 17. In the present report we take stock of where we are and where we need to go — first, in the time that remains until the end of 2015, and second, in the period beyond that. As a contribution to the discussions and negotiations of Member States, I offer my sense of the lessons we have derived from the Millennium Development Goals and set out a number of possible elements for consideration in charting a way forward. I look forward to a rich process of consultation and debate as the crucial year of 2015 draws near. 18. We are all aware of the vulnerabilities and perils that define daily life across the world. But there is also simultaneously a sense of wondrous potential made possible in part by science and technology but even more by our own hard work and devotion to common progress. Based on everything I have seen and heard during my six and a half years as Secretary-General, I am convinced that, collectively, we have the leadership, conviction and courage to address short-term uncertainties while seizing the opportunity for long-term change. In that spirit of hope and resolve, I offer the present report to the membership of the United Nations.
II. Achieving the Millennium Development Goals and accelerating progress 19. The Millennium Development Goals are our promise to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. They have succeeded in placing people at the centre of the development agenda. 20. We have made remarkable progress. Many countries — including some of the poorest — have aligned their policies and resources with the Goals to make unparalleled gains. Several critical targets have already been met or will be met by the end of 2015, both at the aggregate level and in individual countries. Sizable gains have occurred in even the poorest countries.
4
13-40932
A/68/202
21. However, progress has been insufficient and highly uneven. Rural areas and marginalized groups continue to lag behind on virtually all goals and targets. Countries in or emerging from conflict, disaster or instability face significant challenges. In addition, the economic and financial crisis has complicated efforts, including by putting pressure on official development assistance. 22. Yet progress continues. In the Millennium Development Goals Report 2013, it is stressed that despite challenges and gaps, the agenda embodied by the Goals retains great power in engendering collective action for faster results.
A.
Where do we stand on the Goals? 23. At the global level, poverty and hunger have been reduced significantly. In developing regions, the proportion of people living on less than $1.25 a day fell by more than half, from 47 per cent in 1990 to 22 per cent in 2010, with the majority living in rural areas. Much of this progress, however, has been made in a few large countries, primarily China and India. Moreover, even if the poverty target has been met, 1.2 billion people are still living in extreme poverty. For example, despite recent strong economic growth and declining poverty rates in sub-Saharan Africa, the number of people living in poverty is rising, and the region is still vulnerable to shocks that can rapidly erode gains. 24. The target of halving the percentage of people suffering from hunger by 2015 is within reach. The proportion of undernourished people in developing regions fell from 23.2 per cent in the period from 1990 to 1992 to 14.9 per cent in 2010-2012. However, one in eight people remain chronically undernourished, and one in four children suffers from stunted growth because of malnutrition. 25. We risk failing to keep our promise to enable all children to go to school. The number of children out of primary school declined from 102 million to 57 million between 2000 and 2011. But progress has slowed significantly over the past five years. Without renewed efforts, the target of universal primary education by 2015 seems beyond reach, particularly in conflict-affected countries. Half the world’s out-of-school children live in sub-Saharan Africa, with the gap largest for children and adolescents from the poorest households. Much stronger efforts are needed to improve the quality of education and provide lifelong learning opportunities, especially for girls and women, those belonging to ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities and children living in conflict-affected areas, rural areas or urban slums. 26. Women and girls are major drivers of development. Yet challenges to achieving gender equality and women’s rights remain significant. In many developing countries, girls are denied their right to primary education. Women have been gaining employment in non-agricultural sectors, but often in less secure jobs with fewer social benefits than those held by men. In both the public and private spheres, women continue to be denied opportunities to influence decisions that affect their lives. Gender-based violence contravenes women’s and girls’ rights, undermines development and is an affront to our common humanity. 27. Despite significant progress globally and in many countries, a renewed commitment is needed to improve the health and life prospects of mothers and children. The mortality rate for children under 5 dropped by 41 per cent between 1990 and 2011 — a significant achievement, yet far short of the target of a two-thirds reduction. The maternal mortality rate fell by 47 per cent over the past
13-40932
5
A/68/202
two decades — again, important progress, but still far from the target of 75 per cent. Intensified efforts are needed to reach the most vulnerable women and children and ensure their sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, including full access to basic health services and sexual and reproductive education. 28. New HIV infections declined by 21 per cent globally over the past decade, and close to 10 million people living with HIV are receiving lifesaving antiretroviral treatment. Expanded treatment and prevention yielded a 25 per cent reduction in AIDS-related deaths between 2005 and 2011. Yet 2.5 million new infections still occur each year and in many parts of the globe, millions lack access to treatment. The last decade saw a 25 per cent fall in mortality rates from malaria globally, sparing the lives of an estimated 1.1 million people. Between 1995 and 2011, 51 million tuberculosis patients were treated successfully, saving 20 million lives. 29. Some of the targets for ensuring environmental sustainability have been achieved: the target for improved water sources was met ahead of schedule, and over the past decade over 200 million slum dwellers — double the target — benefited from improved water and sanitation facilities, durable housing or sufficient living space. Furthermore, from 1990 to 2011, 1.9 billion people gained access to a latrine, flush toilet or other improved sanitation facility. With rapid urbanization and population growth, however, the number of slum dwellers is on the rise. Two and a half billion people lack access to improved sanitation, while a billion practise open defecation, a continued source of illness. 30. In all countries, the achievement of Goal 7, on ensuring environmental sustainability, remains at significant risk because of the profound and urgent challenges posed by climate change. Carbon dioxide emissions are more than 46 per cent higher than in 1990. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has exceeded 400 parts per million, a level not seen in millions of years and threatening the existence of the planet. 31. Biodiversity loss continues at a rapid pace. Freshwater resources are being depleted and fish stocks are overexploited. Land degradation and desertification, ocean acidification and the loss of species and forests continue at an alarming rate. 32. As shown in the forthcoming MDG Gap Task Force Report 2013, progress towards a global partnership for development has fallen short of expectations. Following an encouraging rise in official development assistance since 2000, over the past two years aid flows have declined. Despite significant debt relief for many countries, the debt-servicing burden of some low-income countries remains intolerably high. Progress in improving market access for many developing countries has been slow, and “aid for trade” has not escaped the impact of reduced official development assistance. Despite welcome gains in connectivity, a substantial digital divide remains between developed and developing regions.
B.
Which policies and programmes have best driven progress? 33. It is crucial to know what works and what does not. More than a decade of experience has painted a revealing picture. Strong national ownership and well-managed policies, supported coherently by partners at all levels, has underpinned progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Policies that foster robust and inclusive economic growth, accompanied by measures to improve the access of poor and excluded people to quality basic services, have produced
6
13-40932
A/68/202
gains in many countries. Much has been learned by formulating and implementing those policies. Applying these lessons will be important for making more rapid progress in the time that remains. Emphasizing inclusive growth, decent employment and social protection 34. Inclusive economic growth with decent employment and decent wages has proven to be a prerequisite for achieving the Millennium Development Goals, particularly Goal 1, on eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. Progress in East Asia has been strong, and several countries in Latin America and Africa have successfully combined economic growth and redistributive policies. 35. Targeted investments in public health systems, fighting disease, education, infrastructure and agricultural productivity have all played important roles in achieving the Goals and promoting economic growth. These interventions work in a synergistic way and are therefore highly effective in integrated development programmes. Cash transfers targeting poor and marginalized families have also bolstered progress. 36. In East Asia, reforms in the agricultural sector have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty. Many Governments in the region have also adopted policies that increase social spending, expand social protection and raise the minimum wage. 37. Policies promoting rural employment have proved to have positive results in terms of poverty reduction, food consumption, household spending on education and health, debt reduction and asset creation. 38. In addition, programmes in Latin America and South-East Asia that have combined increased food production and distribution with skills training, microfinance, land distribution and nutrition education programmes have had positive impacts on child mortality and maternal health. Allocating more resources for essential services and ensuring access for all 39. To accelerate progress on education, some countries have eliminated school fees and reduced the indirect costs of schooling. In Africa and the Middle East, policies have targeted orphans and other vulnerable children with vouchers for uniforms and books. In Asia, countries have scaled up stipend programmes and introduced financial support mechanisms for ethnic minority students. 40. In West Africa, complementing investments in infrastructure with female literacy campaigns to overcome resistance to girlsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; education in rural areas led to a significant increase in the rate of enrolment of girls in primary schools. 41. Some countries have expanded access to primary education while tackling gender disparities at the same time. Achieving the parity target by 2015 is within reach if entrenched gender disadvantages can be overcome, particularly in countries where early marriage remains pervasive. 42. Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have launched nationwide midwifery schemes to train and deploy tens of thousands of front-line health workers to accelerate progress in preventing maternal and child mortality. 43. Improved national strategies supported by additional financial resources have contributed to faster progress on the Millennium Development Goals in the area of
13-40932
7
A/68/202
health in many countries. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the GAVI Alliance and the United States Presidentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief have played a major role, complementing national efforts. 44. Investments in human and physical infrastructure for the public health-care sector are paying off in South Asia, where services have been provided free of charge in facilities close to patients. 45. Policies supporting free universal access to quality primary health care for women and children have reduced child mortality in some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially when special attention is given to reducing deaths from malaria, pneumonia, diarrhoea and measles and to rapidly scaling up the provision of insecticide-treated bednets, measles vaccine and vitamin A supplements. 46. National initiatives have proven to be effective in achieving water and sanitation targets. In South-East Asia, partnerships between local governments, builders and community leaders have been launched to meet the need for drinking water and sanitation. Access to latrines has increased significantly, driven by community empowerment activities, strengthened institutions and a community hygiene campaign. Strengthening political will and improving the international policy environment 47. The global nature of many current challenges requires coordinated global action. I am very concerned by any developments or trends that threaten the global partnership for development, a core part of the Millennium Development Goal framework. There is an urgent need to stop and reverse the two-year contraction of official development assistance and aid for trade, especially for the least developed countries. Stakeholders should strengthen coordination and follow through on commitments to and for effective aid delivery, as well as cracking down on illicit capital flows, returning stolen assets and stemming tax avoidance and evasion. 48. I urge the members of the World Trade Organization to redouble their efforts to reach a development-oriented conclusion of the Doha Round of trade negotiations and improve duty-free, quota-free market access for products of least developed countries. Further efforts are needed to ensure timely debt relief for critically indebted developing countries, thus improving their chances of achieving the Millennium Development Goals. 49. A stronger partnership is also needed among governments, pharmaceutical companies, research facilities and philanthropic organizations to make essential medicines more affordable and available in public health facilities, including using the provisions available to developing countries in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. 50. Limiting and reversing the increase in the average global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in line with international agreements demands bold, coordinated national and international action. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change contains commitments and guidance, most notably the agreement of Governments to negotiate an ambitious, legally binding global agreement by 2015 that will cover all countries of the world in a fair way. The situation calls for full and urgent adherence to what was agreed.
8
13-40932
A/68/202
51. Bolder measures are equally urgent on other environmental sustainability targets, including those related to biodiversity, water, land use and forests. Where commitments already exist, we need faster implementation of the corresponding multilateral environmental agreements. 52. With support from the international community, developing countries should accelerate efforts to improve the transfer of and access to information and communications technology, as well as to lower its cost, especially in key service-delivery areas. In order for technology transfers to countries embracing deep structural economic transformations to be successful, the institutional and human capacity gaps will need to be addressed at the local level. 53. The multi-stakeholder partnership model has emerged as a promising way to share burdens, catalyse action and bring all relevant actors to bear in addressing specific problems. We need to mobilize more action to deliver on commitments and exploit the full potential of the partnership approach.
C.
Accelerating progress towards the Goals to 2015 54. Fulfilling our existing commitments and promises on the Millennium Development Goals must remain our foremost priority. Member States, with the continued support of development agencies, civil society and the private sector, should and can take bolder action to accelerate progress. 55. Together, we need to focus on those Goals that are most off-track and on countries that face particular development challenges, including the least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing States and countries affected by or recovering from conflicts or disasters. In so doing, we must pay particular attention to the needs and rights of the most vulnerable and excluded, such as women, children, the elderly, indigenous people, refugees and displaced families, as well as people with disabilities and those living in poor rural areas and urban slums. 56. The preceding section highlighted some successful strategies for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. They show that accelerating progress requires national ownership and international commitment, with the right policies backed by reliable, timely financial resources and people-centred multi-stakeholder partnerships. Countries should make every effort to mobilize domestic resources. At the same time, these resources should be supplemented by external support where necessary. 57. In April I launched the campaign â&#x20AC;&#x153;MDG Momentum â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 1,000 Days of Actionâ&#x20AC;? as a spur to achieve the gains we need by 2015. My appeal seeks to give additional impetus to several key initiatives that were already under way in response to the call for acceleration made at the 2010 high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly on the Millennium Development Goals. 58. The Millennium Development Goals Acceleration Framework, a coordinated effort by the United Nations Development Group, is firmly rooted in national ownership and supports the systematic identification of bottlenecks and local solutions. Acceleration plans are being implemented in more than 46 countries across all regions, covering a range of goals and targets and bringing together a full spectrum of actors. Those efforts are assessed by the United Nations system in
13-40932
9
A/68/202
collaboration with the World Bank under the umbrella of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination. 59. In one sub-Saharan African country, an acceleration plan on maternal health is being implemented through the revised national reproductive health policy and protocol. This is backed by a multi-pronged strategy that includes the use of mobile telephones for diagnosis and referrals and partnerships with local road transport associations to facilitate the travel of women in labour. 60. When implemented at the subnational level, the Acceleration Framework can also help to address disparity and inequality, as well as underlying causes such as discrimination and sociocultural exclusion. In one South American country, provinces and municipalities are implementing acceleration plans to address local priorities, such as poverty reduction and the economic empowerment of women, where progress lags behind the national level. 61. The €1 billion Millennium Development Goals initiative of the European Union has been supporting countries in the African, Caribbean and Pacific regions to accelerate progress on the Goals that are the most off-track: eradicating hunger, improving maternal health, curbing child mortality and improving access to water and sanitation. Nearly 50 have been supported to date. 62. Regional initiatives are an increasingly important part of the picture. In 2012, the African Union Commission adopted a road map on shared responsibility and global solidarity to accelerate progress in the response to HIV, tuberculosis and malaria. The actions in the road map are organized around three strategic pillars: diversified financing, access to medicines and enhanced health governance. Similarly, in 2012, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations adopted a road map for the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals focusing on five key areas: advocacy and linkages, knowledge, resources, expertise, and regional cooperation and public goods. 63. Every Woman Every Child, a multi-stakeholder partnership launched in 2010, seeks to save the lives of 16 million women and children by 2015. The United Nations secured commitments of $20 billion from more than 250 partners, including governments, multilateral organizations, the private sector and civil society. A new partnership between governments and United Nations agencies, “Committing to child survival: a promise renewed”, was launched to reduce the under-5 mortality rate to fewer than 20 deaths per 1,000 live births in all countries by 2035. 64. The Sustainable Energy for All initiative, launched in 2011, aims to provide universal access to modern energy, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency and double the share of renewables in the global energy mix, all by 2030. Over $50 billion has been committed from all sectors to make this a reality, and more than 70 countries have signed up. 65. The Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme mobilizes resources to scale up agricultural assistance to low-income countries. The Zero Hunger Challenge, launched at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, calls for universal access to adequate food year-round, steps to prevent childhood stunting, a sustainable transformation of food systems, a doubling of productivity and incomes among smallholder farmers and drastic reductions in food losses and waste. Through the “Scaling Up Nutrition” movement, a partnership effort involving governments, civil society, the United Nations system, business and researchers,
10
13-40932
A/68/202
more than 100 partners are supporting 40 countries in their efforts to reduce malnutrition and child stunting. 66. The Global Education First Initiative, launched in September 2012, aims to raise the political profile of education and seeks to ensure access, improve the quality of learning and foster global citizenship. 67. The Call to Action on Sanitation, initiated in March, has provided new momentum on an area that has received inadequate attention. The campaign for universal access to bednets by the end of 2010 made important inroads in tackling malaria. The One Million Community Health Workers campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa is expected to be critical in generating gains across the health-related Millennium Development Goals. 68. The replenishment of the Global Fund in the third quarter of 2013 will be of decisive significance for continued progress against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. I call upon all donors, public and private, to do their part to support the Fund at this moment of utmost urgency as well as opportunity. 69. Multi-stakeholder arrangements have proven successful because they expand on traditional partnerships by significantly increasing available resources, improving the effectiveness of their use and increasing policy and operational coherence. To build on those advantages, I have put forward a proposal to Member States for a new United Nations Partnership Facility, which would aim to enhance the Organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to facilitate delivery at scale at both the global and country levels.
D.
Making the transition to a new sustainable development agenda that builds on the Goals 70. The adoption of the Millennium Development Goals represented a major shift in galvanizing global political will for poverty eradication. The Goals focused the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attention on halving extreme poverty and promoting human development by setting priorities, goals and targets. Yet the Goals represent only the halfway mark towards the aim of tackling poverty in all its forms. United Nations projections for 2015 indicate that almost 1.3 billion people will still live in extreme poverty, mothers will continue to die needlessly in childbirth and children will suffer and die from hunger, malnutrition, preventable diseases and a lack of clean water and sanitation. 71. The job we started with the Millennium Development Goals therefore needs to be finished. Careful attention will be needed as we make the transition to an agenda that embraces the three dimensions of sustainable development yet ensures that poverty eradication is its highest priority and that extreme poverty is ended within a generation. 72. Since the Millennium Development Goals were devised, major new challenges have emerged, while existing ones have been exacerbated. Inequality has deepened. Environmental degradation has increased, threatening our common future. People across the world are demanding more responsive governments and better governance and rights at all levels. Migration challenges have grown, and young people in many countries face poor prospects for decent jobs or livelihoods. Conflicts and instability have halted or reversed progress in many countries,
13-40932
11
A/68/202
affecting primarily women and children. Organized crime, including trafficking in people and drugs, violates human rights and undermines development. The deepening ways in which the lives of people and countries are linked demand a universal agenda addressing the world’s most pressing challenges and seizing the opportunities of a new era.
III. Advancing the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015 A.
Vision and transformative actions of the agenda 73. The articulation of a post-2015 development agenda provides an opportunity to place sustainable development where it should be: at the core of humankind’s pursuit of shared progress. With a new sustainable development agenda, the world can make many historic achievements: eradicating extreme poverty by 2030, protecting the environment and promoting social inclusion and economic opportunities for all. Ultimately, the aspiration of the development agenda beyond 2015 is to create a just and prosperous world where all people realize their rights and live with dignity and hope. 74. As agreed at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, the framework for sustainable development reflects our commitment to three interconnected objectives: economic development, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. Each of these dimensions contributes to the others and all are necessary for the well-being of individuals and societies. Together, they are meant to enable people to fulfil their potential within the finite resources of our planet. 75. For such a sustainable development agenda to take root, four building blocks need to be agreed upon: (a) a far-reaching vision of the future firmly anchored in human rights and universally accepted values and principles, including those encapsulated in the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Millennium Declaration; (b) a set of concise goals and targets aimed at realizing the priorities of the agenda; (c) a global partnership for development to mobilize means of implementation; and (d) a participatory monitoring framework for tracking progress and mutual accountability mechanisms for all stakeholders. 76. Decisions on the shape of the next agenda rest with Member States. To support their deliberations, I put in motion an inclusive and transparent process to hear from all stakeholders. Through the efforts of the United Nations Development Group and others, I sought the views of people around the world through consultations in nearly 100 countries, global thematic consultations on 11 issue areas and a global online conversation and “My World” survey. These efforts have reached more than a million people. A large number of civil society organizations and academic institutions worldwide have also actively participated in the discussions. 77. In addition, my High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda provided critical proposals (see A/67/890, annex). I have made the report available to all Member States and recommend it as an important contribution to this process. 78. I also benefited from the expertise of the science and technology community through the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The contributions of the
12
13-40932
A/68/202
private sector around the world were conveyed through the Global Compact. The United Nations System Task Team, comprising more than 60 agencies and international organizations, conveyed the knowledge and experience of the Organization, while regional perspectives were provided by the regional commissions. 79. Reflecting on many of these inputs, the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals is conducting a series of discussions aimed at formulating goals for sustainable development to be proposed to the General Assembly at its sixtyeighth session. 80. The common ground in the findings of these processes is encouraging. Discussions point to the importance of arriving at a single and coherent development agenda centred on sustainable development, applicable to all countries while taking into account regional, national and local circumstances and priorities. 81. The key elements of the emerging vision for the development agenda beyond 2015 include: (a) universality, to mobilize all developed and developing countries and leave no one behind; (b) sustainable development, to tackle the interlinked challenges facing the world, including a clear focus on ending extreme poverty in all its forms; (c) inclusive economic transformations ensuring decent jobs, backed by sustainable technologies, to shift to sustainable patterns of consumption and production; (d) peace and governance, as key outcomes and enablers of development; (e) a new global partnership, recognizing shared interests, different needs and mutual responsibilities, to ensure commitment to and means of implementing the new vision; and (f) being â&#x20AC;&#x153;fit for purposeâ&#x20AC;?, to ensure that the international community is equipped with the right institutions and tools for addressing the challenges of implementing the sustainable development agenda at the national level. 82. Bringing this vision to life will require a number of transformative and mutually reinforcing actions that apply to all countries. 83. Eradicate poverty in all its forms. Poverty has many manifestations and is aggravated by discrimination, insecurity, inequality and environmental and disaster risks. Therefore, the eradication of poverty calls for a multifaceted approach, encapsulated in the concept of sustainable development, focusing on both immediate and underlying causes. 84. Tackle exclusion and inequality. In order to leave no one behind and bring everyone forward, actions are needed to promote equality of opportunity. This implies inclusive economies in which men and women have access to decent employment, legal identification, financial services, infrastructure and social protection, as well as societies where all people can contribute and participate in national and local governance. 85. Empower women and girls. The new agenda must ensure the equal rights of women and girls, their full participation in the political, economic and public spheres and zero tolerance for violence against or exploitation of women and girls. The practice of child marriage must be ended everywhere. Women and girls must have equal access to financial services, infrastructure, the full range of health services, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, and water and sanitation; the right to own land and other assets; a safe environment in which to learn and apply their knowledge and skills; and an end to
13-40932
13
A/68/202
discrimination so they can receive equal pay for equal work and have an equal voice in decision-making. 86. Provide quality education and lifelong learning. Young people should be able to receive high-quality education and learning, from early childhood development to post-primary schooling, including not only formal schooling but also life skills and vocational education and training. 87. Improve health. Address universal health-care coverage, access and affordability; end preventable maternal and child deaths; realize womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reproductive health and rights; increase immunization coverage; eradicate malaria and realize the vision of a future free of AIDS and tuberculosis; reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases, including mental illness, and road accidents; and promote healthy behaviours, including those related to water, sanitation and hygiene. 88. Address climate change. The international community must reconcile the challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change while supporting the growth of developing countries. While the worst effects of climate change can still be averted by building the resilience of and investing in those communities and nations most vulnerable to disasters risk, those efforts will require a greatly stepped-up response, in keeping with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. A successful outcome to the intergovernmental climate change negotiations is critical. Every effort must be made to arrive at a legally binding agreement by the end of 2015, as decided in Durban, South Africa, in 2011. 89. Address environmental challenges. Environmental change has compounded problems worldwide, especially in vulnerable countries, reducing their capacity to cope and limiting their options for addressing development challenges. Managing the natural resources base â&#x20AC;&#x201D; fisheries, forests, freshwater resources, oceans, soil â&#x20AC;&#x201D; is essential for sustainable development. So too is building the resilience of and investing in those communities and nations most vulnerable to disasters, especially in the least developed countries and small island developing States. 90. Promote inclusive and sustainable growth and decent employment. This can be achieved by economic diversification, financial inclusion, efficient infrastructure, productivity gains, trade, sustainable energy, relevant education and skills training. Labour market policies should focus in particular on young people, women and people with disabilities. 91. End hunger and malnutrition. Addressing hunger, malnutrition, stunting and food insecurity in a world experiencing rapid population growth will require a combination of stable and adequate incomes for all, improvements in agricultural productivity and sustainability, child and maternal care and strengthened social protection for vulnerable populations. 92. Address demographic challenges. While the population of developed countries is projected to remain unchanged at around 1.3 billion, the population of developing countries is projected to increase from 5.9 billion in 2013 to 8.2 billion in 2050. Countries with a high rate of population growth are generally on a path of falling fertility, especially as education for girls and sexual and reproductive health services become more widely available. Progress in these areas would enable many households to slow fertility rates, with consequent benefits for health, education, sustainability and the demographic dividend for economic growth. Countries with a
14
13-40932
A/68/202
high proportion of young people need to offer education and opportunities for decent work. Countries with an ageing population need policy responses to support the elderly so as to remove barriers to their full participation in society while protecting their rights and dignity. 93. Enhance the positive contribution of migrants. More than a billion people rely on international and domestic migration to improve the income, health and education of their families, escape poverty and conflict and adapt to environmental and economic shocks. Countries receiving migrants can also benefit significantly. Yet many barriers limit the positive effects of migration, including possible large economic and social gains. Discrimination is widespread and the human rights of migrants are often denied at different points in the migration process. The scourge of human trafficking, an unacceptable dimension of migration, must be ended. 94. Meet the challenges of urbanization. Some 70 per cent of the world’s population will live in cities by 2050. Urbanization poses the challenge of providing city dwellers with employment, food, income, housing, transportation, clean water and sanitation, social services and cultural amenities. At the same time, living in cities creates opportunities for the more efficient delivery and use of physical facilities and amenities. Rural prosperity, land management and secure ecosystem services should form an integral part of sustainable urbanization and economic transformation. 95. Build peace and effective governance based on the rule of law and sound institutions. Peace and stability, human rights and effective governance based on the rule of law and transparent institutions are outcomes and enablers of development. There can be no peace without development and no development without peace. Lasting peace and sustainable development cannot be fully realized without respect for human rights and the rule of law. Transparency and accountability are powerful tools for ensuring citizens’ involvement in policymaking and their oversight of the use of public resources, including to prevent waste and corruption. Legal empowerment, access to justice and an independent judiciary and universal legal identification can also be critical for gaining access to public services. 96. Foster a renewed global partnership. The Millennium Development Goals, in particular Goal 8, on the global partnership for development, speak to the importance of our common humanity and the values of equity, solidarity and human rights. The post-2015 development agenda will need to be supported by a renewed global partnership grounded on such values. As noted in the report of my High-level Panel, “the partnership should capture, and will depend on, a spirit of mutual respect and mutual benefit”. 97. The global partnership should finish the job started with Goal 8, including meeting the assistance objective of 0.7 per cent of gross national income, as well as other existing and future intergovernmental agreements, such as the Millennium Declaration, the Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for Development, the Principles set out in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and the Istanbul Programme of Action, as well as the outcome of the Ad Hoc Working Group of the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. All partners should deliver on past commitments, particularly those on official development assistance, climate finance and domestic resource mobilization.
13-40932
15
A/68/202
98. The transformative actions of the post-2015 development agenda should be supported by multi-stakeholder partnerships that respond to the sustainable development agenda. These should include not only governments but also businesses, private philanthropic foundations, international organizations, civil society, volunteer groups, local authorities, parliaments, trade unions, research institutes and academia. Such partnerships can channel commitments and actions from a wider set of actors, and their success depends on assigning roles, responsibilities and clear accountability. 99. Official development assistance will remain crucial, including for leveraging other finance, particularly for the least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States, many countries in Africa and countries emerging from conflict and disasters. In addition to delivering on past commitments, it will be critical for donors to establish a timetable for meeting official development assistance targets and enhancing development effectiveness, including through the principles and actions set out in the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. The impact of official development assistance can be magnified by other sources of finance, including innovative sources. 100. A universal development agenda beyond 2015 will require a robust framework for sustainable development finance including both private and public funding. International efforts are needed to create an environment conducive to business and thus channel capital flows and portfolio investments to the sustainable development agenda, to eliminate illicit financial flows, to enhance the regulation of secrecy jurisdictions and to promote asset recovery. Multilateral development banks have an important role to play in identifying novel sources of sustainable development financing. 101. At the same time, the financing framework for the post-2015 period will require the mobilization of domestic resources, including by broadening the tax base and improving tax administration, including in developing countries, and improving corporate and public governance of extractive industries in resource-rich countries. In addition, the financing framework will require commitment by the public and private scientific and research communities to develop new and transformative technologies. Harnessing science, technology and innovative methods will be central in areas ranging from information and communications technology to transportation, the environment and life-saving medicines. 102. South-South and triangular cooperation will also play a key role. This has increased significantly in recent years and has taken various forms, including infrastructure investment, technical cooperation, joint research and investment and information-sharing. 103. I welcome the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing, which will propose options on a strategy to facilitate the mobilization of resources and their effective use. The biennial high-level Development Cooperation Forum and the follow-up to the International Conference on Financing for Development also provide important opportunities for charting a way forward. 104. Strengthen the international development cooperation framework. In order to respond to the challenges of funding and implementing a sustainable development agenda, both national and international institutions need to be strengthened to overcome the institutional and operational separation between economic, social and
16
13-40932
A/68/202
environmental responsibilities. I particularly welcome, in that regard, General Assembly resolution 67/290, in which the mandate, organizational structure and the working methods of the high-level political forum on sustainable development were defined. There is broad agreement that the forum should bring political support at the highest level to the coordination, coherence, implementation and monitoring of the commitments in a universal sustainable development agenda.
B.
Comprehensive monitoring framework and robust accountability mechanisms 105. Strong monitoring and accountability will be crucial for the implementation of the post-2015 development agenda. Governments, especially parliaments, will play a central role. The monitoring and accountability framework can be strengthened through the direct engagement of citizens and responsible businesses making use of new technologies to expand coverage, to disaggregate data and to reduce costs. 106. The availability of information has improved during the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. Still, there is an urgent need to further improve data collection, dissemination and analysis. Better baseline data and statistics are needed, especially because the post-2015 development agenda will involve measuring a broader range of indicators, requiring new and disaggregated data to capture gaps within and between population groups. Assessing the quality of outcomes should also feature more prominently in a results-based framework. As suggested by my High-level Panel, targets will be considered to have been achieved only if they are met for all relevant income and social groups. 107. In this context, the advances in information technology over the past decade provide an opportunity for a “data revolution”, which should enable countries to strengthen existing data sources and develop new and participatory sources of information. Many developing countries will require technical and financial support to build solid statistical systems and capacity so as to take advantage of these new opportunities.
C.
Setting goals for the agenda 108. Experience with the Millennium Development Goals shows us that goals can be a powerful way of mobilizing common action. To be effective, they need to be limited in number, measurable, easy to communicate and adaptable to both global and local settings. 109. At the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Member States agreed that the sustainable development goals “should be coherent with and integrated into the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015”. The many consultations and reports suggest that a single, balanced and comprehensive set of goals, universal to all nations, which aims to eradicate all forms of poverty and integrate sustainable development in all its dimensions, should form the core of the agenda. 110. The framing of the set of goals for sustainable development will inevitably need to be broader than that of the Millennium Development Goals in order to reflect new challenges. Illustrative goals and targets have been proposed in a range
13-40932
17
A/68/202
of reports, including those of the High-level Panel, the Sustainable Development Solutions Network and the Global Compact, and in several initiatives from the research community. 111. Goals and targets should take into account cross-cutting issues such as gender, disability, age and other factors leading to inequality, human rights, demographics, migration and partnerships. The new goals should embrace the emphasis on human well-being and include the use of metrics that go beyond standard income measures, such as surveys of subjective well-being and happiness, as introduced by many countries and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
D.
Towards the formulation and launch of the agenda 112. The special event of the President of the General Assembly to be convened on 25 September will review current efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and provide a timely opportunity for rallying political support for their acceleration. The event will also serve as an occasion to reflect on the broad contours of the development agenda beyond 2015. 113. Member States should therefore use the special event to generate clarity and a solid momentum for the important discussions and decisions that will follow. In the outcome of the event they could issue a call for convening a United Nations summit in 2015 to adopt the new development agenda. To that end, the Assembly could request its President to hold consultations on a procedural resolution for initiating preparations for the summit, in which it could request the Secretary-General to prepare a report on modalities, format and organization for submission to the Assembly by March 2014. That report could serve as the basis for the Assemblyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consultations on a comprehensive resolution on the timing, scope, format, participation and expected outcome of a summit in 2015. 114. The General Assembly could launch the final phase of the intergovernmental consultations on a post-2015 development agenda at its sixty-ninth session. Those consultations could draw on the outcomes of several intergovernmental events, including the high-level meeting on disability and development, to be held in September, the high-level dialogue on international migration and development, to be held in October, the third International Conference on Small Island Developing States, the climate change summit in 2014 as well as the next conference on financing for development. Our goal must be to make 2015 a defining moment for people and the planet and to show what the United Nations and Member States, working together, can achieve.
IV. Recommendations 115. I call upon all Member States and the entire international community to take every step possible to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. This will require political courage and enlightened leadership on the part of all countries, regardless of their level of development. But we must, as stated in the Millennium Declaration, spare no effort to deliver on our policy and financial commitments. This is our duty â&#x20AC;&#x201D; our responsibility to humanity today and in the future. With political will and adequate resources, much can be accomplished before the 2015 deadline. Even then, some goals may not be met. Others, even if met, were designed
18
13-40932
A/68/202
to address only part of the challenge. The post-2015 development agenda will therefore need to complete the Millennium Development Goals, scale up their success, expand their scope and address new challenges. 116. I call upon Member States to adopt a universal post-2015 development agenda, with sustainable development at its core. Poverty eradication, inclusive growth targeting inequality, protecting and managing the natural resource base of our planet within a rights-based framework and cognizant of the nexus between peace and development — these are the overarching objectives of sustainable development. To realize this agenda, all countries need to recognize the profound transformations required to address the emerging challenges of sustainable development. These include economic shifts to sustainable patterns of production and consumption, effective governance and a renewed global partnership and means of implementation. 117. I call upon the international system, including the United Nations, to embrace a more coherent and effective response to support this agenda. I welcome the leadership of Member States as they establish the high-level political forum, tasked with providing coordination and coherence at the highest political level to foster sustainable development in every country. The United Nations system will continue to reform and make itself “fit for purpose” so as to respond to the challenges of this new path to sustainable development. 118. I encourage Member States to provide clarity on the road map to 2015. As Member States consider the processes leading up to 2015, they could be supported by a report of the Secretary-General during the main part of the sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly. This would draw upon the outcomes of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals, the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing and other bodies. The intergovernmental process could lead to an agreement on the vision, principles, goals and targets of the post-2015 development agenda, as well as on the renewed global partnership for development.
V. Conclusion 119. Acting upon our common challenges demands a renewed commitment to international cooperation. Multilateralism is being tested. The United Nations, as a global beacon of solidarity, must do its part to strengthen collaboration and show that it can be effective in building the just, prosperous and sustainable world that people want and have a right to expect. Defining the post-2015 development agenda is thus a daunting yet inspiring and historic task for the United Nations and its Member States. 120. In so doing we must continue to listen to and involve the peoples of the world. We have heard their calls for peace and justice, eradicating poverty, realizing rights, eliminating inequality, enhancing accountability and preserving our planet. The world’s nations must unite behind a common programme to act on those aspirations. No one must be left behind. We must continue to build a future of justice and hope, a life of dignity for all.
13-40932
19
Asia Development Alliance (ADA) ADA Statement to Asia‐Pacific Ministerial Dialogue On the UN Secretary General Report on MDGs and Post‐2015 Development Agenda beyond 2015(A/68/202) 27 August 2013 We, members and partners of the Asia Development Alliance (ADA) composed of national and subnational development CSO/NGO platforms in Asia, participating in the 2nd Regional Consultation on Post-2015 development agenda, convened jointly with Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP)Asia in Bangkok, Thailand on 25 August 2013, Recognizing the importance of the Post 2015 Development Agenda as an opportunity and challenge to CSOs in Asia to empower people living in poverty and insecurity to claim their own rights, Welcoming the Asia-Pacific Ministerial Dialogue held in Bangkok on 26 and 27 August 2013, which is part of the engagement process between governments, civil society and other stake-holders in the UN development agenda beyond 2015, Welcoming the report of the UN Secretary “A life of dignity for all: accelerating progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and advancing the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015” (A/68/2015) submitted to the 68th session of the UN General Assembly Recalling the previous ADA statements on Post-2015 development agenda including ADA statement on Post-2015 Development Agenda (Bangkok, 2 Feb. 2013), ADA response to the Communiqué of the 4th HLP (Bali, 21 April 2013) and statement on the UN HLP Final Report (12 June, 2013), Recognizing the importance of inclusive and equitable partnerships for sustainable development among civil society, government including parliament, and private sector in line with internationally recognized principles such as Rio Principles, the UN Declaration on the Right to Development and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Recognizing the importance of Busan Global Partnership for Effective Development Partnership (GPEDC) as a means of implementation as well as a normative framework for inclusive and equitable partnerships in the Post-2015 process, Welcoming the inclusion in the report of UN Secretary General of exclusion and inequality, climate change, migration and democratic challenges, urbanization as well as the international development cooperation framework as stand-alone goals among 15 proposed goals for Post-2015 development agenda,
1
Supporting the proposal in the Report of ‘a single, balanced and comprehensive set of goals , universal to all nations’ as core of the Post-2015 development agenda which is ‘limited in number, measurable, easy to communicate and adaptable to both global and local settings’, Welcoming the recognition in the Report that the new sustainable development goals should include the emphasis on human well-being and go beyond the usual economic measures like Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and per capita income to include the use of new indicators such as surveys of wellbeing and happiness, Welcoming the emphasis in the Report on the role of civil society and parliaments in monitoring and accountability mechanisms in MDGs and Post-2015 development agenda, Welcoming the emphasis in the Report the importance of solid statistical system and capacity’ in monitoring the progress in the realization of MDGs and Post-2015 development agenda, Mindful of the assessment of the achievement of MDGs in the Report that ‘progress has been insufficient and highly uneven despite significant progress in many countries and in some targets’ 1.
Underscore the importance of addressing in the Post-2015 development agenda, in the context of prolonged global financial crisis, the root causes of structural poverty and increasing exclusion and inequality,
2.
Emphasize the importance and urgency to transform current development paradigm and architecture from the current neoliberal framework to one that prioritizes human development, social protection and ecological sustainability over profits,
3.
Stress the urgent need to reshape and revitalize global governance and partnerships, including the international financial institutions, to ensure the centrality and primacy of human rights, a more just, fairer and equitable global financial and trade architecture and framework, and the effectiveness of transparency and accountability mechanisms,
4.
Stress the importance of upholding and implementing internationally recognized principles such as common but differentiated responsibilities, human rights-based approach to development, principle of free, prior and informed consent, principle of access to information, justice and public participation, and polluter pay principle,
5.
Underscore the urgent need for innovate financing and to establish and strengthen national and international mechanisms to regulate transnational corporations and speculative financial capital including Financial Transaction Tax (FTT),
6.
Emphasize the importance of disarmament and demilitarization to build sustainable peace and also to use the sizable military spending for poverty eradication and financing for development,
7.
Emphasize the importance of universal ratification of all international human rights treaties, in particular, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and its Optional Protocol as well as their full implementation at domestic level,
8.
Stress the importance of making full use of existing available monitoring and accountability human rights mechanisms, such as the UN special procedures, treaty bodies and Universal Periodic Review (UPR), and of effective CSO participation in all these,
2
9.
Stress the importance of democratic ownership, transparency and multiple accountability for both providers and partners of development cooperation in Asia as emphasized in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation,
10. Stress the need to give priority to least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing countries as well as fragile and conflict-affected countries in Post-2015 development agenda, 11. Stress the urgent need for transition to low carbon economy while respecting bio-diversity and ecological limit and planetary boundary, 12. Stress the importance of comprehensive transfer of technology and environmentally sound technologies that respond to the needs and build capacities of developing countries and communities, more than just Information and Communication Technology (ICT), 13. Stress the need to respect and promote gender equality, equity and justice as well as womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s human rights for gender empowerment, 14. Stress the need to recognize historical and ecological debts in addressing foreign debts, 15. Stress the need to recognize corruption as a key barrier to transparent and accountable governance and to promote transparency and democratic governance, 16. Urge Asian governments to take the following concrete actions proactively in order to make the Post-2015 process more inclusive and meaningful: a)
Recognize and work with civil society as a legitimate and equal partner for policy-sharing, monitoring and evaluation in the Post-2015 process and beyond, b) Hold regular policy consultation with civil society to get peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s voices heard in the Post2015 development process and beyond, c) Facilitate CSOsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; access and participation in the UN inter-governmental consultations such as the UN Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG-SDGs) and other inter-governmental consultation and negotiation processes related to Post 2015, d) Ensure and promote an enabling environment for civil society to implement the Istanbul Principles and Seam Reap Consensus for CSO Development Effectiveness as recognized in the Article 22 of the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation in 2011,
17. Commit ourselves to make the Post-2015 process and outcome more meaningful and beneficial to billions of people living in poverty, injustice and insecurity for survival in Asia and other parts of the world.
Asia Development Alliance (ADA) is a regional forum of national and sub-national development NGO/CSO platforms in Asia to promote more effective communication, coordination and cooperation in the Post-2015 Development Agenda process. It was officially launched in Bangkok on 2 February 2013. http://www.facebook.com/groups/ADA2013/ ADA201322@gmail.com 3
4
Civil Society’s Call for a Fair & Sustainable Future
IFP’s Council Position Paper on Post-2015 Development Agenda
Introduction The International Forum of National NGO Platforms (IFP) brings together 55 national NGO platforms and 7 regional coalitions. The IFP is a representative network of National NGO Platforms (NPF) and regional NGO coalitions acting at the global level in order to contribute to development, peace and justice throughout the world. It aspires to create the conditions for effective involvement of NGOs in global governance, so that they can influence international negotiations on development, human rights and international solidarity. Currently, the IFP’s members are engaged in the debate on the post-2015 agenda. The IFP platforms, which are spread over four continents, are participating actively in the process of national consultations with Beyond 2015 and Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP).Thanks to the hard work of all our members and the partnership with the Beyond 2015 and GCAP, this ambitious and important initiative was made possible and we are pleased to present this capitalization document of the IFP Council’s positions for a universal and inclusive post-2015 agenda.
IFP’s Council Position Paper on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
1
We join Beyond 2015 and GCAP for the achievement of the following objectives: n The fight against inequality (especially social and regional inequalities and related to gender) n Environmental sustainability n Defense of the Human Rights n Eradication of Poverty and Hunger n Promotion of Democracy and Justice Like Beyond 2015 and GCAP, we advocate for a holistic and inclusive human rights-based development approach. Since the beginning of the millennium, there has been undeniable progress related to the MDGs, but the global situation has profoundly evolved, characterised by geopolitical turmoil; food, social, economic, financial and environmental crises; and growing urbanisation. One of the historic features of our times is the unprecedented escalation of inequalities among countries but also within countries, and the increasing enrichment of a restricted group of economic and financial actors. In addition, there are devastating effects on our environment -and in particular on the people of the global South- of a development model based on over-exploitation of natural resources, the pollution of our waters, seas and oceans, of our soil and of our air. This development model has permitted the collective irresponsibility of globalised actors towards human rights by tearing down State regulations and by not adapting laws related to globalization. This is why it is necessary to rethink the development paradigm so that it is not only related to the idea of economic growth but also aligned to an approach combining sustainable development, eradication of poverty and reduction of inequalities. The IFP welcomed with interest the publication of the report of the High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda of the United Nations, on May 30 2013. The framework has defined answers to many concerns that were highlighted by the civil society organizations. The narrative takes into account the importance of putting an end to poverty and leaving no one behind -in that it recognizes the limits of the MDGs, but also to live in a world of peace where there are stable institutions. The importance of including sustainable development in policy development is well represented in the report, as well as the principles of common but differentiated responsibility to achieve the objectives within a new global partnership. We regret, however,
IFP’s Council Position Paper on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
that the goals are not as ambitious as the narrative and that, although the report mentions the need to escape from «business as usual», it retains an overall liberal line. The report is focused on the idea of development linked to economic growth and although it mentions the rights-based approach, it does not hold a central place in the objectives.
I
A framework supporting the post-2015 goals This preliminary framework comprises the sine qua non conditions for the success of the post-2015 goals. A climate of peace, efficient funding for development, consistent policies and an enabling environment for CSOs will allow the institutionalization of the necessary climate for achieving the objectives of poverty eradication, reduction of inequalities and respect of the environment.
A world of peace and security Without a framework that allows poor people to fully realise their potential, to free themselves from poverty and to live in a healthy environment, the post-2015 objectives will not be achievable. No economic and social right can be realised without the right to live in a world of peace, security, justice and equity. A civic and apolitical education regarding the prevention and resolution of conflicts as well as the establishment of constructive exchanges among cross-border actors is a crucial step for the realisation of these rights. Everyone must have the opportunity to live in a stable, participatory Everyone and transparent political must have the climate where a genuine opportunity to live in socia l d ia log ue ex ist s. a stable, participatory C o r r u p t i o n , l a c k o f and transparent transparency and a failure political climate to observe democratic rules where a genuine are blockages that keep social dialogue people living in poverty. exists. »
«
2
A reconceived approach to financing for development The basis of stable development funding goes through a fair tax system, yet currently we are facing a significant lack of regulation of financial transactions as well as, in many States, fragile taxation systems. It is estimated that there is a total of US$ 20,000 billion hidden in tax havens. It is thus crucial to strengthen global taxation systems as well as national cooperation in order to put an end to tax evasion and to open a new source of global funding for development. The Tobin Tax on financial transactions is one of the sources of innovative funding which, once put in place, will strengthen the stability and visibility of financing the post-2015 framework. Sources of innovative financing mechanisms are mentioned in the report of the High Level Panel on the post-2015, which also underlines the importance of exchange of information on monetary flows.
Policy coherence International aid cannot alone reduce poverty. Policy coherence is essential to the achievement of the objectives of the next agenda and covers several dimensions: the measures taken within the field of cooperation and of development; within donor States, between their aid policy and other policies; between different donors; as well as between donors and aid recipient countries on issues such as trade, migration, health, agriculture, environment, etc. For this, real political will is required to make effective policies coherent and to improve communication between the different development actors, but also for an enhanced surveillance mechanism. Policy coherence is an essential vector for long-term development. Significant mobilisation of Governments and development stakeholders on the concepts of accountability and transparency is necessary, as is the general involvement of all stakeholders to finally break the historic dichotomy between the global North and the global South. Policy coherence is not underlined as it should be by the High Level Panel’s report while it is part of the main factors of success of the objectives.
«
Civil society direct involvement in development strategies organizations is the key to the success are major players o f p ubl ic p ol ic i e s . in the democratic Howe ve r, i n m a ny space and have a parts of the world, their role in the practical space of expression implementation of the a nd inter vention is future goals. » restricted. Thus, it is necessary to change the perception that governments have of CSOs and that CSOs have of governments. Governments need to be made aware of the benefits of close involvement of civil society in the definition, the implementation and the monitoring of priorities and actions with social impacts, both in the definition of this agenda and for the future achievement of objectives. CSOs must be regarded as partners of public authorities and not as competitors in order to permit a better citizen-government dialogue, a positive democratic climate and transparency of authorities. Moreover, a mechanism of regular sharing of information among CSOs which would help building synergy and share lessons and skills is needed. However, while the High Level Panel’s report mentions the necessity of an enabling environment, it only concerns businesses. It is essential to widen this conceptual framework of enabling environment to include civil society organizations at the same level.
An enabling environment for civil society organisations Civil society organizations are major players in the democratic space and have a role in the practical implementation of the future goals. CSOs are safeguards of democracy and a rightful place must be reserved for them in the social dialogue. Their
IFP’s Council Position Paper on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
3
II
The key principles of the post-2015 Agenda
«
Reducing inequalities and poverty eradication
The progress of policies of fight against poverty is undeniable, but it is now necessary to take a further step in emphasising the reduction of the inequalities that affect all regions of the world. »
A s Beyond 2015 a nd G C A P, w e b e l i e v e t h at p ove r t y i s n o t m e r el y a m o n e t a r y i nd icator but cover s a mu lt id i men s ion a l reality demanding that we act not only on its consequences but on its structural causes. O u r memb er s a g ree that inequalities have risen sharply since the beginning of the millennium as a consequence of the increasing marginalisation of certain groups in our societies which have fallen more deeply into the vicious circle of poverty. Currently, 10% of the richest inhabitants of our planet own 83% of the world’s wealth; on the other hand, the poorest half of the world population owns only 1%. The progress of policies of fight against poverty is undeniable, but it is now necessary to take a further step in emphasising the reduction of the inequalities that affect all regions of the world.
A rights-based approach to development We support GCAP and Beyond 2015 in advocating for a rights-based approach to development. Some improvements regarding access to health facilities and education were realised because of the MDGs. However, we must question the quality of these services and their accessibility in terms of rights and not as privileges. It is necessary to make basic rights
IFP’s Council Position Paper on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
«
Access to care enforceable everywhere in the world. Access to and to good care and to good quality quality education education will reduce the will reduce the gap gap between the rich and between the rich and the poor. Similarly, all the poor. » citizens must have the right to minimal social protection so that their integrity is preserved throughout their existence. The State must be a body with a real redistributive function based on a solid tax system ensuring the reduction of inequalities. Citizens’ participation and the fight against all forms of discrimination It is thus crucial for the IFP that development policies rely on the fight against all forms of discrimination occurring at the present time by including the highest number of citizens in the political debate, by giving them the visibility and the means to be heard and to defend their rights in order to improve their human and material living conditions, and to live in security without fear for their physical or moral integrity. It is essential to promote the value of human diversity and the affirmation of differences as a mechanism for reducing poverty and inequality. Not only gender but also ethnic and racial differences must be recognized and understood as factors that shape and determine the historically existing inequalities in contemporary societies. The fight against racism and sexism should be extended to include public institutions and services and thus help stimulate the participation of population groups historically excluded from areas of power and exercise their rights. Women must have access to economic, political and social structures without discrimination due to gender. The post-2015 objectives must take into account the pay gap between men and women as well as the problems of access to work for women. Violence against women is still happening all over the world and measures must be taken in order to guarantee that the rights of women and girls to health and security are promoted and respected. More generally, It is essential children, minorities, and to promote people with disabilities the value of human must be integrated into diversity and the the national dynamics in affirmation of order to realise their full differences as a potential and to contribute mechanism for to the development of their reducing poverty country. and inequality. »
«
4
Access to decent work
«
on water resources, soil fertility, As much as Unemployment is a universal issue, forest surfaces, etc., increasing the present even more so since the beginning exposure to climate and economic Millennium of the economic crisis, thus further r i sk s for a l re ady v u l nerable Development Goals widening the inequalities gap. groups. And this will only increase focus on basic with the current dynamics of Access to decent work is a factor education, the population growth. This is why which allows individuals to escape future goals should sustainable development must from poverty and to benefit from concentrate on central to the next agenda to better living conditions. Access to secondary education be encourage governments, businesses work opportunities must be the and employment and citizens to rethink the way same for all and a strategic reflection after education – also they produce and consume; we by country must be conducted so in Europe. » encourage the focus the report of that the labour force and especially the High-Level Panel brings on this young people can have access to employment. Because of the critical role that the major challenge of the XXI st century. youth play, the future goals should take account of their possibilities to work and growth. As much as A commitment to the fight the present Millennium Development Goals focus on against climate change basic education, the future goals should concentrate on Climate change is a critical topic that weighs heavily secondary education and employment after education on the future of the planet and its inhabitants. – also in Europe. Everyone should have a possibility The situation is alarming in regard to the impacts of to relevant work in which one can use suitable skills climate change and the major weather events that learned from his/her education. Youth employment would ensue (increase in sea level, tidal waves, etc.). should be understood broadly: not only as a vocational This vulnerability manifests itself not only in training issue but including also for example training material damage, but can be translated into food on how to apply for a job. Youth employment should insecurity, forced migration and displacement, loss be measured by the number of employed young of native culture, breakdown of economies, etc. people, not by the number of educated young people. Nonetheless, climate negotiations are slowing down Special attention should be given to the employment and policies are not taking significant, immediate of women and to their comprehensive role in work life. and binding commitments. Furthermore, parallel Results of women’s employment can be seen quickly to the global financial crisis and its effects on and it creates often a positive cycle (multiplying impact employment and incomes, there is a reduction in on families, influence on family sizes, reproductive interest of world public opinion and media - and health etc.). consequently, of Governments - on climate change. Renewable energy should gradually replace fossil fuels and access to clean and renewable energy must be guaranteed for To make the people living in poverty. Wealthier nations should protection of s t a r t t o l ive up t he the environment existing agreements in a reality, the term of climate change SDGs should be financing and lead the adopted worldwide w a y i n n o n - c a r b o n and resource A mode of consumption development in their management taking into account societies. should be based on
Towards a new paradigm of development, a link between MDGs and SDGs
the finiteness of natural resources
Inequalities are also manifested in the fragility to climate change and through unequal access to resources. Poor people living in rural areas are the most vulnerable to climate change because of their greater dependence on natural resources. Our pattern of consumption exerts increasing pressure
IFP’s Council Position Paper on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
«
A common but differentiated responsibility The development pa rad ig m shou ld be redesig ned so that
5
the principles of transparency and accountability at the national and global levels, including equitable sharing of responsibilities. »
«
human development policies This is why production of food (according to systematically operate in synergy the FAO), and promote agricultural sustainable w i t h t h o s e o f s u s t a i n a b l e development must production system that does not d e v e l o p m e n t i n o r d e r t o be central to the next represent a threat to nature, which undertake the ecological and agenda to encourage involves the promotion of an agrosocial transition. To make the governments, ecological model, a process that protection of the environment businesses and must be achieved during the next a reality, the SDGs should be citizens to rethink thirty years. adopted worldwide and resource the way they management should be based on produce and The fight against speculation the principles of transparency consume. » on agricultural markets and accountability at the national and global levels, including equitable sharing of Small-scale farmers should be able to meet their needs responsibilities. It is essential to make the biggest so that they are not vulnerable to the fluctuations polluters of the planet accountable to society and of the market. Speculation on agricultural markets that measures be taken to prevent irresponsible represents a threat to food security in countries behavior regarding the planet and its inhabitants. already suffering from a growing dependence on Our consumption of natural resources should be imports, exacerbated by new eating habits which do reduced taking into account the ecological limits of not value the biodiversity of national produce. Food our planet. The means to achieve these objectives security is a fundamental right on which we have to should be common but differentiated according to insist. This measure is fundamental in order to avoid severe food crises and chronic malnutrition problems the different contexts of each country. affecting certain populations. Food should not be Eradication included in the stock market, the conception of land, of hunger and support water and food as tradable without consideration to small-holding farmers for cultural, ethical or The living conditions of smallholding farmers huma nitaria n aspects Food should are intimately linked to the evolution of climate should be prohibited. not be included change and to the marginalisation of certain groups A g r i c u l t u r e m u s t in the stock market, within society, illustrating the interconnection of b e ded ic ated to fo o d the conception of issues related to poverty and the need to act on the pr o duc t ion . The I F P land, water and food causes that determine it. Poverty is predominantly positions itself to ensure as tradable without rural, and the lack of technical sophistication in that the fight against land consideration for agriculture is flagrant. Offering no opportunities for seizures and speculation cultural, ethical economic success, agriculture is being abandoned on cereals is included on or humanitarian by young people who are more interested in moving the next agenda. aspects should be to urban areas in order to find better opportunities prohibited. » for successful life. Unequal access to land ownership associated with lack of access to credit, lack of training and lack of insurance are the causes of poverty among small family structures. We face five major threats to adequate food of mankind: high cost of food, high cost of production inputs, land grabbing and concentration of water resources, compounded by the effects of climate change. These phenomena are observed repeatedly by farmers’ organizations, cooperation agencies, NGOs and governments. However, the global decision-makers have not been able, so far, to take effective measures to guarantee the right to a healthy alimentation. We need a global agreement to support small family farms, recognizing that this is the main source of
«
IFP’s Council Position Paper on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
6
III
IFPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recommendations n The f ight against inequalities is a major preoccupation for humanity. Associated with a rights-based approach to development, it will allow everyone to fully realize their potential without leaving anyone behind. n The post-2015 development will be in compliance with the limits of our planet and in harmony with the Sustainable Development Goals. The commitment of a wide range of actors and principles of accountability will counter the effects of climate change, which consequences harm mainly the most vulnerable populations. n The support to smallholdings will ensure food security for the most vulnerable people and will offer incomes to farmers in order to help them move out of poverty. The IFP also takes a stand against speculation on agricultural markets and especially on cereals. n Civil society is one of the safeguards of our democracy. An enabling environment promoted around the world will contribute to the establishment of a stable and constructive democratic climate. Civil society organizations must be included in the definition, implementation and monitoring of social and environmental projects, indicators should also be developed through a consultation process with civil society.
Conclusion Since 2008, the IFP has committed itself to promote topics of public interest including the fight against inequalities, the regulation of agricultural markets and the fight against climate change. This commitment has resulted in multiple public positions at the international level. The IFP is also positioned so that these issues are put forward in the coming post-2015 agenda. The realisation of the non-governmental diplomacy exercises allowed the production of numerous documents on crucial topics (analysis and positions papers) as well as the integration in the process of global governance; this has allowed a strengthening of cooperation among civil society actors on these themes, echoing the work done today in collaboration with Beyond 2015 and GCAP. We are currently living a moment of major importance for the future of humanity and the planet. The future agenda can go even further in the proposals of social, economic and environmental transformation, and be the ref lection of the ambitions of a society requesting profound improvements for generations to come. We have a unique opportunity to seize in order to contribute to the profound transformation of our economic, social and environmental system, to enable citizens to recognize themselves in the new agenda and continue to participate in building equitable societies that respect the environment. The energy that brings us around this new agenda confirms the importance of global cooperation well beyond 2015.
September 2013 Graphic desing: Kmograf* Print: Otrad Services
IFPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Council Position Paper on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
7
List of national deliberations taken into account: Africa:
Guatemala – CONGCOOP
Burkina Faso – SPONG (Secrétariat permanent des ONG du Burkina-Faso) « Focus Group Report, 27 February 2013. » http://www.spong.bf/IMG/pdf/MDGs_report_final_version. pdf Mali – FECONG (Fédération des collectifs d’ONG du Mali) « Preparatory Workshop of the CSOs for the validation of their vision and their contribution to recovery and sustainable development in Mali » Morocco – Espace Associatif « Priorities for the post-2015 Development. Moroccans express themselves on « the world we want » » http://www.espace-associatif.ma/Consultation-Nationale-Lenouveau
Nigeria – NNNGO (Nigeria Network of NGOs) «GCAP Nigeria Declaration on the Post-2015 Development Agenda» http://gcapnigeria.org/blog/?p=1#more-1
DRC – CNONGD (Conseil national des ONG de développement) « DRC Civil Society Statement on the workshop on reflexion on the National Consultations on the acceleration of the process of implementation of the Millenium Development Goals and the world construction of the post-2015 development Agenda » http://www.beyond2015.org/sites/default/files/RAPPORT.pdf
Latin America Bolivia – Unitas (Red Unitas) «Povery and ways to change: visions from the subjects» http://www.redunitas.org/boliviaodm2015/
(Coordinación de ONG y Cooperativas) «The Milenium Objectives and the post-2015 Agenda» http://2doc.net/n8dna
Peru – ANC (Asociación Nacional de Centros) «CSOs declaration on the post-2015 Development Agenda in Peru» http://www.beyond2015.org/sites/default/files/Report%20 ENG.pdf
Asia India – VANI (Voluntary Action Network India) «Civil society engagement with the post-2015 agenda» http://2doc.net/npwai Indonesia – INFID (International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development) «National Civil Society Consultation on post-2015 development agenda: toward inclusive, Just and Sustainable Development» http://www.beyond2015.org/sites/default/files/Summary.pdf
Nepal – NFN (NGO Federation of Nepal) «Outcomes of Civil Society Consultations in Nepal» http://www.ngofederation.org/images/stories/publications/ Post2015_Outcome_Report.pdf
Europe
Beyond 2015 - European Task-Force
« Putting People and Planet First – Business as Usual is not an Option » http://2doc.net/jq9io
France – Coordination SUD
«Final Report : The World We Want Post-2015 » http://www.abong.org.br/final/download/posen.pdf
(Solidarité Urgence Développement) « Proposals for a common set of principles in the context of the post-2015 reflections » http://www.coordinationsud.org/wp-content/uploads/Soclecommun-AMCP-EN.pdf
Colombia – CCONG (Confederación Colombiana de
Netherlands – Partos
ONG) «CSO’s National Deliberations on a post-2015 development framework Beyond 2015/GCAP» http://2doc.net/uqb8g
(Partos Internationaal Samenwerken) « Through the Looking Glass. Recommendations on the post-2015 Agenda from the Dutch Civil Society working in International Cooperation» https://partos.nl/system/files/ckeditor/files/130322%20 Dutch%20Civil%20Society%20consultation%20on%20 the%20Post%202015%20agenda%281%29.pdf
Brazil – ABONG (Associação Brasileira de ONGs)
IFP’s Council Position Paper on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
8
Special Event 25 September: Outcome Document We, the Heads of State and Government and heads of delegation, have gathered at the United Nations Headquarters in New York at the Special event convened by the President of the General Assembly, to review progress made towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and to chart the way forward. Our deliberations have taken account of the voices of people worldwide, and the concerns and priorities they conveyed. We gather with a sense of urgency and determination, with less than 850 days remaining for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. We renew our commitment to the Goals and resolve to intensify all efforts for their achievement by 2015. We welcome what has been achieved so far. The Millennium Development Goals have provided a common vision and contributed to remarkable progress. Significant and substantial advances have been made in meeting several of the targets. However, we are concerned at the unevenness and gaps in achievement and at the immense challenges that remain. The MDGs are critical for meeting the basic needs of people in developing countries; as we approach the 2015 deadline, unrelenting efforts are required to accelerate progress across all the Goals. Among and within developing countries, those who have been left furthest behind require our most urgent attention and support. We are conscious of the special challenges and needs of the leastdeveloped countries; the fact that, despite some impressive progress, most African countries remain offtrack in meeting the Goals; and that conflict and post conflict countries are the most challenged in achieving any of the Goals by 2015. We also recognize the special challenges and needs of SIDS and the LLDCs, many of which are not on track to achieve the MDGs by 2015. We recognize the special challenges to meeting the MDGs faced by people living under foreign occupation. We acknowledge also the challenges to meeting the MDGs for people living in areas affected by complex humanitarian emergencies and in areas affected by terrorism. We also recognize the specific challenges which many middle-income countries face. Accelerating Progress We affirm our commitment to the outcome document of the High Level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on the MDGs held in 2010. The annual Millennium Development Goals reports provide updated assessments of where our efforts are most needed, and will assist us in framing our approach and priorities. We resolve to particularly target the most off-track MDGs and those where progress has stalled: including those relating to poverty and hunger, universal access to primary education, child mortality, universal access to reproductive health, including maternal health, environmental sustainability and access to water and sanitation. In each of these areas, we are determined to take the purposeful and coordinated action required. We will scale up proven interventions, fulfill the pledges we have made;
and strengthen our support for the range of valuable initiatives under way, including international support for the implementation of the New Partnership for Africaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Development. Across all our acceleration efforts, we will emphasize inclusivity and accessibility for all, and will place a particular focus on those who are most vulnerable and disadvantage. We will, for example, seek to build the resilience of the poorest in combating hunger, to improve support for women giving birth in areas of greatest deprivation, and to improve educational opportunity and learning outcomes for the most vulnerable children. Where efforts are broadly on track, and a momentum exists, we will do everything possible to sustain and reinforce it: for example, in combating HIV/AIDS, we will step up efforts to meet the goal of universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support services by 2015. We will sustain and build on the remarkable gains in the fight against malaria and tuberculosis. We will place a strong emphasis on all approaches that have a cross-cutting and multiplier effect. In particular, we recognize that promoting gender equality, and empowering women and girls, underpins and advances progress across all the Goals. We will resolutely promote gender equality and eliminate the range of barriers to womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and girlsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; empowerment in our societies. Global Partnership for Development We underline the central role of a strengthened global partnership for development. We recognize the importance of national ownership, and emphasize that if the MDGs are to be achieved by 2015, national efforts need to be assisted by international support and an enabling international environment. The mobilization and effective use of all resources, public and private, domestic and international, will be vital. We reaffirm the importance of promoting human rights, good governance, the rule of lw, transparency and accountably at all levels. We call for the urgent implementation of all commitments under the global partnership for development so as to overcome the gaps identified in the MDG Gap Taskforce Reports. We emphasize the need to accelerate progress towards the target of 0.7% of GNI as ODA by 2015, including 0.15% to 0.20% for least developed countries. We call on developed countries to urgently fulfill the ODA commitments they have made, individually and collectively. We underline the need for the business sector to engage in responsible business practices. Post-2015 Development Agenda In parallel with intensification of efforts to accelerate achievement of the MDGs, we are determined to craft a strong post-2015 development agenda, which will build on eth e foundations laid by the MDGs, complete the unfinished business and respond to new challenges. As we take the work forward, we reaffirm our commitment to the Millennium Declaration, the outcome document of Rio +20, the Monterrey consensus, the Doha Declaration on Financing for Development and the outcomes of all the major UN conferences and summits in the economic, social, and environmental fields. We will continue to be guided by the values and principles enshrined in these texts.
We reaffirm all the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, including, inter alia, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, as set out in principle 7 thereof. We are resolved that the post-2015 development agenda should reinforce the international community’s commitment to poverty eradication and sustainable development. We underscore the central imperative of poverty eradication and are committed to freeing humanity from poverty and hunger as a matter of urgency. Recognizing the intrinsic interlinkage between poverty eradication and promotion of sustainable development, we underline the need for a coherent approach which integrates in a balanced manner the three dimensions of sustainable development. This coherent approach involves working towards a single framework and set of Goals-universal in nature and applicable to all countries, while taking account of differing national circumstances and respecting national policies and priorities. It should also promote peace and security, democratic governance, the rule of law, gender equality and human rights for all. We decide today to launch a process of intergovernmental negotiations at the beginning of the 69th session of UNGA which will lead to the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda. We acknowledge with appreciation the processes mandated in the Rio+20 outcome documents that are now underway, in particular the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals and the intergovernmental committee of experts on Sustainable Development Financing, as well as the process to develop options for a technology facilitation mechanism. We urge that these processes should complete their work in a comprehensive, balanced and expeditious manner by September 2014. The report submitted by the Secretary General in advance of today’s meeting, which draws on inputs from the High Level Panel of Eminent Persons, United Nations Development Group consultations, the United Nations Global Compact, and the Sustainable Development solutions Network, is a useful input to our deliberations. Over the coming year, preparations of the post-2015 development agenda will benefit from the General Assembly events to be convened by the President of the General Assembly under the theme “the Post2015 Development Agenda-Setting the Stage”. In arriving at an inclusive and people-centered post-2015 development agenda, we look forward to a transparent intergovernmental process which will include inputs from all stakeholders including civil society, scientific and knowledge institutions, parliaments, local authorities, and the private sector. We count on the strong support of the UN system throughout all our work. As an input to the intergovernmental negotiations to be launched at the beginning of the 69th session of UNGA, we call on the Secretary General to synthesis report before the end of 2014. The final phase of the intergovernmental work will culminate in a Summit at HoSG level in September 2015 for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda. We request the President of the General Assembly to convene, in a timely manner, intergovernmental consultations to achieve agreement on organizational modalities for the Summit.
제 4회 서울시민사회포럼
[참고자료 2] GPEDC / CPDE 5. Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership" 6. Factsheet on Indicators 7. CPDE Statement: A CALL FOR A GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP 8. CPDE Background Paper on Private Sector Engagement in Development 9. CSO Partnership Advocacy Strategy 10. The CIVICUS `Enabling Environment Index (EEI)'
Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership Preliminary version for consultation
Final guidance to be issued by mid-April 2013
Contacts: Ms. Marjolaine Nicod, tel. +33 1 45 24 87 67, email: marjolaine.nicod@oecd.org Ms. Hanna-Mari Kilpelainen, tel. +33 1 45 24 98 32, email: hanna-mari.kilpelainen@oecd.org Ms. Yuko Suzuki, tel. +1.212.906.6509, email: yuko.suzuki@undp.org Mr. Derek Kilner, tel. +1 212 906 5742, derek.kilner@undp.org 1 March 2013
ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT This document explains the objectives, process and methodology for monitoring the implementation of the selected commitments made in the Busan Partnership agreement through the set of global indicators and targets agreed in June 2012. It is designed to guide interested countries and organisations that wish to participate in monitoring efforts at the international level within the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (hereafter â&#x20AC;&#x153;the Global Partnershipâ&#x20AC;?). The first part of the document provides an overview of the ten indicators of progress and associated targets that are designed to support global accountability. It presents the purpose of the global monitoring framework and a description of the indicators and targets, as well as the process through which data will be collected, analysed and reported by the UNDP/OECD joint team supporting the Global Partnership. The second part of the document provides operational guidance for the collection and reporting of data on those global indicators that will draw on country-level sources of information. It includes guidance on how the process could be managed at country level and a set of questions and detailed definitions designed to assist relevant country stakeholders in collecting the necessary data. This guide is issued as a preliminary version for consultation. It is intended to provide country stakeholders with an understanding of what participation in the monitoring framework of the Global Partnership will entail and an opportunity to influence the finalisation of the guidance, including on aspects related to the monitoring process and methodology.
Specific aspects of the guidance where feedback is invited from country-level stakeholders are highlighted in boxes such as this throughout the document. Feedback would be particularly helpful on: - Arrangements at country level to collect the data (page 10) - Process for consolidating and submitting the data (page 12) - Finalising and field testing the indicator on results (page 30) - Field testing the indicator on predictability (page 34) - Field testing the indicator on mutual accountability (page 37) Feedback should be sent no later than 12 April 2013 so that the UNDP/OECD joint support team can finalise the operational guidance by mid-April 2013. See the list of contacts on the cover page of this document. Based on the feedback received, the joint UNDP/OECD support team will finalise this document and distribute it to country stakeholders to guide them as they participate in the global monitoring process. Country-level data should be submitted to the joint support team by 15 June 2013. This will enable the preparation of a global progress report to inform the ministerial-level meeting of the Global Partnership in the last quarter of 2013. These materials and further information on global monitoring can be found online on the Global Partnership website [website under construction - link to be added in due course].
2 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
CONTENTS PART I – OVERVIEW OF THE GLOBAL FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING BUSAN COMMITMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Purpose of global monitoring ............................................................................................................................. 4 How will global monitoring inform dialogue within the Global Partnership? ............................................................. 4 Indicators and targets ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Data sources .................................................................................................................................................... 6 What has changed with the global monitoring framework? ................................................................................... 6 Indicative timeline for 2013................................................................................................................................ 7 PART II – GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRY PARTICIPATION IN GLOBAL MONITORING EFFORTS ................. 9 Scope of monitoring efforts at country level......................................................................................................... 9 Approach to collecting and validating data......................................................................................................... 10 Help Desk ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 Submission of data .......................................................................................................................................... 12 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 14 ANNEX I- INDICATOR FACTSHEETS.................................................................................................................. 15 ANNEX II – QUESTIONS AND DEFINITIONS TO GUIDE DATA COLLECTION AT COUNTRY LEVEL ........................... 28
About the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation The Global Partnership is an inclusive political forum bringing together a wide range of countries and organisations from around the world that are committed to strengthen the effectiveness of development co-operation. The Global Partnership emerged from an agreement reached among the 160 countries, territories and organisations at the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, Republic of Korea, in 2011. It fosters engagement and knowledge exchange among the many, varied actors in the implementation of the agreements reached in Busan. It also supports regular monitoring of progress in implementation of the commitments made in Busan. The Busan Partnership agreement invited the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to work together to provide support for the effective functioning of the Global Partnership. The UNDP/OECD joint support team includes dedicated staff across the two organisations to provide day to day support to the Global Partnership. This joint support team has been tasked to develop, refine and implement the global methodology for monitoring the implementation of Busan commitments. More information at: http://www.aideffectiveness.org/busanhlf4/about/global-partnership.html
3 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
PART I – OVERVIEW OF THE GLOBAL FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING BUSAN COMMITMENTS This section presents the monitoring framework of the Global Partnership. It includes:
• •
•
Key features of the global monitoring framework; An overview of the set of indicators and associated targets which act as a basis for supporting international accountability for implementing the Busan Partnership agreement (each indicator is described in more detail, including means of measurement, method of calculation and data sources in Annex I); and A description of the process and timeline through which data will be collected, analysed and reported at the international level.
PURPOSE OF GLOBAL MONITORING The purpose of the global monitoring framework is to support international accountability for “making progress in the implementation of commitments and actions agreed in Busan” (Busan Partnership agreement §35). It places particular emphasis on behaviour change in development co-operation efforts, which is in turn expected to contribute to the achievement of results as defined in the developing countries’ development strategies. Its aim is not to monitor development outcomes themselves, which are addressed through other international frameworks (e.g. the Millennium Development Goals). While entirely voluntary, participation in global monitoring efforts is important to provide evidence of progress and signal opportunities as well as obstacles for further progress. In this process, global monitoring efforts contribute to: •
Support accountability for the implementation of the Busan commitments and actions by providing a snapshot of progress at the international level;
•
Stimulate multi-stakeholder dialogue at both country and international levels on how to improve the effectiveness of development co-operation; and
•
Promote agreements on specific actions that are needed to enhance successful implementation of the Busan Partnership agreement and support accountability at country level.
The focus on accountability, which remains a central feature of the Busan Partnership agreement, needs to be balanced against the broader scope of the Global Partnership as a space for learning and knowledge-sharing. The nature of the agreement reached in Busan recognizes that different stakeholders may approach a common agenda for development in different ways. As such, partners engaged in South-South co-operation are not expected to participate in the monitoring framework of the Global Partnership but they will be invited to share their experience and achievements in implementing agreed principles of effective development co-operation on a voluntary basis.
HOW DOES GLOBAL MONITORING INFORM DIALOGUE WITHIN THE GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP? Global reports of progress on implementing Busan commitments will be produced to inform high-level political dialogue within the Global Partnership during ministerial-level meetings, which are expected to take place every 1824 months. A first stock-take of progress will be undertaken by mid-2013 to inform the preparation of the first ministerial-level meeting of the Global Partnership scheduled for the last quarter of 2013 (date and venue to be confirmed).
4 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
While the indicators offer a degree of insight into the efforts of individual countries and organisations as they implement their commitments, they are intended to act as an input to a broader political dialogue on development co-operation and its effectiveness, rather than to act as a narrow score card for the ranking of individual countries and organisations. Evidence generated by the indicators will be complemented, where available, by additional relevant evidence of a more qualitative nature to enrich the analysis.
INDICATORS AND TARGETS The set of global indicators (see table below) includes some indicators which are based on the previous indicators from the Paris Declaration that developing countries have identified as particularly important. Other indicators capture some of the broader dimensions of the Busan Partnership agreement. INDICATORS TARGETS FOR 2015 1. Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities Extent of use of country results frameworks All providers of development co-operation use country results frameworks by co-operation providers 2. Civil society operates within an environment which maximises its engagement in and contribution to development A subset of measures from the Enabling Continued progress over time Environment Index 3. Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development Measure of the quality of public-private Continued progress over time dialogue 4. Transparency: information on development co-operation is publicly available Measure of state of implementation of the common standard by co-operation providers
Implement the common standard – All development co-operation providers are on track to implement a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information on development cooperation 5. Development co-operation is more predictable (a) annual: proportion of development Halve the gap – halve the proportion of aid not disbursed within the fiscal year cooperation funding disbursed within the for which it was scheduled fiscal year within which it was scheduled by (Baseline year 2010) co-operation providers; and (b) medium-term: proportion of development Halve the gap – halve the proportion of development cooperation funding not cooperation funding covered by indicative covered by indicative forward spending plans provided at country level forward spending plans provided at country level 6. Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny % of development cooperation funding Halve the gap – halve the proportion of development cooperation flows to the scheduled for disbursement that is recorded government sector not reported on government’s budget(s) (with at least 85% in the annual budgets approved by the reported on budget) legislatures of developing countries (Baseline year 2010) 7. Mutual accountability among development co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews % of countries that undertake inclusive All developing countries have inclusive mutual assessment reviews in place mutual assessments of progress in (Baseline year 2010) implementing agreed commitments 8. Gender equality and women’s empowerment % of countries with systems that track and All developing countries have systems that track and make public resource make public allocations for gender equality allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment and women’s empowerment 9. Effective institutions: developing countries’ systems are strengthened and used (a) Quality of developing country PFM systems; and
Half of developing countries move up at least one measure (i.e. 0.5 points) on the PFM/CPIA scale of performance (Baseline year 2010)
(b) Use of country PFM and procurement systems
Reduce the gap. [use the same logic as in Paris – close the gap by two-thirds where CPIA score is >=5; or by one-third where between 3.5 and 4.5] (Baseline year 2010)
10. Aid is untied % of aid that is fully untied
Continued progress over time (Baseline year 2010)
5 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
A global target is available for each global indicator. This does not prevent stakeholders from agreeing different targets at the country level. For indicators where data is available, 2010 will be used as the baseline year. For others, a baseline will be determined depending on data availability. A detailed description of each indicator is provided in Annex I, which includes factsheets setting out the means of measurement, method of calculation and data source for each indicator.
DATA SOURCES The global monitoring framework consists of: i) indicators measured at the level of individual developing countries and aggregated to offer an overview of global progress; ii) and indicators established through desk reviews and other mechanisms. The table below establishes the distinction between those two categories of indicators. COUNTRY LEVEL (1)
INDICATORS 1 2 3 4 5a+b
Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities Civil society operates within an environment that maximises its engagement in and contribution to development
CIVICUS Enabling Environment Index Desk review in collaboration with the World Bank Institute
Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development Transparency: information on development co-operation is publicly available Development co-operation is more predictable (annual and medium-term)
OTHER PROCESSES
TBD
6
Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny
7
Mutual accountability strengthened through inclusive reviews
8
Gender equality and women’s empowerment
Collected by UN Women
9a
Quality of developing country PFM systems
CPIA Desk review
9b
Use of developing country PFM and procurement systems
10
Aid is untied
UNDESA work on mutual accountability
Collected by OECD-DAC
(1) See details provided in Part II of this document for guidance on data collection at country level.
WHAT HAS CHANGED WITH THE GLOBAL MONITORING FRAMEWORK? Indicators In line with the Busan Partnership agreement, which calls for a selective and relevant set of indicators and targets, the number of indicators relying on data collection at country level has been reduced in comparison with the Paris Declaration monitoring framework. This should alleviate the reporting burden on developing countries. Part II of this document focuses on guidance and definitions for data collection for the five indicators relying on country level sources of information. For indicators drawing from the Paris Declaration monitoring framework, it also highlights changes from previous practice for ease of reference for country stakeholders. Scope of reporting For the purpose of monitoring the Busan Partnership agreement, indicators relying on country-level sources of data will continue to assess the effectiveness of development co-operation, looking at transactions qualifying as Official Development Assistance (ODA), which include grants or loans of a concessional nature and whose main objective is the promotion of economic development and welfare. In addition, developing countries interested to monitor the effectiveness of a broader range of official development co-operation funds (e.g. non concessional lending) are encouraged to do so. 6 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
ď Ž Data collection grounded in existing processes To produce periodic global progress reports, the UNDP/OECD joint support team will draw to the extent possible on existing sources of data where available. At present, an increasing number of countries have their own frameworks and tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of development co-operation. By incorporating the standard indicators and definitions set out in this guide in such monitoring tools/frameworks, these countries can collect data and feed these to inform global monitoring efforts without the need to administer stand-alone questionnaires as was previously the case with the OECD-supported Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration. The idea behind this approach is to ensure a degree of aggregation and comparability in the evidence generated through national frameworks, while avoiding the creation of parallel monitoring tools and cycles that primarily serve international reporting needs. Ad hoc arrangements may need to be established for countries which are interested in participating in global monitoring efforts but do not have in place processes or tools for periodic collection of country-level data required for global indicators. Developing countries interested in participating in global monitoring efforts are encouraged to ground data collection in existing national monitoring processes, using their own tools when they exist, according to their own calendar agreed in-country. However, to ensure a maximum degree of consistency and comparability in the data, it will be important that the standard methodology and definitions agreed at the international level be used for those indicators which rely on country-level sources of information (see Annex II of this document). ď Ž Dissemination of findings The UNDP/OECD joint support team will produce global reports of progress in implementing Busan commitments to inform ministerial-level dialogue. The preparation of such reports will be timed to coincide with ministerial-level meetings of the Global Partnership every 18-24 months. It will draw in part on evidence of progress and challenges gathered through the set of global indicators and relevant qualitative evidence to generate richer analysis. The scope of global progress reports will be guided by the work of the Steering Committee to ensure that the analysis is focused on areas of relevant interest to the Global Partnership. Global progress reports will not include standard country chapters (as was the case with the Paris Declaration monitoring surveys). As such, countries will need to consider how best to consolidate evidence of both quantitative and qualitative nature in the form of narrative reports and produce country-specific assessments of progress in implementing Busan commitments at country level which meet their own development co-operation priorities and monitoring needs. The UNDP/OECD joint support team will draw on existing country-level products to complement the evidence generated through the global indicators and will invite countries to point the team in the direction of any such products.
INDICATIVE TIME LINE FOR 2O13 The main steps and milestones described below are presented to guide countries and organisations interested to participate in global monitoring efforts so that they can plan and organise their efforts. Country-level specific milestones should be adapted to country contexts.
February
Dissemination of preliminary guidance
The dissemination of preliminary guidance provides an opportunity for interested country stakeholders to familiarise themselves with the Global Partnership monitoring process and methodology. This also provides an opportunity for country stakeholders to provide feedback on the guidance by 12 April.
March/April
Notification of participation in the process
Developing countries indicate their interest to the UNDP/OECD joint support team to participate in global monitoring efforts
7 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Mid-April
Finalisation of the guidance
The UNDP/OECD joint support team finalises the guidance, drawing on feedback received by 12 April
May-June
Data consolidation and validation
Developing country authorities engage with government representatives, providers of development co-operation and non-executive stakeholders to review collectively the country-level data to be used for measuring global indicators
Mid June
Submission of data
By 15 June 2013 at the latest, developing countries submit the data to the UNDP/OECD joint support team
July-August
Data validation and analysis at global level
The UNDP/OECD joint support team verifies the submitted data and uses it as the basis for the assessment of progress. By end July, draft calculations and tables of results by country and by provider of development cooperation are shared for review as part of the final validation process.
MidSeptember
Dissemination of data and analysis
Preliminary global progress report is made available to inform ministerial level discussions in October 2013 (timing TBC).
End 2013/Early 2014
Review of lessons learned
Under the strategic guidance of the Steering Committee, the UNDP/OECD joint support team will take stock of monitoring efforts to date and lessons learned to inform assessments of progress in the future through multistakeholder consultations and dialogue.
8 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
PART II – GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRY PARTICIPATION IN GLOBAL MONITORING EFFORTS This section describes the scope of country level efforts to feed into the global monitoring framework and includes a description of the process at country level (detailed definitions and advice to assist in the data collection for indicators based on country level information are available in Annex II). Country stakeholders are invited to provide feedback on arrangements for collecting data (page 10) and the process for consolidating and submitting the data (page 12).
SCOPE OF MONITORING EFFORTS AT COUNTRY LEVEL Which global indicators are measured using country-level sources of information? The global indicators listed below will be measured at the level of individual developing countries and aggregated to offer an overview of global progress: Indicators 1
Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities
5a
Development co-operation is more predictable (annual)
5b
Development co-operation is more predictable (medium-term)
6
Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny
7
Mutual accountability strengthened through inclusive reviews
9b
Use of developing country PFM and procurement systems
The global framework complements and builds on country-level efforts to monitor progress and strengthen mutual accountability. Countries may include additional indicators and targets relevant for their specific context and priorities when developing their own frameworks to monitor the effectiveness of development co-operation. Other global indicators of progress which are assessed through desk reviews and other mechanisms are not described here (See Annex I for detailed factsheets on each indicator). What kind of development co-operation is included? For the purpose of monitoring the Busan Partnership agreement at the international level, development co-operation funding primarily refers to Official Development Assistance (ODA). This includes all transactions undertaken: i) with the promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; and ii) at concessional financial terms (if a loan, having a grant element of at least 25%). 1 In addition, developing countries interested to monitor the effectiveness of a broader range of development cooperation funds (e.g. non concessional lending) are encouraged to do so, provided that the following criteria are met: official source (bilateral or multilateral); and promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective. Where development co-operation funding is provided to a developing country as part of a regional (multi-country) programme and it is possible to identify those activities and disbursements that are specific to that developing country, these disbursements should also be recorded.
1
Detailed definitions available in OECD-DAC Statistical Directives (OECD, 2007).
9 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
The following official transactions are excluded from the scope of the Global Partnership monitoring efforts and should not be recorded: •
Transactions made to beneficiaries that are not based in the developing country or to regional organisations that cannot be identified at country level.
•
Debt reorganisation/restructuring.
•
Emergency and relief assistance.
APPROACH TO COLLECTING AND VALIDATING DATA Feedback invited by 12 April: Arrangem ents at country level to collect data Developing country governments are invited to discuss this section with country stakeholders and to provide feedback to the UNDP/OECD joint support team on: - the feasibility and ways of grounding data collection in existing country-level processes and tools – including examples which could be added in the box below; - suggestions on ad hoc government-led arrangements to be put in place when data required for informing Busan global monitoring indicators are not collected routinely at the country level. Grounding data collection in country processes Consistent with the focus of the Busan Partnership agreement on implementation at country level, developing countries are encouraged to agree on their own country-specific frameworks for monitoring progress and promoting mutual accountability (BPa §35a). Such frameworks could provide the basis for the collection of data necessary for global indicators. Embedding such data collection within countries’ existing processes, using their own tools and agreed in-country calendars would help to avoid the creation of parallel monitoring tools and cycles that primarily serve international reporting needs. Ways of grounding data collection in country processes – Illustrative examples A growing number of countries have embedded monitoring of development co-operation effectiveness or partnership commitments in their own systems and processes. Ways of achieving this include the following approaches: -
-
-
Incorporation of selected Paris Declaration and now Busan global indicators in data collection through country-level aid management systems (e.g. Burundi Aid Management Platform, Cambodia ODA database, Rwanda Development Assistance Database). Use of some or all Paris Declaration and now Busan global indicators in country-level mutual accountability frameworks (e.g. Mozambique Performance Assessment Framework of the Programme Aid Partnership, Rwanda Donor Performance Assessment Framework) Collection and analysis of data from provider of development co-operation in advance of annual partnership talks.
Ad hoc arrangements may need to be established for countries which are interested in participating in global monitoring efforts but do not have in place processes or tools for periodic collection of country-level data required for global indicators. These could include arrangements similar to those used for the Paris Declaration surveys (e.g. using stand alone questionnaires). However, such arrangements should, whenever possible, be designed in a way that supports broader country-level monitoring and reporting efforts beyond those of the Global Partnership.
10 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Roles of various stakeholders Developing country governments play a central role in leading monitoring efforts at country level. This involves the following aspects: •
ensuring that country stakeholders are fully informed about Busan global monitoring efforts and facilitating their contribution to the process;
•
overseeing the collection of data on Busan global indicators either through existing mechanisms and tools or ad hoc processes;
•
organising multi-stakeholder dialogue in support of data consolidation and validation and ensuring the overall quality of data; and
•
submitting data to the UNDP/OECD joint support team.
In previous global efforts to monitor aid effectiveness, governments found it useful to nominate national coordinators who were typically senior officials in ministries of finance, planning or foreign affairs responsible for aid management and coordination. They also found it useful to appoint a ‘donor’ focal point to assist and support them in this process. Providers of development co-operation are called upon to actively support the process at country level by providing the necessary data to the government. Global programmes (for example, The Global Fund, GAVI…) are also invited to participate. The in-country head of the organisation providing development co-operation is responsible for ensuring the quality and accuracy of reporting. Parliamentarians, civil society organisations, the private sector and other stakeholders play an important role in monitoring progress in implementing Busan commitments although country-level data used to measure global indicators is mainly provided by governments and providers of development co-operation. While they are not expected to report to developing country authorities in the context of country-level data collection for selected Busan indicators (even when they implement projects and programmes funded by official development assistance), they are encouraged to take part in inclusive country level dialogue on effective development co-operation through relevant consultations and meetings convened by the government. The UNDP/OECD joint support team will also in due course facilitate country-level access to information on the indicators measured through global processes so that they can also reflect on the findings in their country-level dialogue. Validation of data through inclusive country level dialogue Close communication among a wide range of stakeholders is important in ensuring the quality of the reporting on indicators as a monitoring tool, and in strengthening mutual understanding. Local authorities, parliamentarians, CSOs and representatives of the private sector are encouraged to participate in country dialogue around monitoring Busan commitments. Undertaken in the context of countries’ own monitoring frameworks and coordination processes, these should wherever possible be used as an opportunity to review key data that will be shared with the UNDP/OECD joint support team. Such multi-stakeholder dialogue and validation is an important contribution to ensure the accuracy of data used to monitor progress at the global level. In order to document good practice in multi-stakeholder countrylevel engagement in global monitoring efforts, countries will be invited to report on the consultation around the process as part of their submission of data to the UNDP/OECD joint support team.
HELP DESK A web-based “help desk” will be established within the knowledge platform for the Global Partnership, which is intended to provide a peer exchange space to share access to expertise, technical information and good practices. 2 2
This web solution will build on the UNDP Teamworks web platform and will offer a password-protected ‘intranet’ for Global Partnership stakeholders.
11 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
For the purpose of global monitoring, the help desk will provide a space for exchange of experience among country stakeholders and access to technical advice about the implementation of the agreed methodologies and processes for monitoring. The purpose will be to ensure that arrangements for global monitoring, while relying on existing sources of data, will provide reliable and comparable data across participating countries and organisations. The monitoring section in the web-based knowledge platform will include key reference materials. It will be regularly updated with examples illustrating responses to frequently asked questions and will offer a “one stop shop” for all ad hoc questions on indicators and the supporting methodology. The help desk function is co-ordinated by the UNDP/OECD joint support team and brings together specialists from the two organisations, including from the UNDP regional centres and country offices, which play a key role in supporting overall country-level implementation of Busan commitments and monitoring of progress.
How do I contact the help desk? [Contact details and relevant link to the global monitoring section in the web-based knowledge platform of the Global Partnership will be provided here in due course.] You may also wish to visit the global monitoring section of the knowledge platform for the Global Partnership [under construction], which contains relevant documents and responses to frequently asked questions.
SUBMISSION OF DATA Feedback invited by 31 M arch: Process for consolidating and subm itting the data Developing country governments are invited to provide feedback on options regarding the consolidation and reporting of data to the UNDP/ OECD joint support team: - appropriateness of consolidating data from government and providers of development co-operation into a single Country spreadsheet (Excel format); - desirability and feasibility of reporting data into an online system, using web-based forms. This could also include exploring the feasibility for developing country governments to extract data from AIMS/DADS for the purpose of reporting on Busan global monitoring indicators. Completing the country spreadsheet It is envisioned that developing countries would report to the UNDP/OECD joint support team by means of a country spreadsheet specially designed for the purpose of participating in global monitoring efforts. This Country Spreadsheet is an Excel spreadsheet that records the data for the indicators measured through country-level information. It combines data provided by both developing country governments and providers of development cooperation, as summarised in the table below:
INDICATORS
Providers of development cooperation
Governments
1
Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities
5a
Development co-operation is more predictable (annual)
5b
Development co-operation is more predictable (medium-term)
6
Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny
7
Mutual accountability strengthened through inclusive reviews
12 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
9b
Use of developing country PFM and procurement systems
Notes: i. ii. iii.
Definitions of key terms, specific questions and additional guidance for all of the indicators listed in the above table are provided in Annex II. Data concerning providers of development co-operation that have different entities (agencies of distinct programmes) should be combined 3. In order to avoid double counting in cases where one provider of development co-operation disburses funds on behalf of another provider – bilateral or multilateral, it is only the provider of development co-operation who makes the final disbursement to the government that should report on these funds.
The Country Spreadsheet can be downloaded from [Relevant web link will be provided here in due course.] Submission of the country spreadsheet Once the Country Spreadsheet has been completed and validated at country level, it should be communicated to the UNDP/OECD joint support team by 15 June 2013 at the latest. Following this, the UNDP/OECD joint support team will follow up with the designated developing country authorities for any necessary clarification. The Country Spreadsheet should be submitted by email to [Contact details will be provided here in due course]. Complementary evidence Countries are also encouraged to share any additional information (e.g. existing country reports and narratives) that the UNDP/OECD joint support team could use as a basis to enrich the global analysis of progress and challenges in implementing Busan commitments. This would best be done by providing the link to websites where such documentation can be downloaded and pointing the joint support team in the direction of such documentation, highlighting relevant country-specific messages that could be used to inform the preparation of global progress reports.
3
UN agencies are encouraged to report individually at country level. However, for the purpose of Busan global monitoring efforts, only combined reporting from ALL UN agencies should be included in the Country Spreadsheet. Results at the global level will be presented under a single heading: “United Nations”, with the exception of IFAD.
13 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
REFERENCES B. Herzberg and A. Wright (2006), The Public-Private Dialogue Handbook: a Toolkit for Business Environment Reformers, DFID, World Bank, IFC, OECD, December 2006, available online at: www.publicprivatedialogue.org/papers/PPD%20handbook.pdf CIVICUS (2012), Global Index on the Enabling Environment: monitoring global trends in civil societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operating environment, draft methodological note shared with the Post-Busan Interim Group, May 2012, available online at: www.csoeffectiveness.org/IMG/pdf/civicus_note_to_oecd_monitoring_the_enabling_environment_for_civil_society.pdf OECD (2007), Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System, 4 September, DCD/DAC(2007), Reporting directives for the Creditor Reporting System, available online at: www.oecd.org/dac/stats/crsdirectives OECD (2011), Aid Effectiveness 2011: Progress in Implementing the Paris Declaration, OECD, Paris, available online at: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/aid-effectiveness-2011_9789264125780-en World Bank (2011), CPIA 2011, 15 September, Operations Policy and Country Services, World Bank, available online at: http://www.worldbank.org/ida/IRAI-2011.html
14 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
ANNEX I â&#x20AC;&#x201C; INDICATOR FACTSHEETS
Detailed information on each indicator of the monitoring framework of the Global Partnership (see Table in Part I of the document) is provided in the factsheets presented in this Annex. These provide details on the methodology underpinning each indicator, including means of measurement, method of calculation and data source.
15 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Indicator 1. Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities Note: This is an area where no measurement has been undertaken so far. As such, the detailed definitions and means of measurement for this indicator remain subject to further work of a technical nature and would require field testing to refine the proposed assessment criteria. The purpose of this indicator is not to serve a narrow scorecard but to provide a basis to better understand the reasons for progress and remaining challenges in strengthening country-led results frameworks and their associated monitoring and evaluation systems by using them and to raise political attention on issues such as continued additional or parallel reporting requirements by providers of development co-operation. Ways of establishing a link with the quality of results frameworks, and in particular the inclusive process through which they have been developed, has been factored in the proposed dimensions for assessing progress in this area which are currently being reviewed (see Annex II for the proposed approach). Relevant Busan commitment Paris Declaration (§45) and Accra (§23) commitments, as reaffirmed in Busan, to rely on partner country results frameworks and monitoring and evaluation systems. Busan commitment to adopt transparent, country-led and country-level results frameworks and platforms as a common tool among all concerned actors to assess performance based on indicators drawn from country development priorities and goals and with providers of development co-operation minimising their use of additional frameworks. (§18a) Indicator construction Numerator:
Denominator:
Measure
Number of development co-operation providers that are using country results frameworks Total number of development cooperation providers
% of providers of development co-operation using country results frameworks.
It is proposed to assess the extent to which providers of development co-operation use country results frameworks on the basis of: use of objectives and targets from national development strategy as a reference for delivery and performance assessment; and use of the country’s own indicators, national statistics and monitoring and evaluation systems to monitor progress.
A score will be assigned using a graduated scale to assess the extent to which providers of development cooperation use country results frameworks, ranging from non use, through partial use to full use, on the basis of several dimensions which are still under discussion.
Data source
Aggregation
Country level data – partner country government assessment against three dimensions.
Global, developing country, and provider of development co-operation.
Periodicity to be determined at country level depending on needs and priorities and existing mutual accountability review processes.
Developing country and provider aggregation: % of providers and % of developing countries respectively. For global aggregation, a weighted average is used: i.e. sum of all numerator values divided by the sum of all denominator values. The unit of observation is the provider of development cooperation in a given developing country. Proposed target All providers of development co-operation use country results frameworks.
Baseline To be determined
Rationale: based on the Busan commitment which calls on all actors to change behaviour in this area.
16 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Indicator 2. Civil society operates within an environment that maximises its engagement in and contribution to development Note: Review and consultation efforts have pointed to the absence of an existing, proven methodology that can be drawn on to assess the Busan commitments in this area. Consensus was reached on the proposal to draw on a new Environment Index being developed and implemented by CIVICUS. This approach will see CIVICUS collecting data and providing it for use in the global reports of progress. Work on the development of the EEI is ongoing. It is hoped that initial results of the first index would be made available in time to be featured in the global progress report which will be prepared by mid-2013 ahead of the ministerial-level meeting of the Global Partnership in October 2013. Relevant Busan commitment [we will] “implement fully our respective commitments to enable CSOs to exercise their roles as independent development actors, with a particular focus on an enabling environment, consistent with agreed international rights, that maximises the contributions of CSOs to development.” (Busan §22a). Indicator construction This global indicator will draw on part of the CIVICUS Enabling Environment Index, and will take the form of an average of selected dimensions/measures from within the Index.
Measure
The final selection of dimensions and measures will be influenced by CIVICUS’ ongoing work as part of a broader civil society-led initiative on the methodology for the Enabling Environment Index.
Note: this index is currently being developed, and will offer a composite measure of the external environment within which civil society operates.
Selected components of the CIVICUS Enabling Environment Index.
In finalising the selection of dimensions or sub-dimensions to be drawn from the CIVICUS index and used in this global indicator, particular consideration will be given to those components that relate most directly to the Busan commitments, and are largely within the control of stakeholders adhering to the Busan Partnership, i.e: •
Legal and regulatory framework for civil society operations; and
•
Selected elements of the governance / political environment that have a direct bearing on CSO activity.
The index is being constructed in a way that supports comparison over time and across countries. Data source
Aggregation
CIVICUS Enabling Environment Index Measures and underlying data sources are still being identified and are likely to include datasets compiled by a range of public, private and non-governmental entities. CIVICUS (2012) provides a draft mapping of potential data sources.
The unit of observation is the individual country (for all countries – both developing and developed – that choose to participate and for which data are available).
.
The method for global aggregation will depend in part on final choice of indicator (could look at % of countries scoring above a particular score; or average score across all countries) to judge whether the target is met or not.
Baseline
Proposed target
To be determined (based on finalisation of indicator and first round of data compilation to be undertaken by CIVICUS).
Continued progress over time. Rationale: there is no basis in the Busan Partneship agreement for a more specific target and the purpose of the indicator is to provide an entry point for a political discussion based on broad trends observed.
17 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Indicator 3. Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development Note: Dialogue among interested stakeholders within the Building Block on Public-Private Co-operation have confirmed that the monitoring and evaluation framework provided in the Public-Private Dialogue Handbook (B. Herzberg and Wright A., 2006 at www.publicprivatedialogue.org) provides a useful basis for further work on the indicator. The Public-Private dialogue is an initiative aimed at building knowledge and capacity for public-private dialogue. It is hosted in the World Bank Institute and has been sponsored by DFID, the World Bank, IFC, and the OECD Development Centre. Next steps include: development of a comparative measurement tool and consultation with relevant stakeholders, using the Building Block as a sounding board; piloting the tool in a selected group of countries; and reviewing the findings from the pilot and validating the proposed methodology through a broad consultative process involving the full range of stakeholders involved in public-private dialogue. This approach will provide initial benchmarking on the quality of public-private dialogue in a selected number of countries, which will serve as a basis to inform the ministerial-level discussions within the Global Partnership scheduled in October 2013. Relevant Busan commitment Commitment to enable the participation of the private sector in the design and implementation of development policies and strategies to foster sustainable growth and poverty reduction (BPa§32b) Indicator construction The indicator will assess the quality of public-private dialogue as a proxy for private sector engagement (local and foreign, small, medium and large enterprises, business associations, chambers of commerce) and trade unions in country level dialogue around policy strategies and reforms of the enabling environment for private sector investment and development.
Measure Detailed measure to be determined, drawing on the existing methodology for the assessment of the effectiveness of public-private dialogue. A multidimensional index is envisaged to assess the quality of public-private dialogue on a scale from 1 to 10 to support benchmarking and comparison.
Proposed dimensions to be assessed could include: • existence of a mandate / legal basis formalising the dialogue; • representativeness of private sector actors engaged in the dialogue; mechanisms in place to facilitate the dialogue; • some basic indication on the outcomes of the dialogue (e.g. number of reforms proposals and reforms enacted). Data source In the absence of existing data sources in this area, the UNDP/OECD joint support team is working closely with the WBI to review self assessments by countries having a public private dialogue process in place to ensure a credible and comparable assessment. This process consists of a desk review complemented with targeted interviews with a selected range of stakeholders to complement the assessment with perspectives from a wider range of stakeholders.
Aggregation
Baseline
Proposed target
To be determined (depending on the final choice of the indicator and data source).
Continued progress over time.
The unit of observation is the individual developing country. The method for global aggregation will depend in part on the final choice of the indicator (could look at % of countries scoring above a particular score; or average score across all countries).
Rationale: the purpose of the indicator is to provide means to support broader political discussion on enhanced public private cooperation and further mobilisation of the private sector within the Global Partnership.
18 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Indicator 4. Transparency: information on development co-operation is publicly available Note: Since the agreement on the common, open standard in June 2012, work has been on-going to determine what constitutes implementation of the standard as called for in the Busan agreement. Given that the common standard comprehensively draws together two existing standards – the DAC Creditor Reporting System and Forward Spending Survey (CRS/FSS) and IATI – there remains a need to further clarify what the ‘minimum requirement’ is that all providers must fulfil in order to implement the standard by 2015. Based on discussions with relevant stakeholders, including inputs from the ad hoc group that defined and brokered the common standard itself, the UNDP/OECD joint support team is further consulting with relevant stakeholders to forge agreement on the indicator. Relevant Busan commitment “Implement a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information on resources provided through development co-operation... This standard must meet the information needs of developing countries and non-state actors... We will [aim to] implement it fully by December 2015. Busan (§23c). Indicator construction
Measure
Ongoing discussions suggest that the indicator could be constructed from three main components referred to in the Busan commitment, measuring the i) timely; ii) comprehensive; and iii) forward looking nature of providers’ resource information.
A graduated measure of the degree of implementation of the common standard by each provider of development co-operation (exact measure to be determined).
It is envisioned that the indicator will assess provision of information on historical, current and future resource flows with a sufficient degree of disaggregation to meet recipient countries’ information needs. Exact definitions and criteria will be determined drawing on the agreed main components of the indicator. Data source
Aggregation
Desk review of data available through reporting on the components of the common, open standard (CRS/FSS and IATI). No collection of data at the country level is foreseen.
The proposed unit of observation is the individual country providing development co-operation (in the case of bilateral co-operation providers) or organisation (in the case of multilateral providers). In other words, the indicator looks at whether a given provider of development co-operation has implemented the common standard (not how much aid or development cooperation funding is covered by the standard).
Details to be determined, depending on final choice of indicator.
Ideally the indicator would be defined in a way that supports aggregation to the global level, offering a snapshot of progress. Baseline To be determined on the basis of the final indicator construction (2011 would measure progress since Busan, whereas 2012 would link measurement to implementation plans prepared in 2012)
Proposed target for end 2015 Implement the common standard – All providers of development co-operation are on track to implement by 2015 a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information on development co-operation Rationale: Busan commitment
19 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Indicator 5a. Development co-operation is more predictable (annual predictability) Paris Declaration commitment to “disburse aid in a timely and predictable fashion according to agreed schedules” (PD §26; reaffirmed in Busan) Indicator construction Numerator:
Denominator:
Measure
Development co-operation flows reported by provider as disbursed in year n Development co-operation flows scheduled for disbursement by provider in year n and communicated to developing country government
% of development cooperation funding for the government sector disbursed in the year for which it was scheduled by providers of development co-operation Note that this indicator builds on the broad approach used in Paris Declaration indicator 7
Data source Country-level data (self-reporting development co-operation)
Aggregation by
providers
of
In order to avoid the situation in which under- and overdisbursements cancel each other out, the ratio is inverted in cases where the numerator is greater than the denominator. This is consistent with the approach taken in OECD (2011). Note however that when aggregating (globally, by country or by provider of development co-operation), a weighted average is now used. i.e. sum of all numerator values divided by the sum of all denominator values. This replaces the average country ratio used in OECD (2011) and previous work.
Baseline
Proposed target for 2015
2010 (estimate, 78 countries): 75%
Halve the gap – halve the proportion of development cooperation funding not disbursed within the fiscal year for which it was scheduled Rationale: based on Paris Declaration target
20 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Indicator 5b. Development co-operation is more predictable (medium-term predictability) Relevant Busan commitment “By 2013... provide available, regular, timely rolling three- to five-year indicative forward expenditure and/or implementation plans as agreed in Accra...” (Busan §24a). Indicator construction
Measure
For a single co-operation provider in a given country:
Estimated proportion of development co-operation covered by indicative forward expenditure and/or implementation plans covering at least three years ahead.
indicator year t = average (at+1, at+2, at+3) ...where at+n takes a binary value depending on the availability by the end of year t of a forward expenditure plan covering year t+n. 1 if plan available, else 0. Developing country government determines whether, on the basis of its records, a forward expenditure plan is available for each co-operation provider covering each of the next three years. In order to score “Yes”, the plan must meet the following criteria: • The plan covers all known components of the co-operation provider’s country programme (for example, it covers all development co-operation modalities, and includes estimates of future development co-operation flows that have yet to be allocated to specific activities or signed in cooperation agreements). • Figures provided relate to the partner country government’s fiscal year. (These criteria are subject to field-testing and further refinement). Data source
Aggregation
Data collected at country level (reporting by developing country governments on the availability of forward plans).
Aggregation at the level of each developing country, cooperation provider, and at the global level. Average weighted by volume of development co-operation disbursed in t-1 (previous year). Note that this method of aggregation is intended to provide an estimate of the scale of resources covered by indicative forward expenditure and/or implementation plans. This reflects the relative importance that a developing country attaches to obtaining forward spending information from a large co-operation provider vis-à-vis a small provider.
Baseline
Proposed target
Not available.
Halve the gap – halve the proportion of development cooperation not covered by indicative forward spending plans provided at the country level. (Baseline year: 2011). Rationale: following the same approach as for in-year predictability (see indicator 5a)
21 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Indicator 6. Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny Relevant Busan commitment Busan commitment to “...strengthen the role of parliaments in the oversight of development processes” (§21a); and also Accra commitment to “facilitate parliamentary oversight by implementing greater transparency in public financial management, including public disclosure of revenues, budgets, expenditures...” (AAA §24). Indicator construction Numerator:
Development co-operation funding recorded in annual budget for year n.
Denominator:
Development co-operation funding scheduled for disbursement in year n by co-operation providers and communicated to developing country government at the outset of year n
Measure % of development co-operation funding scheduled for disbursement that is recorded in the annual budgets approved by the legislatures of developing countries. Note that this indicator builds on the broad approach used in Paris Declaration indicator 3
Note that the denominator used in this indicator is the same as that used in the calculation of indicator 5a (annual predictability) Data source
Aggregation
Data collected at the country level (data taken from existing government budgets and self-reporting by providers of development co-operation)
In order to avoid the situation in which under- and overestimates cancel each other out, the ratio is inverted in cases where the numerator is greater than the denominator. This is consistent with the approach taken in OECD (2011). Note however that when aggregating (global, developing country or co-operation provider), a weighted average is now used. i.e. sum of all numerator values divided by the sum of all denominator values. This replaces the average country ratio used in OECD (2011) and previous work.
Baseline
Proposed target
To be determined and only available for countries having the calendar year as a fiscal year (data for the denominator are currently available only by calendar year)
Halve the gap – halve the proportion of development cooperation flows to the government sector not reported on government’s budget(s) (with at least 85% reported on budget)
For reference, aid captured in budgets in 2010 as a percentage of aid disbursements (PD indicator 3, 78 countries): 41%
Baseline year 2010 Rationale: Paris Declaration target
22 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Indicator 7. Mutual accountability among co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews Relevant Busan commitment Paris commitment to jointly assess mutual progress in implementing aid effectiveness commitments (PD §50). Accra commitment to ensure mutual assessment reviews in place in all countries, with stronger parliamentary scrutiny and citizen engagement (AAA §24b). Busan commitment to encourage participation of all development co-operation actors in these processes (§18d); agree country-led frameworks to monitor progress and promote mutual accountability (§35a). Indicator construction Numerator:
Number of countries considered to have a mutual assessment
Denominator:
Total number of countries
Measure % of countries that undertake inclusive mutual assessments of progress in implementing agreed commitments and meet at least four of the five proposed criteria
A country is considered to have a mutual assessment in place when at least four of the five criteria below are met: • Existence of an aid or partnership policy that defines a country’s development co-operation priorities • Existence of country-level targets for effective development co-operation for both developing country government and providers of development co-operation • Assessment against these targets undertaken jointly by government and providers at senior level in the past two years. • Active involvement of local governments and non executive stakeholders in such reviews. • Comprehensive results of such exercises are made public.
Note that this indicator takes the form of an improved version of Paris Declaration indicator 12
Data source
Aggregation
Country-level data. Self-reporting against established criteria, using UNDESA work on mutual accountability.
The unit of observation is the individual developing country (score across five dimensions). Global aggregation based on % of countries meeting at least four of the five criteria.
Baseline
Proposed target
2010 estimate * = 38% (of 78 countries)
All developing countries assessment reviews in place
* Note that the criteria proposed in the current methodology have evolved since those used to collect the 2010 baseline. As such this is an estimate only.
Rationale: Paris target
23 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
have
inclusive
mutual
Indicator 8. Gender equality and women’s empowerment Note: UN Women is currently leading field testing of this indicator in 14 countries and intends to roll out the indicator in 20 countries in 2013. In the spirit of the on-going discussions on the post-2015 development framework, countries at all stages of development are welcome to share evidence on their efforts in this area and performance against this indicator in view of the interest in advancing mutual learning and the exchange of experiences.
Relevant Busan commitment “[We will] accelerate and deepen efforts to collect, disseminate, harmonise and make full use of data disaggregated by sex to inform policy decisions and guide investments, ensuring in turn that public expenditures are targeted appropriately to benefit both women and men.” (Busan §20a). Indicator construction
Measure
Numerator: Number of countries that have a system for tracking allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment
Proportion of developing countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment
Denominator: Total number of countries It is suggested that in order to be considered to “have a system in place”, countries would need to fulfill two of the following criteria, noting that criteria 4 is required: 1. There is an official government statement on a system for tracking allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment. This can for example be a framework or legislation on gender responsive budgeting. 2. Allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment are systematically tracked. 3. There is leadership and oversight of the tracking system by the central government unit in charge of public expenditures (for example the Finance Ministry or a sector ministry). 4. Gender equality focused budget information is publically available. This could be through parliamentary oversight, civil society scrutiny, publications, websites or other means. Countries may indicate if they a) use gender-specific indicators and data disaggregated by sex to inform budget allocation decisions at sectoral and/or local/district level; and b) if they conduct regular impact assessments of budgets which address how women and men benefit respectively from government expenditures. Data source
Aggregation
UN Women corporate reporting, based on data collected from ministries of finance at country level, drawing on existing data sources wherever possible
The unit of observation is the individual developing country.
Baseline
Proposed target
Not available. Data from UN Women annual reports for 2013 will provide the baseline.
All developing countries have systems that track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment by 2015.
Global aggregation: sum of or percentage of developing countries.
24 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Indicator 9a. Quality of developing country PFM systems Relevant Busan commitment Paris Declaration commitments to strengthen country systems at the same time as increasing their use (PD §17-30; reaffirmed in Busan §19) Indicator construction
Measure
This indicator takes the form of a score ranging from 1.0 (lowest) to 6.0 (highest), scored in half-point increments (0.5).
Same as Paris Declaration indicator 2a
The following three dimensions are rated by the World Bank using established criteria: a. b.
c.
This indicator is based on the World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA). It takes the value of one CPIA criterion – indicator 13 – which offers a measure of the quality of a developing country’s budget and financial management system
a comprehensive and credible budget, linked to policy priorities; effective financial management systems to ensure that the budget is implemented as intended in a controlled and predictable way; and timely and accurate accounting and fiscal reporting, including timely and audited public accounts and effective arrangements for follow up.
All three dimensions are given equal weighting. See World Bank (2010) for the detailed criteria underpinning each dimension. Data source
Aggregation
World Bank (existing international dataset, published on an annual basis and available for IDA countries).
The unit of observation is the individual developing country.
Baseline
When aggregating to the global level, the measure used is the percentage of developing countries moving up at least one measure (i.e. 0.5 points) since the baseline year. Proposed target for 2015
2010 (for countries participating in the 2011 PD Survey): CPIA PFM Score Num. of countries %
>=5
4.5
4.0
3.5
3
<3.0
Half of developing countries move up at least one measure (i.e. 0.5 points) on the PFM/CPIA scale of performance
All
Rationale: Paris Declaration target 0
2
8
25
12
0%
4%
14%
45%
21%
9
56
16% 100%
25 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Indicator 9b. Use of country PFM and procurement systems Relevant Busan commitment Paris Declaration (§21, 26) and Accra (§15) commitments, as reaffirmed in Busan. Busan commitment to “use country systems as the default approach for development co-operation in support of activities managed by the public sector” (§19a) Indicator construction Numerator:
Denominator:
Measure
Development co-operation flows using country systems (average of a, b ,c and d) Total development co-operation flows for the government sector
Note that this indicator combines Paris Declaration indicators 5a (use of country PFM systems) and 5b (use of country procurement systems) to offer a single composite indicator
where: a = Development co-operation funding disbursed for the government sector using national budget execution procedures b = Development co-operation funding disbursed for the government sector using national financial reporting procedures c = Development co-operation funding disbursed for the government sector using national auditing procedures d = Development co-operation funding disbursed for the government sector using national procurement systems Data source Country-level data (self-reporting development co-operation)
% of development co-operation disbursements for the government sector using the developing country’s PFM and procurement systems (average across use of four components a-d below)
Aggregation by
providers
of
Developing country, co-operation provider, global: total of numerators divided by total of denominators
Baseline
Proposed target for 2015
2010 (78 countries): 49%
Country target depends on score for indicator 9a above (quality of PFM systems): • Reduce the gap by two thirds – a two-thirds reduction in % of development co-operation funding not using country PFM and procurement systems for countries with a score of >=5 on indicator 9a • Reduce the gap by one third – a one-third reduction in % of development co-operation not using country PFM and procurement systems for countries with a score between 3.5 and 4.5 on indicator 9a Rationale: based on the logic underpinning the Paris Declaration target (though procurement is now one of the four components of country systems now included in the indicator, rather than being subject to a separate target)
26 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Indicator 10. Aid is untied Relevant Busan commitment “Pursuant to the Accra Agenda for Action, we will accelerate our efforts to untie aid.” (§18e) Indicator construction
Measure
Numerator:
Amount of untied ODA
Same as Paris Declaration indicator 8
Denominator:
Total ODA
% of ODA that is fully untied For detailed definitions, see OECD (2007).
Data source
Aggregation
Existing international data source: self-reporting on tying status by providers of development co-operation through the OECD-DAC Creditor Reporting System
Developing country, co-operation provider, global: total of numerators divided by total of denominators
Baseline
Proposed target
2009 (all bilateral ODA): 79%
Continued progress over time Rationale: Paris target
27 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
ANNEX II – QUESTIONS AND COLLECTION AT COUNTRY LEVEL
DEFINITIONS
TO
GUIDE
DATA
This annex provides advice to assist developing country authorities in collecting the data and to enable providers of development co-operation and other stakeholders to engage in the process. It includes guiding questions to support data collection for each indicator using country-level sources of information as well as detailed definitions for key concepts to ensure accurate reporting.
GENERAL DEFINITIONS Development cooperation transactions to be recorded
For the purpose of the monitoring framework of the Global Partnership, development co-operation funding primarily refers to Official Development Assistance (ODA). This includes all the official transactions as defined in OECD-DAC Statistical Directives (OECD, 2007), including grants or loans to developing countries which are: • undertaken with the promotion of the economic development and welfare as the main objective; and • concessional in character (if a loan, having a grant element of at least 25%). In addition, developing countries interested to monitor the effectiveness of a broader range of development co-operation funding (e.g. non concessional lending) are encouraged to do so, provided that the following criteria are met: • official source (bilateral of multilateral); • promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; • the grant element is too low to qualify as ODA.
Development cooperation transactions NOT to be recorded
Disbursements
The following official transactions are excluded from the scope of the Global Partnership monitoring framework and should not be recorded:
•
transactions made to beneficiaries that are not based in the country receiving development co-operation funding or to regional organisations which cannot be identified at country level;
•
debt reorganisation/restructuring; and
•
emergency and relief assistance.
A disbursement is the placement of resources at the disposal of a developing country as defined above (see development co-operation transactions). Resources provided in-kind should only be included when the value of the resources have been monetised in an agreement or in a document communicated to government. Where development co-operation funding is provided to the developing country as part of a provider of development co-operation’s regional (multi-country) programme and it is possible to identify those activities and disbursements that are specific to that developing country, these disbursements should also be recorded. In order to avoid double counting in cases where one provider of development co-operation disburses funds on behalf of another, it is only the provider who makes the final disbursement to the government who should report on these funds. The only exception to this is Qp4, against which providers should record total development co-operation funds channelled through other providers (in the case of delegated co-operation, funds provided through multilateral organisations at the country level or multi-donor trust funds administered by another provider).
28 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Disbursements for government sector
the
Development co-operation funding disbursed in the context of an agreement with administrations (ministries, departments, agencies or municipalities) authorised to receive revenue or undertake expenditures on behalf of central government. This includes works, goods or services delegated or subcontracted by these administrations to other entities such as: •
non-governmental organisations (NGOs);
•
semi-autonomous government agencies (e.g. parastatals), or;
•
private companies.
For the purpose of reporting against indicators 5a (annual predictability), 6 (aid on budget) and 9b (use of country PFM and procurement systems), development co-operation funding focuses on disbursements for the government sector. Exchange rates
Development co-operation transactions should be reported in US dollars. A table of exchange rates is provided on the global monitoring website [link to be provided in due course].
Provider of development co-operation
A provider of development co-operation is a country, organisation or official agency - including state and local governments and multilateral institutions – that provide development co-operation funding. Under this definition, non-governmental organisations (NGO) and private companies are not considered providers of development co-operation, even when they implement programmes funded by providers of development co-operation.
Reporting reference
The reporting year of reference is the latest fiscal year of the developing country for which there is information available on relevant aspects of development co-operation.
year
of
This also means that all data from providers of development co-operation is expected to be provided according to the developing country government’s fiscal year. In developing countries where the fiscal year differs from the calendar year, and where monitoring data is easily available through existing systems, governments may wish to complement fiscal year data with calendar year data. While this would remain optional, it would contribute to facilitate aggregation and comparability of data.
29 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
INDICATOR 1: DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION IS FOCUSED ON RESULTS THAT MEET DEVELOPING COUNTRIES’ PRIORITIES Feedback invited by 15 M arch: Finalising and field testing the indicator Developing country governments interested in participating in the finalisation of this indicator are invited to review the proposed approach below with country stakeholders and to provide feedback to the UNDP/OECD joint support team. The questions below are provided to guide the discussion at country level: - Does the proposed definition for country results frameworks capture what constitutes a country results framework in various country contexts and approaches? - Do the proposed dimensions to be assessed (see below) capture the key elements of using country results frameworks? Are there other dimensions that should be included? - Would it be better to use a simpler approach, even if this would only capture some aspects of the use of country results frameworks? What is the appropriate balance to strike between the scope of assessment/the level of detail needed to support rigorous analysis and the need to keep a manageable level of complexity at country level? - What other optional questions could be included to help feed into and promote in-country dialogue on the issue of use of country results frameworks between governments and other country stakeholders? In addition, developing countries interested in piloting the indicator are invited to indicate their interest to the UNDP/OECD joint support team as soon as possible. This will provide them with the opportunity of contributing to define guidance on how to refine assessment criteria and to actually assess performance against the proposed dimensions. Feedback will be used to refine and finalise the operational guidance for the monitoring framework of the Global Partnership by mid-April 2013. The proposal for a Global Monitoring Framework agreed in June 2012 noted this indicator would be measured by “the percentage of providers of development co-operation using country results frameworks. The proposed approach was to assess a variety of dimensions and aggregate them into the final indicator. In line with this approach, it is proposed to assess the extent to which providers of development cooperation use country results frameworks against the following dimensions: 1.
The extent to which a provider of development co-operation uses the objectives and targets from the National Development Strategy as a reference to deliver and assess the performance of its own country programme.
(Could be measured through examination of the provider’s Country Assistance Strategy, sector agreements with government or project documents) 2.
The extent to which a provider of development co-operation uses the partner country’s Results Framework and its associated M&E systems, including national statistical systems, to monitor the progress of its programme and projects.
(Could be measured through the use of the country’s indicators, national statistics and M&E systems as reflected in actual reporting processes associated with Country Assistance Strategies, sector agreements, loan and grant agreements, project documents) 3.
The extent to which a provider of development co-operation’s country programme is aligned with the developing country’s own programmes.
(Could be measured through the importance of development co-operation funding delivered through programme-based approaches such as projects delivered in support to SWAps, basket/pooled funds or budget support)
30 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
The proposed approach is to construct various scenarios for each dimension against a high, medium and low scale. Developing countries would then use these scenarios to help them score each provider of development cooperation against this scale. In order to ensure consistency of assessment across countries and across providers of development cooperation within a country, the provision of some concrete examples for each of the scenarios would help developing countries to make assessment and provide guidance in identifying behaviour matching various levels of performance. The varying stages that each country is at in developing National Development Strategies, Results Frameworks and the underlying data systems to feed these have been factored in the different scenarios. Accordingly, where appropriate country results frameworks do not exist, the performance of providers of development cooperation could be assessed in terms of how they support to develop them and the extent to which agreed processes to deliver these are on track. This approach of using several dimensions attempts to capture the complex nature of this indicator. However this raises certain challenges in conducting the necessary assessments to inform this indicator and to ensure consistency across countries and in each country, across providers of development co-operation. Alternative approaches could be considered which would involve a much simpler assessment. This could include focus on one of the above dimensions. This would probably focus simply on whether a provider of development cooperation uses the partner country’s Country Results Framework. (This would require very clear definitions of “Country Results Framework” and what constitutes “use”.) The advantage of this approach is that it would be simpler and less resource-intensive for the developing country. The disadvantage is that it might not always tell the whole story and the extent to which limited use of country results frameworks may distort partner country efforts and initiatives. In addition it would leave out some of the other dimensions that may be useful to generate dialogue between the partner country and providers of development co-operation on what actually needs to change for more effective engagement. One option to address such shortcomings would be to have a two-level assessment process. The first level would be the simple assessment, and this would be the measure for the global indicator. The second level would be a further set of optional questions covering a wider set of dimensions. These would not feed into the main (global) score – but they could be used for in-country dialogue between the developing country and providers of development cooperation.
DEFINITIONS Country frameworks
National strategies
National systems
results
Country results frameworks define a country’s approach to results and its associated monitoring and evaluation systems focusing on performance and achievement of development results. They include agreed objectives and output / outcome indicators with baselines and targets to measure progress in implementing them, as stated in national development strategies, sector plans and other frameworks (e.g. budget support performance matrices). Such frameworks should have been developed through participatory processes, involving inclusive dialogue with relevant stakeholders at country level.
development
National development strategies include Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and/or similar overarching strategies. These are typically prepared to cover a clearly identified period of time covering several years. The quality of these national development strategies in operational terms depends on the extent to which they constitute a unified strategic framework to guide the country’s development policy and include strategic priorities linked to a medium-term expenditure framework and reflected in annual budgets. They are expected to have been developed through an inclusive consultative process involving the full range of relevant development stakeholders at country level.
statistical
The national statistical system includes all the statistical organisations and units within a country that jointly collect, process and disseminate official statistics on behalf of the national government.
31 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Programme-based approaches
Programme-based approaches are a way of engaging in development co-operation based on the principles of co-ordinated support for a locally owned programme of development, such as a national development strategy, a sector programme, a thematic programme or a programme of a specific organisation. Programme-based approaches share the following features: i) leadership by the host country or organisation; ii) a single comprehensive programme and budget framework; iii) a formalised process for donor-coordination and harmonisation of procedures for reporting, budgeting, financial management and procurement; iv) efforts to increase the use of local systems for programme design and implementation, financial management, monitoring and evaluation. Providers of development co-operation can support and implement programme-based approaches in different ways and across a range of modalities, including budget support, sector budget support, project support, pooled arrangements and trust funds.
32 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
INDICATOR 5A: DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION IS MORE PREDICTABLE (ANNUAL PREDICTABILITY) This indicator focuses on in-year predictability of development co-operation. In doing so, it recognises that shortfalls in the total amount of funding for the government sector and delays in the in-year disbursements of scheduled funds can have serious implications for a governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to implement development policies and strategies as planned. This indicator measures the gap between development co-operation funding scheduled by providers of development co-operation and development co-operation funding effectively disbursed as reported by the provider. This indicator is not identical to indicator 7 of the former Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration, though it is similar in many ways. It aims to provide a better proxy for predictability of disbursements than the indicator used in the Paris Declaration monitoring framework. In contrast with past measurement, data for both the numerator and denominator of the indicator are now sourced from providers of development co-operation. The inclusion of disbursements in the measurement of this indicator no longer depends on the recording of these disbursements by the developing country government in its accounts. Further changes include the reference period, which can now be the developing countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fiscal year.
QUESTIONS TO BE INTEGRATED IN COUNTRY-LEVEL DATA COLLECTION PROCESS ď Ž PROVIDER OF DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION ď Ž How much development cooperation funding did you disburse at country-level inâ&#x20AC;Ś Qp1. â&#x20AC;Śthe reporting year of reference ? USD ________ ď Ž How much of this was for the government sector inâ&#x20AC;Ś Qp2. â&#x20AC;Ś the reporting year of reference? USD ________ ď Ž How much development co-operation funding did you schedule for disbursement at country-level in â&#x20AC;Ś Qp3. â&#x20AC;Ś the reporting year of reference? USD ________ ď Ž For reference purposes only, how much development co-operation funding for the government sector did you disburse through other providers (funds which are not captured in your responses to Qd1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Qd3 above) at the country level in Qp4. ... the reporting year of reference? USD ________
MEASUREMENT OF INDICATOR At the global level, this indicator is calculated as follows: đ??źđ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x2018;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;&#x; 5đ?&#x2018;&#x17D; (%) = 100 Ă&#x2014;
DEFINITIONS Development cooperation funding scheduled for disbursement
đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;? 2 đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;? 3
Development co-operation funding scheduled for the reporting year of reference n are considered to have been â&#x20AC;&#x153;scheduled for disbursementâ&#x20AC;? when notified to government within the reporting year of reference n-1; it includes development co-operation funding scheduled for disbursement in agreements entered during year n.
33 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
INDICATOR 5B: DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION IS MORE PREDICTABLE (MEDIUMTERM PREDICTABILITY) This indicator focuses on medium-term predictability of development co-operation. In doing so, it recognises that lack of comprehensive and credible forward information on development co-operation funding can have serious implications for a government’s ability to plan and implement policies and strategies, deliver public services and design and conduct sound macro-economic policy. This indicator measures whether developing country governments have at their disposal a forward expenditure and/or implementation plan for each provider of development co-operation which covers the next three years. Such plans must cover all known components of the co-operation provider’s country programme. For example, they cover all development co-operation modalities used by that provider (e.g. budget support, projects, technical co-operation, in-kind aid) and include estimates of future flows that have yet to be allocated to specific activities or signed in cooperation agreements (i.e. “unallocated” resource envelopes, which will be provided to the developing country, but where the modality/sector/activity of spending has yet to be decided).
QUESTIONS TO BE INTEGRATED IN COUNTRY-LEVEL DATA COLLECTION PROCESS Feedback invited by 31 M arch: Field testing of m ethodology at country level Developing country governments interested in testing the proposed definitions for this indicator are invited to review them with country stakeholders and to provide feedback to the UNDP/OECD joint support team. Such feedback would be necessary to ensure that developing country governments are able to collect data and to report accurately on this indicator. The questions below are provided to guide the discussion at country level: - Are the definitions provided below both clear and relevant to your priorities for forward spending / implementation arrangements? - Does your government hold sufficient information to answer this question for each provider of development cooperation? If not, where were challenges encountered? - How do providers of development co-operation generally provide your government with forward spending information? To what extent do you consider that this is meeting the Accra and Busan commitments on medium-term predictability? Feedback will be used to refine and finalise the operational guidance for the monitoring framework of the Global Partnership by mid-April 2013. GOVERNMENT – For each provider of development co-operation: Has the provider of development co-operation made available a comprehensive forward expenditure and/or implementation plan setting out expected development co-operation flows in... Qg2. Fiscal year ending 2014? (if “Yes”, record 1; if “No” record 0) _____ Qg3. Fiscal year ending 2015? (if “Yes”, record 1; if “No” record 0)_____ Qg4. Fiscal year ending 2016? (if “Yes”, record 1; if “No” record 0)_____
34 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
MEASUREMENT OF INDICATOR At the global level, this indicator is calculated as follows:
đ??źđ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x2018;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;&#x; 5đ?&#x2018;? (đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;Ą. 3đ?&#x2018;Śđ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;&#x; đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;Łđ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019; %) = 100 â&#x2C6;&#x2014;
DEFINITIONS Forward spending and/or implementation plan
đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D;2 + đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D;3 + đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D;4 3
The developing country government should, for every provider of development co-operation participating in the global monitoring process, establish whether or not it holds information on that cooperation providerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s forward spending and/or implementation plans in the country. The national co-ordinator /reporting entity should consult with ministries or departments responsible for managing development co-operation (typically finance, planning, foreign affairs...) to ascertain whether adequate information has been received from each co-operation provider. A forward spending and/or implementation plan meets ALL THREE of the following criteria: â&#x20AC;˘
Made available by the provider of development co-operation in written or electronic form (e.g. a single document or â&#x20AC;&#x201C; where appropriate systems are made available in country â&#x20AC;&#x201C; entered appropriately in an aid information management system).
â&#x20AC;˘
Sets out clearly indicative information on future spending and/or implementation activities in the country, including:
â&#x20AC;˘
Expected development co-operation flows in fiscal year ending in year 2014, 2015, 2016
o
programmed or committed resources, where the activity and modality is known; and
o
other resources that have yet to be allocated to specific activities in the country.
Amounts are presented by year (or in greater detail â&#x20AC;&#x201C; e.g. by quarter or month) using the
developing countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fiscal year.
A plan may be available which meets all of the criteria above, but the information provided may vary for different years. In responding to questions Qg2, Qg3 and Qg4, national coordinators should examine the data for each year. (The reason for this is that a forward spending/implementation plan may provide comprehensive information for next year, but not the following year). For each year, answer 1 (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Yesâ&#x20AC;?) if the information provided meets BOTH of the following additional criteria: â&#x20AC;˘
Comprehensive in its coverage of known sectors, types and modalities of support (for example, a provider using both project and budget support modalities should include the amounts foreseen under both modalities); and
â&#x20AC;˘
The amount and currency of development co-operation funding is clearly stated (where support takes the form of technical co-operation and the provision of goods and services in kind, the cost of these planned activities is provided).
Where these criteria are not met for a given year, or where none of the criteria defining a forward spending / implementation plan (above) are met, answer 0 (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Noâ&#x20AC;?).
35 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
INDICATOR 6: AID IS ON BUDGETS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY The formulation of the budget is a central feature of the policy process in all countries. So the degree to which financial contributions from providers of development co-operation to the government sector are fully and accurately reflected in the budget provides a significant indication of the degree to which there is a serious effort to connect development co-operation programmes with country policies and process and to support domestic oversight and accountability for the use of development co-operation funding and results. Budget support is always on budget, but other modalities including project support can and should also be recorded on budget, even if funds do not pass through the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s treasury. This indicator builds on the broad approach used in indicator 3 of the Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration, while introducing modifications that are intended to make it a better proxy for budget comprehensiveness. The denominator is now the amount of development co-operation funding scheduled for disbursement at the outset of year n, rather than ex-post disbursements. This separates the measurement of the extent to which government budgets reflect ex-ante aid estimates (indicator 6) from the measurement of the realism of ex-post estimates (captured by indicator 5a).
QUESTIONS TO BE INTEGRATED IN COUNTRY-LEVEL DATA COLLECTION PROCESS ď Ž GOVERNMENT ď Ž How much estimated development co-operation funding was recorded in the annual budget as grants, revenue or loans (concessional and non concessional)? Qg5. In the annual budget of the reporting year of reference: USD ________ Note that the denominator for this indicator is the same as that used in the calculation of indicator 5a (annual predictability).
MEASUREMENT OF INDICATOR At the global level, this indicator is calculated as follows: đ??źđ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x2018;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;&#x; 6 (%) = 100 Ă&#x2014;
DEFINITIONS Annual budget
đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D; 5 đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;? 3
It is the annual budget as it was originally approved by the legislature. In order to support discipline and credibility of the budget preparation process, subsequent revisions to the original annual budget â&#x20AC;&#x201D; even when approved by the legislature â&#x20AC;&#x201D; should N OT be recorded under question Qg5. This is because it is the credibility of the original, approved budget that is important to measure and because revisions to the annual budget in many cases are retroactive.
36 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
INDICATOR 7: MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY AMONG DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION ACTORS IS STRENGTHENED THROUGH INCLUSIVE REVIEWS This indicator seeks to measure progress made by developing countries in undertaking mutual assessment reviews. This indicator takes the form of a modified version of indicator 12 of the Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration (OECD, 2011) to build on the lessons learned and evidence on national-level mutual accountability (including evidence generated by UNDESA for the United Nations Development Co-operation Forum). Further refinements to the criteria and methodology underpinning this indicator have been introduced to better capture the extent of involvement of stakeholders going beyond governments to include civil society stakeholders and parliamentarians, for example. A country is considered to have a mutual assessment of progress in place for the purpose of measuring this indicator when at least four of the five proposed criteria are met, providing a graduated assessment of progress.
QUESTIONS TO BE INTEGRATED IN COUNTRY-LEVEL DATA COLLECTION PROCESS Questions Qg6, Qg7, Qg8, Qg9 and Qg10 below are drawn from the survey on mutual accountability conducted by UNDESA for the United Nations Development Co-operation Forum (DCF). UNDESA will coordinate a more in-depth survey on mutual accountability in the fourth quarter of 2013 in preparation for the 2014 DCF.
Feedback invited by 31 M arch: Field testing of m ethodology at country level Developing country governments interested in testing the refined definitions are invited to discuss the findings with country stakeholders and to provide feedback to the UNDP/OECD joint support team, which will liaise with UNDESA to finalise the approach. Feedback will be used to refine and finalise the operational guidance for the monitoring framework of the Global Partnership by mid-April 2013. ď Ž GOVERNMENT Qg6. Is there an aid policy or partnership policy in place defining a countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development co-operation priorities (or elements of such a policy agreed through other instruments)? (Yes/No) Qg7. Are there specific country-level targets for effective development co-operation for both the developing country government and providers of development co-operation? (Yes/No) Qg8. Has an assessment towards these targets been undertaken jointly by the developing country government and providers of development co-operation at senior level in the past two years? (Yes/No) Qg9. Have non-executive stakeholders (i.e. civil society organisations, private sector and parliamentarians) and local governments been actively involved in such reviews? (Yes/No) Qg10. Have comprehensive results of such exercises been made public in a timely manner? (Yes/No)
MEASUREMENT OF INDICATOR At the global level, this indicator is calculated as follows:
37 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;?. đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;&#x201C; đ?&#x2018;&#x2018;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;Łđ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2122;đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D; đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;&#x161;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D; đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;Ą đ?&#x2018;&#x2122;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018;Ą đ?&#x2018;&#x201C;đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;&#x; đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;Ą đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;&#x201C; đ?&#x2018;Ąâ&#x201E;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;&#x201C;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;Łđ?&#x2018;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x17D; ďż˝ (đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D;6, đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D;7, đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D;8, đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D;9, đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D;10) đ??źđ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x2018;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;&#x; 7 (% đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;&#x201C; đ?&#x2018;&#x2018;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;Łđ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2122;đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D; đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018; ) = 100 Ă&#x2014; đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;&#x2122; đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;?. đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;&#x201C; đ?&#x2018;&#x2018;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;Łđ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2122;đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D; đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018; ďż˝ ďż˝ đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D; đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x203A; đ?&#x2018;Ąâ&#x201E;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;&#x201D;đ?&#x2018;&#x2122;đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;&#x2122; đ?&#x2018;&#x161;đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x201D; đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018; đ?&#x2018; ďż˝
DEFINITIONS Aid or partnership policy
A document which sets out agreed approaches to the delivery of development co-operation in the developing country, containing agreed principles, processes and/or targets designed to improve its effectiveness. This may take the form of a stand-alone policy or strategy document, or may be addressed within another document (for example, as part of a national development strategy or similar). The document has been the subject of an inclusive consultation between the developing country government, providers of development co-operation and other interested development stakeholders.
Country-level targets for effective development cooperation
Country-level targets for effective development co-operation have been established in line with Paris, Accra and Busan commitments. They may, however, go beyond the Busan Partnership agreement wherever the developing country government and providers of development co-operation agree to do so. Targets exist for both the developing country government and providers of development cooperation, providing the basis for assessing: the developing countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance in implementing its development strategy; and the performance of providers of development co-operation against agreed commitments to deliver on the quantity, quality and effectiveness of their support.
Mutual reviews
Mutual assessment reviews are exercises that engage at national level both developing country authorities and providers of development co-operation at senior level in a review of mutual performance. These reviews should be conducted through inclusive dialogue involving a broad range of government ministries (including line ministries and relevant departments, at central and local level), providers of development co-operation (bilateral, multilateral and global initiatives) as well as non-executive stakeholders, including parliamentarians, private sector and civil society organisations.
assessment
These assessments are undertaken on a regular basis (e.g. every one to two years) and might be supplemented through independent/impartial reviews. The comprehensive results of such assessments should be made publicly available in a timely manner through appropriate means to ensure transparency. For the purpose of assessing progress against indicator 7, a country is considered to have a mutual assessment review in place when the response to at least four of the five questions Qg6, Qg7, Qg8, Qg9 and Qg10 is â&#x20AC;&#x153;Yesâ&#x20AC;?.
38 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
INDICATOR 9B: USE OF PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS
COUNTRY
PUBLIC
FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT
AND
This indicator combines the Paris Declaration 5a (use of PFM systems) and 5b (use of procurement systems) to offer a single composite indicator. It focuses on the use of developing countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; public financial management (PFM) and procurement systems when funding from providers of development co-operation is provided to the government sector, without applying safeguard measures. National systems for the management of funds are those established in the general legislation (and related regulations) of the country and implemented by the line management functions of the government. No particular development co-operation modalities automatically qualify as using country PFM and procurement systems. Most modalities including project support can be designed to use country PFM and procurement systems. A set of criteria are presented below to help providers of development co-operation determine when they are, and when they are not, using country PFM and procurement systems.
QUESTIONS TO BE INTEGRATED IN COUNTRY-LEVEL DATA COLLECTION PROCESS ď Ž PROVIDER OF DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION ď Ž In the reporting year of reference, how much development co-operation funding disbursed for the government sector usedâ&#x20AC;Ś Qp6.
â&#x20AC;Śnational budget execution procedures (USD)? ________
Qp7.
â&#x20AC;Śnational financial reporting procedures (USD)? ________
Qp8.
â&#x20AC;Śnational auditing procedures (USD)? ________
Qp9
â&#x20AC;Ś national procurem ent systems (USD)? ________
MEASUREMENT OF INDICATOR At the global level, this indicator is calculated as follows: 1 (đ?&#x2018;&#x201E; đ?&#x2018;? 6 + đ?&#x2018;&#x201E; đ?&#x2018;? 7 + đ?&#x2018;&#x201E; đ?&#x2018;? 8 + đ?&#x2018;&#x201E; đ?&#x2018;? 9) đ??źđ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;&#x2018;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;&#x; 9đ?&#x2018;? (%) = 100 Ă&#x2014; 4 đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;? 2
39 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
DEFINITIONS Use of national budget execution procedures
Providers of development co-operation use national budget execution procedures when the funds they provide are managed according to the national budgeting procedures established in the general legislation and implemented by government. This means that programmes supported by providers of development co-operation are subject to normal country budgetary execution procedures, namely procedures for authorisation, approval and payment. Providers of development co-operation are invited to review all their development co-operation activities with a view to determining how funding for the government sector meet three out of the four criteria below (anything less does not qualify):
Use of national financial reporting procedures
1.
Are your funds included in the annual budget approved by country legislature? (Y/N)
2.
Are your funds subject to established country budget execution procedures ? (Y/N)
3.
Are your funds processed (e.g. deposited & disbursed) through the established country treasury system ? (Y/N)
4.
You do NOT require the opening of separate bank accounts for your funds? (Y/N). 4
Legislative frameworks normally provide for specific types of financial reports to be produced as well as periodicity of such reporting. The use of national financial reporting means that providers of development co-operation do not impose additional requirements on governments for financial reporting. In particular providers of development co-operation do NOT require: i) maintenance of a separate accounting system to satisfy the provider of development co-operation’s reporting requirements, and ii) creation of a separate chart of accounts to record the use of funds from the provider of development co-operation. Providers of development co-operation are invited to review all their development activities with a view to determining how much funding for the government sector meet BOTH criteria below (anything less does not qualify):
1. You do NOT require maintenance of a separate accounting system to satisfy your own reporting requirements? (Y/N) 5
2. You ONLY require financial reports prepared using country’s established financial reporting arrangem ents ? (Y/N)
4
Budget execution — Yes: you do not require opening separate accounts. No: you do require opening separate accounts.
5
Financial reporting — Yes: you do not require a separate accounting system. No: you do require a separate accounting system.
40 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
Providers of development co-operation rely on the audit opinions, issued by the country's supreme audit institution, on the government's normal financial reports/statements as defined above. The use of national auditing procedures means that providers of development co-operation do not make additional requirements on governments for auditing. Providers of development co-operation are invited to review all their development activities with a view to determining how much development co-operation funding for the government sector meet BOTH criteria below 6 : Use of national auditing procedures
1.
Are your funds subject to audit carried out under the responsibility of the Suprem e Audit Institution ? (Y/N)
2.
You do N OT under normal circumstances request additional audit arrangem ents 7? (Y/N) 8
AN D at least one of the tw o criteria below:
Use of national procurement systems
3.
You do NOT require audit standards different from those adopted by the Supreme Audit Institution? (Y/N) 9
4.
You do NOT require the Supreme Audit Institution to change its audit cycle to audit your funds? (Y/N) 10
Providers of development co-operation use national procurement systems when the funds they provide for the implementation of projects and programmes are managed according to the national procurement procedures as they were established in the general legislation and implemented by government. The use of national procurement procedures means that providers of development cooperation do not make additional, or special, requirements on governments for the procurement of works, goods and services. (Where weaknesses in national procurement systems have been identified, providers of development co-operation may work with developing countries in order to improve the efficiency, economy, and transparency of their implementation).
6
Note: where development co-operation funding is provided to parastatal entities (for example, public enterprises) and these entities are not subject to audit by the Supreme Audit Institution, the following criteria should be considered:
Providers of development co-operation are invited to review all their development activities with a view to determining how much development co-operation funding for the government sector meet BOTH criteria below: 1. Are your funds subject to audit carried out under the regular audit procedures established for the audit of parastatal entities? (Y/N) 2. You do NOT under normal circumstances request additional audit arrangements? (Y/N) AND at least one of the two criteria below: 3. You do NOT require audit standards different from those adopted by the partner country for the audit of parastatal entities? (Y/N) 4. You do NOT require a change in the audit cycle of the parastatal entity to audit your funds? (Y/N) 7
Reserving the right to make an exceptional audit (e.g. when fraud or corruption is discovered) does not count against this criteria.
8
Yes: providers do not require additional audits. No: providers do require additional audits.
9
Yes: providers do not require different audit standards. No: providers do require different audit standards.
10
Yes: providers do not require to change the audit cycle. No: providers do require change to the audit cycle.
41 Guide to the Monitoring Framework of the Global Partnership - Preliminary version for consultation
INDICATORS
TARGETS FOR 2015
1. Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities Extent of use of country results frameworks All providers of development co-operation use country results frameworks by co-operation providers 2. Civil society operates within an environment which maximises its engagement in and contribution to development A subset of measures from the Enabling Environment Index
Continued progress over time
3. Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development Measure of the quality of public-private dialogue
Continued progress over time
4. Transparency: information on development co-operation is publicly available Measure of state of implementation of the common standard by co-operation providers
Implement the common standard – All development co-operation providers are on track to implement a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information on development cooperation
5. Development co-operation is more predictable (a) annual: proportion of development cooperation funding disbursed within the fiscal year within which it was scheduled by co-operation providers; and (b) medium-term: proportion of development cooperation funding covered by indicative forward spending plans provided at country level
Halve the gap – halve the proportion of aid not disbursed within the fiscal year for which it was scheduled (Baseline year 2010) Halve the gap – halve the proportion of development cooperation funding not covered by indicative forward spending plans provided at country level
6. Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny % of development cooperation funding scheduled for disbursement that is recorded in the annual budgets approved by the legislatures of developing countries
Halve the gap – halve the proportion of development cooperation flows to the government sector not reported on government’s budget(s) (with at least 85% reported on budget) (Baseline year 2010)
7. Mutual accountability among development co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews % of countries that undertake inclusive mutual assessments of progress in implementing agreed commitments
All developing countries have inclusive mutual assessment reviews in place (Baseline year 2010)
8. Gender equality and women’s empowerment % of countries with systems that track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment
All developing countries have systems that track and make public resource allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment
9. Effective institutions: developing countries’ systems are strengthened and used (a) Quality of developing country PFM systems; and
Half of developing countries move up at least one measure (i.e. 0.5 points) on the PFM/CPIA scale of performance (Baseline year 2010)
(b) Use of country PFM and procurement systems
Reduce the gap. [use the same logic as in Paris – close the gap by two-thirds where CPIA score is >=5; or by one-third where between 3.5 and 4.5] (Baseline year 2010)
10. Aid is untied % of aid that is fully untied
Continued progress over time (Baseline year 2010)
A CALL FOR A GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR JUST AND TRANSFORMATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN THE POST-2015 ERA On the occasion of the 68 t h Session of the UN General Assembly on the follow-‐up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit, the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) 1 calls for a Global Partnership that will advance a just and transformative development agenda in the Post-‐2015 Era. There has been a proliferation of new global partnerships formed between government and non-‐state actors in the last ten years. These partnerships address various challenges—from vaccinations, to agricultural research, to child health, to provision of education, or even to promoting better hygiene. Despite its widespread use and the importance given to it in various high level reports on the post-‐2015 process, existing official recommendations fall short of providing an adequate framework for global partnerships. Noting the UN Secretary General's report to the 68 t h Session of the UN General Assembly, CPDE calls for improvement in the current global partnerships landscape. As was recognized in the 1992 UN Conference on Sustainable Development and reaffirmed in the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development 2012, sustainable and equitable development can only be achieved with the inclusion of all development actors. Discussions around the post-‐2015 agenda and the SDGs provide a critical opportunity to develop a new framework for global partnership that instills principles of democratic governance and development effectiveness. Principles for inclusive and equitable Global Partnerships for sustainable development The following key principles are recommended guidelines for action: 1) Respect, protect and promote the right to development, human rights and social justice: all global partnerships must be coherent with and complement international human rights instruments, in particular the Declaration on the Right to Development. The right to development provides an integrated, holistic and cohesive framework to inform development cooperation. Adherence to this norm may be able to address root causes of poverty, inequality and injustice, and ecological degradation. 1
The CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) is an open platform of sub-‐regional, regional and sectoral/major groups constituencies that endorse the current declaration. By doing so, these constituencies commit to engaging actively on the development effectiveness agendas both in terms of advocacy and policy development. Each constituency is organized in its own right and represents its affiliates (sub-‐regions, national, subsectors) according to its own constituency set-‐up. It is party to and sits in the Steering Committee of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC). See http://csopartnership.org
2) Empower people’s participation and inclusion in particular traditionally marginalised communities: sustainable development policies, planning and actions should be grounded in the rights, expressed priorities and local knowledge of affected peoples. The participation of traditionally marginalised sectors and CSOs that work with them is key to ensuring the agenda is influenced by those it intends to benefit. Key to empowering participation is the promotion of an enabling environment for civil society. 3) Ensure inclusive and equitable multi-‐stakeholder participation: The full engagement of and accountability to all development stakeholders will rely on dialogue and negotiations based on equality, solidarity, and mutual respect. It is recommended that accountability mechanisms for global partnerships should make use of human rights standards; ensure transparency through data generation and information disclosure and reporting; and introduce binding measures for corporations that are members of global partnerships. 4) Promote equality within and between countries, and between men and women: women play a key role in development and the full realisation of women’s rights as human rights is essential to any development and to any development cooperation framework. 5) Respect national sovereignty and democratic ownership: New global partnerships should enhance country ownership. Technical assistance and aid must respond to country’s needs ensuring an integrated human rights and gender equality perspective with precedence given to indigenous expertise. Global partnerships can do much to advance development. However, there must be consideration to ensure that they are not co-‐opted processes that can threaten the impartiality of states and institutions. Co-‐optation may come about in the lack of clear definition and norms on the concept, which might compromise the equality and effectiveness of the partnership. CPDE demands an inclusive and equitable partnership for a development path that is just and transformative. For more information contact: The Global Secretariat IBON Center, 114 Timog Avenue Quezon City, 1103 Philippines Telephone +632 9277060-‐62 loc. 204 secretariat@ csopartnership.org
CPDE Background Paper on Private Sector Engagement in Development September 2013
About this background paper The CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) commissioned this background paper to help distill for our membership CSO analyses and perspectives on aid and the private sector, provide a framework on donor approaches to engaging the private sector, and identify key concerns relating to development effectiveness. This backgrounder provides an overview of recent civil society papers on donor engagement with the private sector as a partner in development and draws from scholarly papers where appropriate. As a desk review, it does not draw on explicit evidence from the field. It draws on the overview of trends, issues and analyses presented in the literature to frame a range of policy recommendations proposed by civil society on this issue. From these, CPDE as a platform can establish its own nuanced position. The paper begins with an overview of which private sector are we talking about and the emerging international consensus on the role of the private sector in development (sections 1.0 and 2.0) and the motivations behind donorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; preoccupation with partnerships (section 3.0). It discusses the approaches and partnership modalities pursued by donors and looks at the types of private sector actors they seek to engage (section 4.0). The paper finishes by raising key issues regarding donorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; engagement with the private sector (section 5.0).
Table of Contents Section 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.0
Title Overview: which private sector? And why now? Private Sector Engagement in Development Cooperation: International Trends Motivations behind the Trends: Why focus on the private sector now? Private Sector Engagement in Development Cooperation: Approaches Private Sector Engagement in Development Cooperation: Interventions and Partnership Modalities Private Sector Development Private Sector Engagement for Development Private Sector Engagement in Development Cooperation: Key Issues Additionality and Partner Selection Individual Initiatives versus Systemic Change Aid Effectiveness and International Standards The Apolitics of Engaging the Private Sector â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The Issue of Power Monitoring and Evaluation Conclusions and Recommendations Endnotes
Page 1 1 3 4 5 5 5 8 8 9 10 10 11 11 14
Acronyms B2B CPDE CSOs CSR DAC DCED EC G20 GPEDC HLF4 ITUC MSMEs MDGs NGO ODA OECD PPP SMEs UN
Business to Business initiatives CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness Civil society organizations Corporate social responsibility Development Assistance Committee Donor Committee for Enterprise Development European Commission Group of 20 Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness International Trade Union Confederation Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises Millennium Development Goals Non-governmental organization Official development assistance Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Public private partnership Small and medium-sized enterprises United Nations
i
1.0
Overview – which private sector? And why now?
The private sector is an important and necessary part of development efforts. For the purpose of this paper, private sector is defined as organizations that have a core strategy and mission to engage in profit-seeking activities through the production of goods, provision of services, and/or commercialization. It includes financial institutions and intermediaries, micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, individual entrepreneurs, co-operatives, social enterprises and large corporations operating in the formal and informal sectors. It excludes non-governmental organizations (NGOs), independent foundations, and civil society organizations (CSOs). 1 Historically, donors have promoted private sector development in developing countries – namely through plans and strategies to promote the private sector in developing countries. 2 In recent years there has been an increased focus on partnership with the private sector to address development challenges. This has moved beyond the promotion of public-private partnerships (PPPs) to include greater private sector involvement in the identification of development solutions, and the design and implementation of development activities. Countries have made numerous statements at the international level promoting the private sector as a partner in development. This approach coincides with a renewed focus on economic growth, trade and the private sector as driving forces behind development. 3 The current context has also changed substantially. The emphasis on partnership coincides with the new circumstances developed countries face at home as a result of the aftermath of the financial crises in North America, the European Union and Japan. This has been characterised by a questioning of the level of assistance these countries should continue to provide to countries in the South and concern over the competitiveness of Northern economies. 4 With few exceptions, providers of official development assistance (ODA) – members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) – are implementing fiscal austerity programs that are decreasing or freezing the resources allocated to aid budgets. They are emphasizing “cost effectiveness” and “value for money,” seeking to leverage shrinking aid budgets through innovative financing mechanisms, private sector–inspired solutions, and direct partnerships with private sector actors. 5 Developing countries are also recognized as key markets or investment sites for donor countries’ firms and investors; partnerships are also a means to promote donors’ own private sector abroad and maintain current levels of competitiveness. 6 The private sector is not only being afforded greater space to contribute to international and national policy discussions on development cooperation through concerted efforts by donors to engage them, but is also expected to serve as an important development partner.
2.0 Private Sector Engagement in Development Cooperation: International Trends Within different international fora, donor governments have made successive commitments to increase their work with the private sector. Successive Group of 20 (G20) Summits in Seoul and Los Cabos in 2010 and 2012 respectively have emphasized the role of the private sector in development with a focus on promoting foreign and domestic private investment, support for job creation, and on PPPs 7 in relation to financing infrastructure needs. 8 The G20 Working Group on Development has recommended a number of ways the private sector can engage in development, including overcoming infrastructure challenges in
1
developing countries through private sector financing models and institutional arrangements that support and promote PPPs. 9 The group also suggests that more incentives are needed to encourage private investment and job creation as well as engage the private sector in development. This includes through changes to the business model of multilateral development banks to enable and assist the private sector to collaborate on and invest in development through subsidies, public guarantees and innovative finance risk mitigation products. 10 In the United Nations (UN) context, a number of initiatives and statements have emerged regarding the role of the private sector in development. Building on the UN Global Compact, 11 the UN launched the Business Call to Action in 2008. It serves as a leadership forum aimed at encouraging companies to develop commercially viable, inclusive business models that help accelerate progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). At the 2010 UN Millennium Summit, 11 bilateral donors issued a statement in support of private sector partnerships for development that recognized “the private sector as equal partners around key development issues.” 12 Discussions on the post-2015 development framework also indicate a greater role for the private sector going forward, with Paul Polman, chief executive officer of Unilever and vice-chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development appointed as a member of the UN secretary-general’s High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. 13 Participants at the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF4) in 2011 also gave prominent attention to the private sector. 14 The key outcome document, the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, stated that the private sector has a central role to play “in advancing innovation, creating wealth, income and jobs, mobilizing domestic resources and in turn contributing to poverty reduction.” 15 In addition, a number of bilateral donors, multilaterals and several international business organizations endorsed a joint statement on expanding and enhancing cooperation with the private sector. As Kindornay and Reilly-King (2013) suggest, given the attention to the private sector at HLF4, it is unsurprising that the private sector was given a seat on the Steering Committee of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC) that emerged to guide the post HLF4 process. They add that labour unions, an obvious counterbalance to the private sector, instead have to share a seat with the rest of civil society. The European Commission (EC) is also looking to partner with the private sector for development. The EC’s 2011 “Agenda for Change” is exploring innovative ways of financing development, including blending loans and grants with private sector money, as a way to increase private sector participation in EU development policy. 16 The EC is also promoting PPPs to “leverage public sector activity and resources for delivering public goods,” suggesting that “up-front grant funding and risk-sharing mechanisms” provide a means to encourage private investment and partnerships in development. 17 Commitments at the international level have centered on the role of the private sector in supporting economic growth and development, as well as in addressing development challenges. As Kindornay and Reilly-King suggest, “donors see the solutions to development lying in markets – one market to promote solutions to growth (promoting private sector development) and another market to promote solutions to development (partnering with the private sector).” 18
2
3.0 Motivations behind the Trends: Why focus on the private sector now? There are a number of reasons why donors are targeting the private sector with increasing rigour, particularly through their ODA budgets. These include: • addressing global development challenges and promoting economic growth in developing countries; • harnessing non-aid flows to developing countries and declining aid resources; • promoting domestic commercial interests; and • capitalizing on private sector actors that are keen to engage in development processes. 19 Donors suggest that working with the private sector will serve as a kind of ‘game-changer’ that will enable the development community to meet the MDGs 20 and address other development challenges. They emphasize the role of the private sector in contributing to job creation, taxes and technology transfers in developing countries, which raises government and citizen’s incomes, enabling governments to provide essential services and, ultimately, contributing to growth and development. 21 Beyond their regular business operations, donors highlight the role of the private sector in meeting financing gaps to address development challenges. The lack of public financing to meet infrastructure needs in developing countries is an important rationale for pursuing PPPs. 22 Donors also highlight the need to harness additional resources to respond to climate change. 23 In addition, donors suggest that there is a shortage of funding for essential services for citizens due to the protracted economic crisis and austerity measures. 24 Indeed, a number of donors seek to harness the private sector as a means to deliver goods and services to poorer populations. 25 These funding gaps have occurred not only in a time where development challenges are great, but many donors have also frozen or reduced their aid funding. 26 In 2011 aid from members of the OECD-DAC fell by 2.7% in real terms, the first decline in 14 years. 27 Provisional numbers for 2012 indicate a further fall of 4% in real terms. 28 At the same time, despite the growth in aid over the past decade, up until recently aid – as a proportion of total finance available to developing countries – has decreased significantly compared to non-aid flows like trade, foreign direct investment and remittances. This context has provided impetus for donors to look for and harness alternative forms of development financing. 29 Donors want to leverage non-aid flows, including private sector finance, through their shrinking aid budgets, emphasizing cost-effectiveness and value-for-money. 30 They see the combination of public money with private sector human and financial resources and capacities as a way to achieve more impact and achieve sustainable and scalable results once donor funding has ended and businesses continue their work. 31 According to the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), there is also a perception among some governments and policy makers that the private sector simply “does it better.” 32 Working with the private sector will lead to speedy delivery on development results, improve efficiency, lead to skills and technology transfer, and improve the effectiveness of private sector operations in developing countries. 33 For many donors, engaging the private sector is also politically expedient. In the context of the financial crisis, it offers a means by which donors can promote their own commercial interests, alongside development objectives, although donors do vary in terms of the extent to which they see the promotion of their own commercial interests as an overt goal of private sector engagement. 34 CAFOD points out that, in the context of the United Kingdom’s promotion of PPPs, PPPs are seen as a means to not only boost profits of the donor country’s private sector, but also income for the donor government
3
itself. 35 In a number of instances, bilateral donor approaches to private sector engagement represent a form of tied aid through the use of funding mechanisms that are only open to firms from the donor country. 36 Another important motivator for donors is that the private sector is interested in engaging with the development sector 37 as a means to improve public image and brands. 38 Beyond image, companies based in donor countries are interested in opportunities to enhance their market access, 39 in the role donors can play in absorbing risks, and in helping the private sector to face competition from emerging markets. 40 On the financing side, companies see engagement as beneficial for accessing funding for initiatives that â&#x20AC;&#x153;do not have an adequate business case upfront or that they cannot afford but can be of strategic relevance in the exploration of new markets and products.â&#x20AC;? 41 Working with donors also provides access to developing country governments, 42 existing development structures and networks, and donor expertise. 43
4.0 Private Sector Engagement in Development Cooperation: Approaches Donors take different approaches to engaging the private sector in development. At the policy level, bilateral donors have articulated their approaches to varying degrees ranging from a fully established strategy, complete with monitoring and evaluation frameworks, to no formal strategy, coupled with a dedicated website on private sector engagement. 44 At the program level, some donors have established structured funding windows with calls for proposals and clear funding guidelines, such as Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, while others (US, Switzerland) take a more open approach under which private sector actors provide proposals on a more ad hoc basis based on areas of perceived shared interest (Heinrich 2013). The content of donor approaches to the private sector can be distinguished by their focus on private sector development and partnering with the private sector to: 1. promote private sector development and/or 2. address broad development challenges. 45 The distinction between private sector partnerships aimed at private sector development versus addressing broader development challenges is an important one to make as the modalities of donor engagement vary depending on the goals of partnership. The following section unpacks the various types of interventions donors are pursing in relation to private sector development, partnerships with the private sector for private sector development, and partnerships centred on addressing other development goals. While it is incredibly difficult to assess the amounts of funding donors are allocating to private sector development and partnerships with the private sector based on these approaches, 46 an overview of DAC donor reporting on projects relating to economic infrastructure and services and productive sectors provides some indication of the growth in this area. In their review, the ITUC shows that contributions for infrastructure and services, and the productive sectors have grown at a much faster pace between 2006-2011 compared with flows for social infrastructure (72% and 82% respectively compared to 48%). 47 Similarly donor funding for Aid for Trade has grown in scale and importance, representing the single largest component of OECD-DAC donors combined ODA. 48
4
4.1 Private Sector Engagement in Development Cooperation: Interventions and Partnership Modalities 4.1.1 Private Sector Development Kindornay and Reilly-King provide a useful overview of bilateral donor interventions on private sector development. 49 Donors engage at three levels – macro, meso and micro. At the macro level, they focus on creating a business-enabling environment, which includes interventions at the government level in developing countries aimed at creating the right legal and regulatory framework to ensure the necessary conditions exist for the private sector to thrive. Interventions here tend to include technical assistance aimed at improving macro-economic conditions and institutional capacity building. At the meso level, donors focus on “making markets work.” This means addressing market failures and imperfections, enhancing competitiveness, and better integrating actors into markets through interventions such as aid for trade, building value chains, provision of finance and technological transfers. At the micro level, donors focus on businesses and people. This entails building support services that enhance longer-term private sector development, such as technical assistance, capacity development and finance to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and investing in vocational skills training, health and education for people. 4.1.2 Private Sector Engagement for Development Modalities centred on private sector engagement for development relate to instances where donors partner with the private sector to achieve development objectives. Within this category, one can distinguish between efforts to promote private sector development and other modalities that focus on development challenges in areas such as health, education or climate change, for example. A) Private sector investment for private sector development Partnerships with the private sector centred on private sector development have received considerable attention. 50 Here, donors engage with the private sector to achieve goals related to promoting private sector development in developing countries. Kindornay and Reilly-King identify the key modalities by which donors are engaging with the private sector at the macro, meso and micro levels (Table 1, adaptation of Table 4 in Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 27). Table 1: Bilateral donor partnerships with the private sector for private sector development Macro level interventions: Business-enabling environment
• Engagement with the private sector including through business associations to assess their needs in the national development planning of aid-recipient countries. Can also include CSOs and trade unions (e.g., Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom) • Support for promoting and implementing national and international CSR standards like the UN Global Compact or the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (e.g., Canada, Denmark, Germany, Sweden)
5
Meso level interventions: Making markets work
• Matching initiatives 51 that couple firms, generally in traditional donor countries, with businesses in developing countries (and sometime CSOs), often with a focus on development impacts (e.g., Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States) • Support for micro enterprises and SMEs, including farmers, with the goal of integrating them into global value chains (e.g., Austria, Canada, Italy, New Zealand) • Financing for donor countries’ firms to encourage their investment in developing countries (e.g., Denmark, Finland, Germany) • Public-private partnerships (e.g., Germany, United Kingdom) • Partnerships between donors, civil society and the private sector aimed at establishing trade relationships and improving integration of SMEs into value chains (e.g., Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, United States) 52 • Facilitation of capital market formation though investments in stock exchanges, index and equity funds, and the provision of lines of credit to private banks to facilitate investment
Micro level interventions: Investing in business and people
• Technical assistance to private sector enterprises in developing countries (e.g., Denmark, New Zealand, United Kingdom) • Economic empowerment initiatives that provide access to finance and opportunities to gain entrepreneurial skills, often directed at women (e.g., Australia, Austria, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States) • Skills training for youth and women (e.g., Canada, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, United Kingdom)
The ITUC has also examined private sector development partnerships looking specifically at contractual relationships between public and private authorities. 53 They examine relationships based on procurement, grants, guarantees and finance in the forms of loans and equity investments. Understood in this sense, ITUC identifies a number of relationships between the private and the public sectors depending on their roles (Table 2). The relationship between the private and public sector actors in private sector development work is important because it indicates the “extent to which the public party has influence, if not effective control or at least stewardship over the project.” 54 The public sector may have more control when it operates as a customer or shareholder than an insurer or creditor, for example. Table 2: Typology of Contractual Relationships between Donor Governments and the Private Sector in Development 55 Role of the private party
Role of the Public Party Donor Operator of Grants (subsidies) and for-profit other in-kind project contributions (expertise) Sub-contractor of public works Recipient of non-
Creditor Loans
Access to government officials and
6
Shareholder Equity investment; PPP
Customer PPP
PPP
Procurement; PPP
Insurer Public guarantees, export credit
commercial benefits
networking; Co-financing of philanthropic projects; Capacity development; Standard setting
In addition to financing available to the private sector as an operator of for-profit projects and subcontractor of public works, the ITUC identifies what it calls non-commercial benefits to the private sector, pointing to donor co-financed projects that partner businesses from developing countries with those in developed (business to business initiatives or B2B), capacity development and standard setting initiatives. This category would also include multi-stakeholder initiatives aimed at improving standards and implementing development projects jointly financed by the private and the public sectors. 56 While the ITUC suggests that co-financing of B2B initiatives are a non-commercial benefit, 57 it should be noted that in many instances, these partnerships do in fact lead to commercial gains for companies, which see B2B as an investment in their supply chain. 58Corporate social responsibility (CSR) projects, however, which serve as another important kind of co-financed project, are carried out on a cost and risk sharing basis and may or may not necessarily relate to a companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s core-business practices. In addition to finance-based mechanisms, donors are also seeking to improve the business climate in developing countries 59 by influencing recipient governments through policy advice and capacity development. 60 For the ITUC, this also entails activities aimed at intangible outcomes, such as facilitating foreign private sector access to domestic markets, procurement opportunities and policy-makers in developing countries. 61 Kindornay and Reilly-King (2013) add donor support for private sector inclusion in national development planning to this list. Donors are also working to influence private sector operations and business strategies to be more development friendly by engaging in CSR initiatives such as the UN Global Compact and industry standard setting initiatives. 62 They support the creation and implementation of voluntary-based norms and standards related to sustainability and improved development outcomes, 63 such as the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) and the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative. 64 B) Private Sector Engagement to address development challenges To address broad development challenges donors are promoting innovative financing mechanisms aimed at harnessing private sector finance. 65 Kindornay and Reilly-King found that the main modalities pursued by bilateral donors in this context include competition or challenge funds and programs aimed at harnessing private sector expertise, innovation and finance (e.g., Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom); support for research on scientific and technological innovations across sectors like agriculture, climate change and information and communication technologies (e.g., Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom); and the creation of knowledge platforms and learning tools related to the role of the private sector in development (e.g. Australia, Sweden and the UK). In addition to challenge funds and programs, donors are also supporting the creation of PPPs to deliver essential services to the public. 66 Finally, donors make use of advanced market commitments to address global challenges in areas such as agriculture and health, particularly in vaccine development. 67
7
5.0 Private Sector Engagement in Development Cooperation: Key Issues A number of key issues exist with how donors are approaching private sector engagement, outlined below. 5.1 Additionality and Partner Selection Which companies donors target for partnership is important from the perspective of additionality. Heinrich (2013) provides one of most comprehensive overviews of different aspects and understandings of additionality to date. There are different ways of thinking about additionality. Input or financial additionality is about demonstrating that a company’s investment would not go ahead without donor support, or put more broadly, that a donor subsidy is additional to what the private sector or other funders provide and does not replace their contributions. 68For Heinrich, development additionality can refer to business behaviour or the impacts of the partnership. Behavioural additionality refers to how donor support has enhanced the scale, scope and speed of a project or brought about changes in the long-term strategies of businesses. 69 Output or outcome additionality refers to the results achieved by a partnership that could only be achieved with donor support. Kindornay and Reilly-King similarly define development additionality in terms of outcomes referring to the extent to which partnerships “work toward eradicating poverty and achieving other development goals, such as the MDGs or human rights standards.” 70 Heinrich points out that because assessments of additionality are done before project implementation, they are closely related to the concept of the counterfactual – “that is the changes brought about as a result of donor support, relative to what might have ordinarily happened.” 71 Indeed, as Kwakkenbos (2012) points out, it is nearly impossible to know how much additional finance donors have leveraged from the private sector. Such assessments also aim to determine whether donor support is distorting markets and creating unsustainable asset bubbles. This creates difficulties for donors because they must rely on judgement calls and assessments prior to project implementation. Many donors suggest that they require additionality to access funds, but how it is assessed is not often publicly available. 72 In her review of business partnership instruments, Heinrich found that many do not apply criteria of input additionality but look primarily at commercial viability and expected development impacts. 73 Kindornay and Reilly-King similarly point out that donors focus on technical eligibility guidelines (years incorporated, audited financial statements, etc.), rather than corporate track records related to positive social, economic, and environmental impacts comparable to what CSOs are expected to demonstrate for funding. 74 Heinrich found that many programs do not “define minimum levels of threshold criteria for the eligibility of businesses based on expected development impacts,” nor do they list specific criteria in terms of the development outcomes donors are seeking to achieve, a finding consistent with Kindornay and Reilly-King’s (2013) review of bilateral donor partnership mechanisms. A few studies have sought to assess additionality ex-post. In the case of the Netherland’s Private Sector Investment program, the evaluation found that there was a need for better scrutiny at the application phase and in instances where additionality was limited, it could have been addressed during the application phase. 75 The United Kingdom’s Business Innovation Facility has begun assessing additionality and found that most companies (nine out of 11 respondents) saw donor support as partially additional – or in other words, enabled the business to be more commercially sustainable, take on less risk and reach scale based on better quality design and implementation of projects. 76 Only one company indicated that donor support was fully additional in that the activity would not have happened without donor support. The size and nationality of the companies with whom donors partner can represent trade-offs from the 8
perspective of additionality. For example, donors may want to work with bigger, more experienced and better organized firms because they can deliver larger-scale development results, set an example for other companies, and require less supervisory support. 77 However, these same companies are also more likely to have the funds necessary to launch initiatives without partnership. At the same time, smaller companies may be in greater need of grants as they are often the most credit constrained, 78 vulnerable to international competition and in need of enhanced capacity that aid can potentially afford them. However, from a donor’s perspective, they are more expensive to manage and require stronger involvement of project staff for technical advice and support to succeed. 79 These same issues apply to where companies are domiciled. 80 International or donor country businesses are often more experienced and it is easier for donors to check their background before beginning a partnership. Companies from developing countries may have greater knowledge of the local context but donors face more “risks in terms of due diligence, financial robustness and ability to achieve results at scale.” 81 When comparing small and large companies, larger companies have higher potential for achieving large scale development impacts while smaller companies, typically from recipient countries, are most likely to need additional financing, meaning input additionality will be higher though the number of beneficiaries (development additionality) may be smaller. 82 Donors are not always clear on which private sector is best placed to partner for development or the implications of their partnership choices from an additionality perspective. 83 This is an extremely important point. At the policy level, it is unclear what characteristics donors find desirable in potential partners in terms of their nationality – national (donor), foreign (multinational) or domestic (recipient country) – and size – from micro to large enterprises in the formal and informal sectors. While some instances exist where donors seek to partner only with their own private sector (e.g., Denmark, Finland, United Kingdom), many challenge funds and programs are open to any private sector partner (Germany, Sweden, United States). At the same time, a number of donor programs include B2B initiatives (Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands), meaning that they target domestic and national and international firms. 84 In its review of B2B programs, the Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (DCED) found variations in the size of the companies targeted with some mechanisms focusing on large companies but typically involving smaller businesses in the target country. 85 Some donors also offer different support windows for SMEs and larger companies (e.g. Finland, Sweden). 5.2 Individual Initiatives versus Systemic Change Donor approaches to engaging the private sector tend to focus predominantly on individual projects and programs to address development challenges in developing countries. Where they focus on regulatory and legal frameworks, it is at the developing country level, rather than addressing policies within donor countries, corporate accountability or global systems that undermine development. 86Though some donors emphasize policy coherence for development in their work with the private sector, the pursuit of their own commercial interests alongside development objectives raises questions regarding whether their efforts are about policy coherence more generally or policy coherence for development, which is about improving the impact of non-aid policies on development outcomes. For example, a donor may engage in efforts with the private sector to support sustainable supply chains, but not address tariff barriers that inhibit developing countries from more easily accessing international supply chains. In addition, donor interventions mostly focus on activities in developing countries. 87 In relation to private sector partners, most donors promote voluntary solutions to poor corporate practices, 88 rather than promoting better regulations and legal frameworks. The ITUC claims that progress on policy coherence for development will be fundamental to development 9
efforts, requiring a new international governance system that addresses state and transnational actors in order to keep all players accountable. 89 This means moving beyond individual partnerships and companies to addressing the different national and global legal and regulatory frameworks in which the private sector operates and impacts development. 5.3 Aid Effectiveness and International Standards In their review of bilateral donor strategies on growth and the private sector, Kindornay and Reilly-King found that only two donors specifically reference aid effectiveness principles. 90 That is, very little attention is given to democratic country ownership, donor alignment and harmonization, transparency and accountability, women’s empowerment and results (discussed below). In terms of ownership, Kindornay and Reilly-King point out that donor strategies “create substantial space for donor intervention in multiple areas” including at the individual, firm and government levels. 91 In general, they found little discourse centred on ensuring developing countries have policy space to establish their own broad-based development strategies and reform processes. Furthermore, it is unclear how partnerships with the private sector are taking into consideration the perspectives of the poor 92 or treating developing country governments as stakeholders, consulting them on specific areas where they would like to see subsidized investments flow. 93 Partnerships with the private sector have the potential to bypass country systems and traditional public procurement. 94 Another important issue is donors’ focus on transparency and accountability. Donors tend to focus on recipient governments’ transparency and accountability, rather than transparency and accountability for their own flows, including to the private sector. 95 For example, in their review of donor policies on aid and the private sector, Kindornay and Reilly-King (2013) show that, owing to a lack of clear and transparent reporting, it is nearly impossible to accurately gauge how much money is going to the private sector for development partnerships. There is a need for donors to improve transparency around their partnerships with the private sector. The ITUC adds that the private sector itself also has a role to play in promoting accountability and transparency and should respect international human rights standards as well as voluntary initiatives. 96 Finally, bilateral donors are mixed in terms of the extent to which they reference international norms and standards in their growth and private sector strategies. 97 Roughly half of OECD-DAC donors make reference to international voluntary initiatives related to corporate social responsibility. Eleven specifically refer to the International Labour Organization’s conventions while ten refer to UN conventions and declarations on human rights. While references to conventions and frameworks aimed at addressing corporate behaviour in donor strategies are welcome, what is less clear is how donors plan to “embed these standards into the core business activities of companies receiving […] aid” 98 or the extent to which potential partners are assessed against compliance with these standards. 5.4 The Apolitics of Engaging the Private Sector – The Issue of Power In most instances, bilateral donors take apolitical approaches to their partnerships with the private sector that fail to recognize political-economic realities in developing countries and power relations in partnerships. 99 Bilateral donors tend to assume that partnerships among development actors are beneficial for everyone, including recipient and donor governments, the private sector and civil society “- they are a win-win-win-win situation.” 100 However, this positive view is unlikely to survive realities at country level, where the interests of and power dynamics between and among donors, recipient governments, civil society, and the foreign and national private sector differ. Donors seem to assume 10
that the differences between and among these groups are not so great as to hinder consensus-making. Considering that some donors have made promoting their own commercial interests a priority in private sector partnerships, significant potential exists for conflict when these are not aligned with developing country priorities or could adversely impact certain sectors or communities. Moreover, as CAFOD points out, despite talk of stakeholders, which implies equality, “not all interested and affected parties have an equal stake … depending on who they are, they have very different degrees of influence.” 101 Disagreements will occur based on the diverse interests of these groups and their ability to alter or change outcomes. It is unclear how donors, recipient governments, the private sector and civil society expect to address the politics of private sector partnerships in development. 5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation Across reviews of donor partnerships with the private sector, the lack of monitoring and evaluation policies is a key gap. 102 Drawing on the 2012 Reality of Aid Report, 103 the ITUC has argued that multilateral and bilateral donors have failed to fulfill their due diligence in assessing the impact of the private sector on poverty reduction, including interventions aimed at promoting inclusive business. 104 Rather, they focus on success stories. 105 While the G20 Working Group has designed a set of indicators to measure the value added and job creation impact of the private sector in development, it fails to look at the quality of jobs created and decent work with considerable gaps remaining on worker’s rights, wage rates and collective bargaining. 106 In terms of partnerships with donor businesses to support private sector development in developing countries, the DCED points out that “we know relatively little about the results achieved and in particular their development impacts.” 107Information that is available at project level is often on anticipated impacts or qualitative results; there is little information on how partnership outcomes are measured or can be attributed to donor support. This reality stands in stark contrast to the reporting requirements that bilateral donors place on recipient governments and CSOs.
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE), as a platform uniting CSOs from around the world to pursue development effectiveness, believes that policies and practices of all development actors must deepen the impact of aid and development cooperation on the capacities of the poor and marginalized to realize their rights and achieve the Internationally Agreed Development Goals. This paper has raised key issues on the role of the private sector in development, how donors are engaging different private sectors, how new partnerships and interventions are being carried out, and the effectiveness of such modalities in developing countries. It highlights the recent growing international discourse on placing the private sector as the main driver and equal partner in economic and social development. This comes in the context of a protracted economic crisis in donor countries and a subsequent decrease of aid budgets. Much of the rationale for the increased focus on private sector-led development is the need for “cost effectiveness” and “value for money”. Beyond this, donor countries are also motivated to use PPPs to promote their commercial interests alongside development goals. Close analysis of key issues shows that additionality of private sector engagement is difficult to assess and there are no clear guidelines from donors on which among the private sector is best placed to partner for development. This approach also focuses primarily on individual projects and fails to address 11
global policies and systems that pose challenges to developing countries. Another issue raised is the lack of attention given to aid effectiveness principles in these partnerships, in particular in terms of democratic ownership. Moreover, better systems to monitor and evaluate the development impacts of these partnerships with the private sector are needed, as well as better transparency and accountability mechanisms not only for donor countries, but also the private sector partners with which they engage. The perspectives and insights in this paper provide an overview of the challenges and opportunities that have arisen with this increased focus on private sector engagement for development. The following key messages and recommendations have emerged from this discussion and form the basis from which CPDE could further deepen and nuance its understanding of the issues and the policies we need to advocate with governments and the private sector. International regulatory framework • There must be a firm call to implement international and domestic policy and regulatory norms and framework to enable the private sector to contribute to development and the realization of human rights, within democratic and inclusive processes both at the country and international levels. Governments must be reminded to enforce the private sector observance of adopted ILO conventions. Donors must ensure that foreign companies and transnational corporations with whom they are engaged in partnerships guarantee their adherence to the guidelines established in the UN Code of Conduct for Transnational Corporations. •
Donors must deepen and strengthen the implementation of the Paris Declaration, Accra Agenda for Action, and the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation and support the establishment of international guidelines for development effectiveness of private sector actors.
Additionality • Aid resources should primarily be used to reduce poverty and inequality and achieve development goals. The goal of any private sector engagement in development should be producing positive development outcomes and this should not be obscured by the drive to create and increase profit. •
Given the problems discussed in measuring additionality, donors need to clarify intended development outcomes and ensure that public investments to the private sector translate to sustainable livelihoods, observance of labor rights, generation of quality employment, and improvement of social and environmental outcomes.
•
Donors should ensure financial additionality by establishing indicators that assess financial need as well as opportunity costs in relation to other development concerns, and by creating eligibility criteria that favors the domestic private sector and takes into account track records of the private sector actor in delivering development results.
Democratic ownership • Donors and governments must ensure that partnerships with the private sector should be aligned with the country’s development priorities, ensure citizen engagement, and involve multi-stakeholder processes among CSOs, local governments, trade unions, in addition to private sector actors. These must be consistent with the Busan principles and commitments on democratic ownership, use of country systems including procurement, and promote results that
12
have an impact on reducing poverty and inequality, including gender inequality. •
Donors must provide developing countries space to pursue their path to economic growth and not impose their policies on domestic private sector development or allow donor country interests to guide implementation of PPPs.
•
Donors and governments must take into account that the provision of, and access to, basic public services in developing countries should not be left to the private sector alone. A great majority of these services fulfill their citizens’ basic human rights and the governments have the central responsibility to guarantee these rights to their constituents.
•
Preference should be given to local private sector engagement for development over donor country companies or corporations. Aid-assisted engagements with the private sector should also prioritize the development of the local private sector, particularly micro, small and medium –sized enterprises (MSMEs) and social economy.
Assessment and monitoring • An important challenge identified is to create coherent guidelines on monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of private sector engagement in development programs. An international monitoring framework must be developed from which to review the extent to which PPPs or efforts on private sector development impact on developing countries’ priorities. •
Development indicators should be based on international human rights standards and must allow quantitative and qualitative measurements of human development, gender equality, governance, and environmental sustainability. Indicators should not rely solely on conventional standards of measurement such as income and rate of growth. Environmental and social impact assessments must be mandatory on big-ticket investments such as infrastructure.
•
There is a need to create donor coherence in assessing the private sector actors making sure they not only fulfill technical requirements, but also are committed to achieving development outcomes including social, economic and environmental aspects.
Transparency and accountability • Donors and governments must set high standards for transparency in private sector engagements for development. Governance processes should strengthen the capacities of the poor and marginalized to be informed and participate in deliberating development options and be part of decision-making. •
Increased transparency and accountability also involves improving the tracking, disclosure, and comparability of private sector funding for development. This can be done through supporting transparency initiatives that aim to streamline data reporting and publishing and provide public access to information on aid.
13
Endnotes 1
Di Bella, José, Alicia Grant, Shannon Kindornay and Stephanie Tissot. 2013. Mapping private sector engagements in development cooperation. Ottawa: The North-South Institute.
2
Byiers, Bruce and Anna Rosengren. 2012. Common or Conflicting Interests? Reflections on the Private Sector (for) Development Agenda. Maastricht: European Centre for Development Policy Management; Kindornay, Shannon and Fraser Reilly-King. 2013. Investing in the Business of Development? Bilateral Donor Approaches to Engaging the Private Sector. Ottawa: Canadian Council for International Co-operation and The North-South Institute. Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013. 3 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013. 4 ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation). 2013. The Private Sector and its Role in Development – a trade union perspective. Geneva: ITUC; Kindornay, Shannon, Pablo Heidrich and Matthew Blundell. 2013. South-South Development Cooperation in Latin America: What Role for the Private Sector? Integration & Trade Journal 36 (17), January-June (forthcoming). 5 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013. 6 Kindornay, Heidrich and Blundell 2013 (forthcoming); ITUC 2013; Heinrich, Melina. 2013. Donor Partnerships with Business for Private Sector Development: What can we Learn from Experience? Cambridge: DCED. 7 Difficulties exist in defining PPPs owing to the diversity in their contractual arrangements, and that the term is increasingly being used to describe any form of engagement between private and public actors (ITUC 2013). Nevertheless, the OECD defines PPPs as contractual agreements between “government[s] and one or more private partners (which may include the operators and the financers) according to which the private partners deliver the service in such a manner that the service delivery objectives of the government are aligned with the profit objectives of the private partners and where the effectiveness of the alignment depends on a sufficient transfer of risk to the private partners.” OECD 2008 Public ‐Private Partnerships: In Pursuit of Risk Sharing and Value for Money, OECD. June 2008 http://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/publicprivatepartnershipsinpursuitofrisksharingandvalueformoney.htm. 8 ITUC 2013, 8. 9 ITUC 2013, 12. 10 ITUC 2013, 13. 11 In 1999, the UN Global Compact, a voluntary corporate responsibility initiative, was established which brings together over 8,700 corporate particpants who agree to follow 10 principles in areas relating to human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption. 12 DCED (Donor Committee for Enterprise Development). 2010. Bilateral Donors’ Statement in Support of Private Sector Partnerships for Development. http://www.enterprisedevelopment.org/download.ashx?id=1645. 13 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013. 14 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 10. 15 HLF4 (Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness). 2011. Expanding and Enhancing Public and PrivateCooperation for Broad-Based, Inclusive and Sustainable Growth http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/36/49211825.pdf. 16 ITUC 2012, 9. 17 EC (European Commission). 2011. Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change, Brussels, 13.10.2011 COM(2011) 637 final http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0637:FIN:EN:PDF. Page 8. 18 Kindornay and Reily-King, 2013, 24. 19 Byiers and Rosengren 2012; CAFOD 2013; ITUC 2013; Heinrich 2013; and Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013. 20 ITUC 2013, 2. 21 Kindornay and Reilly-King (2013) offer a full discussion of bilateral donor assumptions in this regard. While the overall narrative and assumptions are similar, donors incorporate issues relating to environmental sustainability and inequality to varying degrees in their assumptions on the private sector, growth and development. 22 ITUC 2013, 16; CAFOD 2013, 8. 23 CAFOD 2013, 8.
14
24
CAFOD 2013, 8. Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 15. 26 ITUC 2013, 2. 27 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 8. 28 OECD, 2013. Aid to poor countries slips further as governments tighten budgets. http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/aidtopoorcountriesslipsfurtherasgovernmentstightenbudgets.htm 29 ITUC 2013, 16. 30 ITUC 2013, 16; Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 9. 31 Heinrich 2013, 5. 32 ITUC 2013, 16. 33 CAFOD 2013, 7-9; see also Byiers and Rosengren 2012, 6. 34 Byiers and Rosengren 2012, 6; Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 15. 35 CAFOD. 2013. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in International Development- Are we asking the right questions? London: CAFOD. 7. 36 ITUC 2013, 17. See Kindornay and Reilly-King (2013) for a full discussion of tied bilateral donor challenge funds and programs. 37 Byiers and Rosengren 2012, 6. 38 Kindornay, Shannon, Kate Higgins with Michael Olender. 2013. Models for Trade-Related Private Sector Partnerships for Development. Ottawa: The North-South Institute. 39 ITUC 2013, 17. 40 Byiers and Rosengren 2012, 6. 41 Heinrich 2013, 5. 42 ITUC 2013, 7. 43 Heinrich 2013, 5. 44 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013. 45 Byiers and Rosengren 2012; Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013. 46 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013. 47 ITUC 2013, 3. 48 Kindornay, Higgins and Olender 2013. 49 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 22. 50 Heinrich 2013; ITUC 2013; Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013. 51 Donors seek to match their domestic firms with firms in developing countries. Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) Business Partnerships are one example. 52 Heinrich (2013) provides an overview of different partnerships structures between donors, civil society and the private sector which fall into this category. 53 ITUC 2013, 4. 54 ITUC 2013, 5. 55 Slightly adapted from ITUC (2013, 5). 56 Heinrich 2013; Kindornay, Higgins and Olender 2013. 57 ITUC 2013, 7. 58 Heinrich 2013; Kindornay, Higgins and Olender 2013. 59 Heinrich 2013; Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013. 60 ITUC 2013, 7. 61 ITUC 2013, 7. 62 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013; ITUC 2013. 63 ITUC 2013, 8. 64 http://www.constructiontransparency.org/ 65 Byiers and Rosengren 2012. 66 CAFOD 2013. 67 Advanced market commitments are stimulations of demand by donors for a specific product for which there is a need (e.g., cheap vaccines) but where the private sector may not see a profitable market. Funding may be pledged, 25
15
though is only actually committed if the product is created. The GAVI Alliance – a private-public partnership which aims to increase access to immunisation in poor countries – makes use of this model. 68 Heinrich 2013, 14. 69 Heinrich 2013, 14. 70 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 33. 71 Heinrich 2013, 14; see also Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013 for a discussion. 72 Heinrich 2013; Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013. 73 Heinrich 2013, 17-18. 74 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 31. 75 Heinrich 2013, 20. 76 Heinrich 2013, 20. 77 Heinrich 2013, 13. 78 Kwakkenbos, Jereon. 2012. Private Profit for Public Good? Can Investing in Private Companies Deliver for the Poor? Brussels: Eurodad. 79 Heinrich 2013, 10. 80 Heinrich 2013, 11. 81 Heinrich 2013, 11. 82 Heinrich 2013, 18. 83 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 30. 84 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 30. 85 Heinrich 2013, 7. 86 ITUC 2013. 87 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013. 88 ITUC 2013, 4. 89 ITUC 2013, 24. 90 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 43-47. 91 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 44. 92 CAFOD 2013. 93 Byiers and Rosengren 2012, 24. 94 ITUC 2013, 23. 95 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 47. 96 ITUC 2013, 23. 97 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 39-40. 98 CAFOD 2012, 7. 99 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013. 100 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013, 45. 101 CAFOD 2013, 2. 102 Kindornay and Reilly-King 2013; ITUC 2013; Heinrich 2013. 103 “Aid and the Private Sector: Catalysing Poverty Reduction and Development?” available at http://www.realityofaid.org/roa_report/aid-and-the-private-sector-catalysing-poverty-reduction-anddevelopment/ 104 ITUC 2013, 19. 105 ITUC 2013, 19; Kindornay, Higgins, and Olender 2013; Heinrich 2013. 106 ITUC 2013, 14. 107 Heinrich 2013, 2.
16
CSO Partnership Advocacy Strategy Sept 2013 – July 2014 Final Draft, October 2013 This strategy document presents a framework for the best way of mobilizing the CPDE’s resources in order to influence decision-makers in ways that will contribute to the CSO Partnership’s objectives. For the purpose of effectiveness, it was based on clear assumptions on the time span to focus on (September 2013–September 2014) as well as on the assets available to the CPDE (owing mostly to the Partnership’s global nature ). The broader range of activities that the CPDE will undertake until September 2014 is reflected in other planning documents including the Multi-Year Plan. 1 Background Civil society is recognized as an important and independent development actor in its own right. Busan acknowledges that any new global development partnership must embrace diversity and recognize the distinct roles that all stakeholders can play to support development. In keeping with this, a multi-stakeholder approach that actively includes civil society participation is a prerequisite to good development cooperation policy and practice, together with governments that are committed to ensuring an enabling environment for CSOs’ participation. The CSO Partnership 2 (CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness) is an open platform that unites CSOs from around the world on the issue of development effectiveness, especially in the context of the Busan Partnership for Development Effectiveness (BPDE) and the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC). Within the context of the Nairobi Declaration and “building a CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness,” the CPDE envisages a role for organizations to 1) critically engage with all key stakeholders of the Busan agenda at all levels, focusing on policy advocacy and mobilization efforts, including the mobilization of resources to support these efforts, and influencing key provisions of the GPEDC (according to Outcome Statement 3); 2) continue taking forward messages contained in the CSO Key Asks (and endeavor to update the key asks) as they relate to the outcomes of Busan, including the unfinished business of Paris and Accra; 3) continue the work to implement the Istanbul Principles; and 4) continue to advance CSO Development Effectiveness. The scope of this strategy 1
Reference materials for this strategy document include the Nairobi Declaration, the CSO Key Asks for Busan, the CPDE Advocacy Strategy @ 10 June ’13 and the conclusions of the ad hoc break-out sessions of the CPDE Coordination Committee meeting held in Brussels on 19-21 June 2013. 2 Development effectiveness promotes sustainable change, within a democratic framework, that addresses the causes as well as the symptoms of poverty, inequality and marginalization, through the diversity and complementarity of instruments, policies and actors. Development effectiveness in relation to aid is understood as policies and practices by development actors that deepen the impact of aid and development cooperation on the capacities of poor and marginalized people to exercise their rights and achieve the Internationally Agreed Development Goals (IADGs). Conditions for realizing development effectiveness goals must include measureable commitments to improve the effectiveness of aid.
This document aims to provide a framework for action that will cover the next 12 months. In fact, it is most important to keep this advocacy strategy as focused as possible as far as time frame is concerned in order to mobilize in the best way the resources that the CPDE may rely on. Thus, it is suggested that the strategy be centered around the time span of September 2013 to September 2014; and that the proposed objectives and actions be related to the international level as way of selecting key moments and opportunities where the CPDE can make a difference by acting as one player, from the global to the local level. Regional or sector constituencies may agree on their own strategies that will complement this paper; the global strategy will be updated on rolling basis. This strategy paper is based on the preparatory documents and outcomes of the ad hoc discussion that took place at the meeting of the CPDE Coordination Committee in Brussels on June 19-21 2013. The intention is to offer the CPDE a framework that takes into account a fair balance between the available resources and the expected outcomes. To this end, this strategy document presents a matrix that clusters objectives, actions and outcomes according to key moments as such a modality best reflects the way the Partnership has been working so far. For instance, one key assumption is that the CPDE at the global level – from GC members to Working and Reference Groups – will be involved. The time frame: September 2013–September 2014, win it or lose it The months leading to September 2014 will tell us whether or not the development agenda for the next decades is taking shape in a way that factors in the needs, proposals and ambitions of the many people around the globe who advocate a sustainable development for all. This challenging period starts with the UN GA in September 2013 that will address the Millennium Development Goals and receive the initial findings of the Open Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals. A key milestone is the first meeting of the Ministerial summit of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation in early 2014; the UNDCF will hold its IV Session in July 2014; the UN work stream on financing for sustainable development may be well-placed to present its early findings at the September 2014 UN AG. The first Ministerial Meeting of the GPEDC is of particular relevance to the CPDE. It will be the test for assessing whether or not Busan indeed marked a watershed 3 that ushered in a new era in the global development landscape based on the equal participation of all stakeholders. Moreover, the CPDE is rightly seen as the platform that ensures the participation of CSOs in the event, in its preparatory process and in its deliberations. The CPDE should not fail to miss this target lest its role and function be diminished.
3
It is worth quoting BetterAid’s assessment of the Busan Partnership Document, released in April 2012: “We recognise that the HLF4 ushered in a new era in the global effort to advance people’s development needs and rights. Developments in the scope and membership of the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (BPd) offer both opportunities and challenges for the future. Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) also acknowledge the greatly enhanced space created for formal civil society engagement in the HLF4 and subsequent processes.” The basement also provided a thorough analysis of strengths and weakness in the BPd.
In the next few months, the international community will ask itself about the WHATs and the HOWs; and will define the hallmark of a post-2015 development agenda. The CPDE must rise to these challenging times and be an active part of these discussions. General objective By September 2014, the development effectiveness agenda as acknowledged at the global level should fully recognize the human rights-based approach and the mutual accountability of all stakeholders as key founding principles. The GPEDC should be on a steady path towards working as a truly open partnership based on the equal participation of all development actors, which supports inclusive partnership and upholds the call for an enhanced enabling environment for CSOs. Also, the principles enshrined in the Busan Partnership document – sustainable and inclusive development, democratic ownership, and support to South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation, ownership by developing countries, focus on results, inclusive development partnerships, and transparency and accountability – should be endorsed by the international community as some of the founding determinants of the post-2015 agenda. Specific objectives • SO1. The UN AG in Sept 2013 includes the Busan Principles as a founding block of the post-2015 development agenda 4. • SO2. The First Ministerial of the GPEDC endorses a final declaration that includes a clear timeline for securing the implementation of the agreed-upon commitments and Busan Partnership principles. The GPEDC ought to work at all levels, including the Steering Committee, in the most transparent manner possible. • SO3. The UNDCF offers a space for a political dialogue that actively includes, on an equal footing, the emerging economies, donors and other stakeholders, including CSOs, with a view to supporting a new inclusive parthership framework. Strategic approach In the pursuit of its own objectives, the CPDE will take action considering: 1. the need to revamp its own policy messages based on the CSO Key Asks also with a view to integrating some emerging challenges concerning climate finance, ownership and post2015; in this regard please go to Annex 2. 2. the CPDE’s potential to bring together the vast and diverse alliance of groups which is the essence of the Partnership; 3. influence the work and outcomes of the GPEDC steering committee through collective advocacy, research and policy development that draws from national and regional experience and voices; 4. coordinate CSO engagement in Building Blocks and other thematic work areas by focusing on areas of special interest for CSOs – such as human rights-based approaches, development effectiveness, CSO development effectiveness, and enabling environment – as well as other existing Building Blocks, including results and accountability, South-South 4
It is to be noted that the GPEDC is just briefly mentioned in the HLP Post 2015 in the section “Working in cooperation with others”.
5. 6. 7. 8.
cooperation, effective institutions, climate finance and the private sector, diversity and fragmentation and the Gender Action Plan; the need to develop ad hoc tools to mobilize its own constituencies. It may be a grand idea to generate new energy such as the Development Convention, which BetterAid discussed in preparation for Busan; the need for friendly working documents that will highlight the key messages and areas of emphasis (e.g. policy documents on democratic ownership, etc. communication materials â&#x20AC;&#x201C; bookmark, etc.); the need to monitor the implementation of the Post-Busan accountability framework. Such provisions should help deepen and broaden measures to implement democratic ownership, gender equality, women empowerment and human rights-based approaches; and the need work to improve CSO Development Effectiveness.
Summary matrix: objectives, inputs and outcomes (more details in the ad hoc planning tables) Key moment Actions UN AG, Sept 2013 OW on SDGs ... ... ... First GPDEC ministerial, early 2014 UNDCF, July 2014
GC ... WG/RG ... Regional and sector constituencies ... GC WG/RG Regional and sector constituencies...
Expected outcomes
Annex 1 – PLANNING TABLES (specimen) Table 1 - GPEDC first ministerial meeting Key moment GPDEC first Ministerial When early 2014 Short description The GPEDC Ministerial Meetings are the high-level forums for bringing together the relevant political leaders of the signatory countries as well as the heads of the organizations and constituencies that support the GPEDC. The first of such ministerial meetings will take place in early 2014 and will offer the first opportunity to assess progress in the implementation of the BPd. CPDE expected The Ministerial Meeting endorses resolutions that support the outcomes human rights approach to development and inclusive partnerships, ... Actions • The delegates of the CPDE to the GPEDC Steering Committee CC and GC
WGs and Reference Groups Regional and Sector Constituencies Secretariat Strategy objectives
• • • • • • • •
meetings are actively involved in the preparatory process led by the Steering Committees with the support of the GC members and relevant WGs and RGs. ... WGs and RGs update relevant policy position, including the role of the private sector, post-MDG,... ... Region and sector delegates to the GC mobilize the constituency members to influence the process at all levels, from local to global ... The global secretariat will coordinate the implementation of the action that was agreed upon ... SO2.
Annex 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SELECTED KEY MOMENTS Date Activity Title Post-2015 Agenda Aug 28-30 1. First session of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing Sep 20 2. 20th Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-20)
Sep 22
3. Regional Recommendations on Post-2015: A Dialogue
Venue
Brief Description/Objectives
New York, USA
Ditto
Ditto
Member-states decided in resolution 67/203 that the CSD would have its last session (CSD20) immediately prior to the convening of the first meeting of the high-level political forum on sustainable development. CSD 20 will be held in the morning of Friday, 20 September, from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm in Conference Room 2 (CB). Following the opening remarks, a panel of former Chairs of the CSD will be organized to reflect on the achievements and lessons learned from the Commission as well as to set the stage for the establishment of the highlevel political forum. Intervention from Major Groups will be coordinated by the Major Groupsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; organizing partners. More information: http://sustainabledevelopment.un .org/index.php?menu=1211 Registration page (22064) open: http://bit.ly/1bOk5ix On 22 September 2013, a dialogue between civil society, governments, and UN representatives on regional recommendations for the post-2015 development agenda will be convened by UN-NGLS in partnership with the Post-2015 Development Planning Team of the Executive Office of the Secretary-General. This dialogue will serve as a follow-up to the UNNGLS consultation which gathered regional perspectives of civil society, particularly those from the global South. It is expected that the summary of this event will serve as an input for the 25 September Special Event. Registration is open for civil society. More information: http://www.unngls.org/spip.php?article4335 Registration page (22063)
Date
Activity Title
Venue
Sep 23
4. High-Level Forum on Accelerating Action and Partnering for Impact
Ditto
Sep 23
5. Side event on sustainable cities
TBD (c/o DESA/DSD)
Sep 24
6. High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, Inaugural Session
New York, USA
Sep 25
7. Special event to follow up on efforts on MDGs 8. Public Forum on Integrating Human Rights in the Post2015 Development Framework
New York, USA (c/o UN ECOSOC) New York, USA
Sep 26
Brief Description/Objectives open: http://bit.ly/12P5KiK To catalyze and accelerate further action to achieve the MDGs (hosted by the UN SecretaryGeneral), this event will focus on the concrete examples of practices for scaling up success and identifying opportunities. Side event organized by DESA/DSD. The outcome will be reported to the inaugural HLPF on 24 September. Online registration will open soon. Placeholder registration page (22130): http://bit.ly/1bG1DeC The first meeting of the high-level political forum on sustainable development (which will replace the Commission on Sustainable Development following a Rio+20 decision) held at the Heads of State level under the auspices of the General Assembly will take place on 24 September 2013. The forum will include four Dialogues opened to Heads of State and Government, Heads of UN entities and other international organizations, as well as high-level representatives of Major Groups and other relevant stakeholders. Thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s no online registration for this event as space is extremely limited
A special event to follow up on efforts made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 65/1, will be held on 25 September 2013. More details on the event will be posted in the page below as they become available. The President of the General Assembly will draw up a list of representatives of NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC, as well as other relevant civil society organizations, academic institutions, youth groups and private sector representatives. Nominations by non-ECOSOC groups will be circulated to member-states on a no-objection basis. Seating will be extremely limited. Registration will be closed on 19 August 2013 and is open from this
Date
Activity Title
Sep 2013 (exact date tbc)
9. Open Working Group on Sustainable Development 1st Report on SDGs
Copenhagen, Denmark
1. DCF High-Level Symposium on â&#x20AC;&#x153;Development Cooperation in a Post2015 Era: Sustainable Development for Allâ&#x20AC;?
Montreaux, Switzerland
UN DCF Oct 24-25
Jan 2014 (tbc)
2. DCF High-Level Symposium
Venue
Germany (tbd)
Brief Description/Objectives page: http://bit.ly/12yGM3y More information: http://www.un.org/en/ga/68/mee tings/index.shtml Registration page (22043) open: http://bit.ly/12yGM3y
The second high-level symposium will discuss implications for development cooperation of broadening a future development agenda beyond the focus of the MDGs on poverty eradication and human development towards including sustainable development. Following the GA special event on the MDGs, the meeting will discuss the future role and shape of development cooperation and how it will need to be redesigned to pursue sustainable development in an integrated and balanced way. It will explore the respective strengths of sources, channels, instruments and major uses of development finance in light of new requirements, including the need to scale up financing, including for global public goods, despite the ongoing global economic and financial crisis. A DCF Advisory Group meeting is expected to take place during the Symposium. A briefing on the outcome of this Symposium could also be organized during the ECOSOC Organizational Session in NY. As a post-2015 development agenda starts to take shape in concrete terms, the third highlevel symposium will be an occasion to further explore the role of accountability frameworks in implementing the said development agenda. It would build on ongoing work for the DCF on country- and global-level accountability for commitments and development results including the conclusions of the first two symposia of this cycle, and identify how mutual accountability can assist in translating global
Date
Activity Title
Venue
Brief Description/Objectives commitment to national implementation. It will serve to further strengthen the role of the DCF as the global apex body for accountability in a post-2015 development agenda. A DCF Advisory Group meeting is also expected to take place. A briefing on the outcome of this Symposium could also be organized during the ECOSOC Organizational Session in NY. A meeting of the Steering Committee of the GPEDC may also be held back-to-back with the Symposium.
Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) Oct 2013 1. 4th Steering TBD (exact Committee Meeting date tbc) Feb 2014 2. 5th Steering Nigeria (tbc) (tbc) Committee Meeting 2nd 3. First Ministerial Mexico Quarter of Level Meeting 2014
Annex 3. POLITICAL MESSAGES The basis of the CSO Partnership’s advocacy has slightly evolved since Busan but the CSO Key Asks remains at the heart of the CSO Partnership’s positions. It would be worthwhile to revisit the Asks in order to update and re-orient them towards the GPEDC. As a starting point, some of the political messages that the CSO Partnership is trying to advance include the following: a. Maintain advocacy efforts in the spirit of the CSO Key Asks to Busan. The human rights-based approach to development and especially democratic ownership and the enabling environment for civil society remain at the heart of the CSO Partnership’s mission; b. Strengthen the focus on development effectiveness in development cooperation. This requires addressing the root causes, as well as the symptoms, of poverty, inequality ( gender inequality and violation of women’s rights, in particular), marginalization, injustice, and disability; c. Hold new donors accountable to the principles of Paris, Accra and Busan in their development cooperation. Advocate that emerging donors and governments engaged in South-South cooperation implement the principles of Paris, Accra and Busan, and do not undermine but contribute to the human rights of all people; d. Challenge the mainstream notion of economic growth and of the private sector as the driver of development and articulate alternative approaches that are consistent with the CPDE’s vision and goals. The BPd retains economic growth as the framework for development while excluding a comprehensive human rights-based approach, vision and policy framework that will hold business accountable and to promote decent work for all; e. Influence new areas of work as these arise through the Global Partnership, in keeping with our vision, values and goals.
Annex 4. THEMATIC WORKING GROUP ARRANGEMENTS In addition to the overall priorities, the CPDE has identified several thematic areas of work, which will be developed to inform and enhance CPDE messages to the GPEDC and other fora. These areas of work make up a part of the overall advocacy strategy for the platform both at Global, Regional and National levels. The different areas of work identified were based on the thematic interests of the member-organizations of CPDE and are therefore distinctly memberdriven, with secretariat support. Member-organizations taking up thematic work are asked to track developments and develop policy inputs specific to a particular thematic area of work, which then feed into the overall CPDE advocacy strategy to the GPEDC. The CPDE foresees two levels of engagement on the basis of thematic areas of work where its members are encouraged to volunteer to participate. The two levels of engagement are based on the priorities of CPDE members. Working Groups Participation in a working group entails active involvement in elaborating policy messages, elements of negotiation, information exchange, analysis and strategic responses on all the details within the different thematic areas. Working groups have developed their own advocacy strategies specific to the thematic work, which serve to complement the overall advocacy strategy. Working Groups are: • CSO Development Effectiveness • CSO Enabling Environment • Human Rights-Based Approach • South-South Cooperation • Post-2015 Development Agenda Reference Groups Participation in a reference group entails continuous involvement in all activities and discussions that will come after the official bodies/groups/platforms and Building Blocks, which focus on different thematic areas. The CPDE resolved to create reference groups on the themes, which are more in accordance with the core advocacy work of the platform. Reference Groups are: • Private Sector • Climate Finance • Effective Institutions • Results and Accountability • Aid Fragmentation • UN Development Cooperation Forum themes --- end ---
CIVICUS’ 2013 Enabling Environment Index
CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction to the EEI
4
Chapter 2: The EEI unpacked
9
- Data sources - Coverage
11 11
Chapter 3: EEI results
13
Top 5 countries Worst 5 countries Socio-cultural dimension Socio-economic dimension Governance dimension Imbalanced scores EEI ranking Countries and territories not in the EEI
14 14 15 17 19 21 24 26
Chapter 4: Discussion
28
About CIVICUS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Welcome to the 2013 Enabling Environment Index produced by CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. The Enabling Environment Index (EEI) was built in partnership with the University of Pretoria, under the supervision and leadership of Professor Lorenzo Fioramonti. CIVICUS is especially grateful to him for his vision and his stewardship. The EEI has been developed through a consultative process and the feedback we have received from our members, friends, partners, supporters and others in the CIVICUS alliance helped shape the index and this report. In particular, we wish to thank the Enabling Environment Index Advisory Group for their efforts and continuing support. We would also like to thank the members of the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) and its Working Group on the Enabling Environment for Civil Society, as well as staff at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) working on the post-Busan monitoring framework.
CIVICUS wishes to express our gratitude to the following persons and institutions who contributed to the development of the index. Index Development Team
Lorenzo Fioramonti, Olga Kononykhina
Index Advisory Group
Chairperson - Netsanet Belay (Amnesty International); Members - Brian Tomlinson (AidWatch Canada); David Brown (Hauser Center, Harvard University); Deborah Hardoon (Transparency International); John Garrison (World Bank); Leonardo Arriola (University of California, Berkeley); Lester M. Salamon, Megan Haddock and Wojtek Sokolowski (Center for Civil Society Studies, John Hopkins University); Marion Derckx (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands); Nilda Bullain (International Center for Not for Profit Law); Robin Oglivy (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development); Vitalice Meja (Reality of Aid Africa)
Consultation Coordinators
Africa CSO Platform for Principled Partnership (Kenya); Asia Society for Social Improvement and Sustainable Transformation (India); Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambiental (Ecuador); European Commission/Swedish International Development Agency (Belgium); Nigeria National Network of NGOs (Nigeria); Uganda National NGO Forum (Uganda); University of Pretoria (South Africa)
CIVICUS Donors
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAid); Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida); Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD)
CIVICUS Enabling Environment Index Project Team Ciana-Marie Pegus, Katsuji Imata
CIVICUS Staff
Amy Miller-Taylor, Clara Bosco, Danny Sriskandarajah, Dorothée Guénéheux, Enrica Barago, Ine Van Severen, Kiva La Touché, Mandeep Tiwana, Mark Nowottny, Zubair Sayed
Graphic Design and Website Design InJozi
ACRONYMS CIVICUS: CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation CPDE: CSO Platform for Development Effectiveness, the CSO coalition formed to follow up on the Busan Partnership for Development CSI: CIVICUS Civil Society Index, a civil society self-assessment project CSW: CIVICUS Civil Society Watch, a project to monitor the space for civil society CSO: Civil society organisation DAC: Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which brings together most government development donors EC: European Commission – the executive body of the European Union EEI: CIVICUS Civil Society Enabling Environment Index, a new tool to quantitatively measure conditions for civil society in different countries GPEDC: Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation ICNL: International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, an international civil society organisation NGO: Non-governmental organisation, a type of civil society organisation OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, an intergovernmental organisation of 34 countries, in which most development donor governments are represented UN: United Nations
Introduction to the EEI For 20 years, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation has been at the forefront of efforts to understand the state of civil society and draw attention to threats faced by civil society around the world. On the former, CIVICUS has built tools such as the Civil Society Index (CSI), a participatory research process conducted in over 70 countries. On the latter, CIVICUS has issued countless alerts about legal, regulatory and policy measures in many countries that restrict civil societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to exist and operate freely and its ability to participate in governance processes. It has also highlighted other threats such as physical attacks, harassment, imprisonment
and assassinations of civil society activists, as well as crackdowns on protests and demonstrations. In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of an â&#x20AC;&#x153;enabling environmentâ&#x20AC;? for civil society in order for any democracy to flourish. In general, the international development community considers an enabling environment for civil society to be the political and policy context within which civil society organisations (CSOs) operate, with particular interest paid to areas that can be controlled by the State and that relate to governance.
4
Introduction to the EEI
INTRODUCTION
THE CIVICUS DEFINITION OF “ENABLING ENVIRONMENT” In the State of Civil Society Report published in April 2013, the environment for civil society was broadly defined as “the conditions within which civil society works.”1 CIVICUS has long used a working definition of civil society as being “the arena, outside of the family, the state, and the market, which is created by individual and collective actions, organisations and institutions to advance shared interests.” It follows from this working definition of civil society that the environment for civil society is made up of the forces that shape and influence the size, extent and functioning of that arena.
The State of Civil Society report highlights that key aspects of the enabling environment should include the following2 A. CSOs’ legitimacy, transparency and accountability: Civil society groups should make efforts to be transparent and accountable to their stakeholders, to derive their legitimacy from endorsement by their stakeholders3; B. Building connections, coalitions and solidarity: There should be multiple connections and collaborations between different civil society groups and individuals, and collaborative platforms and coalitions at different levels; C. The legal and regulatory environment: CSO laws should be clear and well-defined. The registration process should be quick, easy and inexpensive. The state’s laws, regulations and policies on civil society should make it easy for civil society groups to form, operate free from interference, express their views, communicate, convene, cooperate and seek resources; D. Political environment: Governments and politicians should recognise civil society as a legitimate social and political actor and provide systematic opportunities for state and civil society institutions to work together; E. Public attitudes and perception: There should be tolerance of people and groups who have different viewpoints and identities; and it should be easy for all people to participate in civil society; F. Corruption: There should be no tolerance of corruption amongst state officials, political actors, people in business and civil society personnel; G. Communications and technology: There should be reliable, cheap and widespread access to communications platforms and technologies; H. Resources: Civil society groups should be able to access resources from a range of sustainable sources, including domestically, and to define their own activities, rather than have these defined by funding opportunities.
This list indicates that the enabling environment for civil society could be broader than what the current discourse suggests.
2013 State of Civil Society report: Creating an enabling environment for civil society, CIVICUS, 29 April 2013, pg 10. The full text is available at http://socs.civicus.org. Ibid, pg 19. 3 CIVICUS also acknowledges that while civil society organisations are primarily accountable to their stakeholders, they are also accountable to the government, other civil society groups and the public at large. 1
5
2
How thinking about the enabling environment for civil society has evolved Year
INTRODUCTION
Milestone
1980-90s
Aga Khan Foundation and others initiated discussions about the enabling environment for civil society.
February 2003 & March 2005
Key stakeholders agreed to encourage civil society participation in the coordination of aid strategies at the First High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness and the Second High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness held in Rome (2003) and Paris (2005) respectively.
June 2008 September 2008
October 2008 March 2011
June 2011
December 2011
June 2012
September 2012
December 2012
Formation of the Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment, a global CSO platform to improve the impact of CSO development work and advocate for more favourable government policies and practices for CSOs. At the Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Accra, Ghana, CSOs for the first time were recognised as independent development actors in their own right. Countries, territories and international organisations agreed in the Accra Agenda for Action to work with CSOs to provide an enabling environment that maximises their contributions to development. BetterAid, a platform to improve the capacity of civil society to engage in aid effectiveness policy, and Open Forum started to act as the twin civil society fora to engage with the post-Accra international process on aid and development effectiveness. The Multi-stakeholder Task Team on Civil Society Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment published key messages for the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness and outlined the following fundamental rights guaranteed in regional and international instruments for protection: freedom of association, freedom of expression, the right to operate free from unwarranted State interference, the right to communicate and cooperate, the right to seek and secure funding, and the State’s duty to protect. Open Forum adopted the Siem Reap CSO Consensus on the International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness. It defines an “enabling environment” as the political and policy context created by governments, official donors and other development actors that affect the ways CSOs may carry out their work. It defines “enabling standards” as a set of inter-related good practices by donors and governments – in the legal, regulatory, fiscal, informational, political and cultural areas – that support the capacity of CSO development actors to engage in development processes in a sustained and effective manner. At the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, South Korea, it was agreed in the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation that countries, territories and international organisations would implement fully their respective commitments to enable CSOs to exercise their roles as independent development actors, with a particular focus on an enabling environment, consistent with agreed international rights, that maximises the contributions of CSOs to development. The Working Party on Aid Effectiveness agreed on a set of indicators, targets and processes for the monitoring of the Busan commitments. The enabling environment is one of 10 global indicators. This indicator will monitor whether civil society operates within an environment that maximises its engagement in and contribution to development. The European Commission issued its communication on relations with CSOs in 2012, which affirmed the need to promote the CSO enabling environment. In the communication, the CSO enabling environment referred to a functioning democratic legal and judicial system, which gave CSOs the de jure and de facto right to associate and secure funding, coupled with freedom of expression, access to information and participation in public life. CSOs launched the CSO Platform for Development Effectiveness (CPDE). The CPDE is the successor civil society platform to the Open Forum/Better Aid processes.
6
It is within this context that CIVICUS started to develop a new tool for assessing the enabling environment for civil society, called the Enabling Environment Index (EEI) in 2012. CIVICUS worked on building the EEI with the Centre for the Study of Governance Innovation, Department of Political Sciences, University of Pretoria under the leadership and supervision of Professor Lorenzo Fioramonti. This research partnership was formed to ensure that the EEI passed the test of academic rigour and methodological legitimacy. The EEI defines the enabling environment as “a set of conditions that impact on the capacity of citizens (whether individually or in an organised fashion) to participate and engage in the civil society arena in a sustained and voluntary manner.”4 There are at least two notable features of this definition. One is the adoption of the capability approach, which “emphasises the underlying conditions that make individuals ‘capable’ of fulfilling their own goals.”5 This approach considers the quality of the “demand” side of the environment (i.e. the readiness of CSOs and citizens) to be as important as the “supply” side (i.e. governance and policy measures that directly affect civil society). As such, this approach recognises the role of socio-economic and socio-cultural factors as key components of the enabling environment for civil society. The choice of the capability approach to underpin the EEI has been consciously made. This approach points to the importance of “readiness” by CSOs and individual citizens. Recognising that this is formed by socioeconomic and socio-cultural factors, these issues need to be incorporated into the long-term policy debate. Strengthening the communications infrastructure and addressing economic and gender inequality are vital parts of building a healthy civil society. Tolerant, participative societies and cultures of volunteering and giving are key to a vibrant civil society. Without trust in CSOs, the legitimacy, impact and strength of civil society is severely undermined. We hope that future discussions on the enabling environment will embrace an expansive view of the issue and include socio-economic and socio-cultural factors as well. The other notable feature is the conscious inclusion of individual citizens, as well as CSOs (or organised forms of civil society), as the actors in the civil society arena. This is consistent with the general CIVICUS approach, which affirms that all actions from outside the government and business spheres that promote democracy, good governance, human rights, social justice, equality and sustainable development are part of civil society, whether they are generated by organisations, movements, ad-hoc groups or citizens. Many aspects of the EEI (notably its reliance on secondary statistical data) are departures from the CIVICUS tradition of participatory action-research that is generated and owned by civil society actors at the country level. However, we believe that it is nevertheless useful to look at what a tool like this can tell us about the environment in which civil society operates. We consider this a useful complement to the other tools we use to understand civil society, and not a substitute for them. We also wanted to build a tool that would generate debate and dialogue about the enabling environment for civil society. As part of this process, we assembled a multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, whose thoroughness and insight proved indispensable for the refinement of the product. We also published a draft version of the EEI in April 2013, alongside our State of Civil Society Report, and opened up a public consultation in the following months. During this period we coordinated several events that fed into the consultation process, during which we received invaluable feedback from our network of members, partners, friends and critics. The EEI described in this paper has been shaped by all of these exchanges.
7
Methodological note on the CIVICUS Civil Society Enabling Environment Index, CIVICUS, October 2013, pg 3. The full text is available at http://www.civicus.org/eei. Ibid, pg 4
4 5
Feedback from consultations
INTRODUCTION
Date
Location
Organising Partner
Key Points
25 May
Bellagio, Italy
CIVICUS
Real-time, crowd-sourced information in future should accompany index; Development of index must be academic process
3 June
Lagos, Nigeria
Nigeria National Network of NGOs
Importance of gender rights, corruption and education to local context; Need for citizen-generated data, yet understanding of constraints relating to primary data gathering clear
6 June
Kampala, Uganda
Uganda National NGO Forum
Need for ranking; Explanation of index should be less academic; Vital role of national platforms in disseminating index
6 June
Johannesburg, South Africa
University of Pretoria
Need to measure capacity of people for struggle; Some of the data sources are not timely
20 June
Brussels, Belgium
European Commission and Swedish International Development Agency
Need for better measurement of civil society funding and infrastructure; Index not advocacy focused enough
20 June
Quito, Ecuador
Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambiental
Local concern about freedom of expression and division amongst civil society actors
26 June
Nairobi, Kenya
Africa CSO Platform for Principled Partnership
Objectives, purpose and rationale need to be explicit; Importance of socio-economic dimension and socio-cultural dimension cannot be underestimated; Index should measure broader trends not transient events
8
the eei unpacked The EEI is a global composite index developed using secondary data that seeks to understand the propensity of citizens to participate in civil society. Readers who are interested in the methodology can refer to the Methodological Note as well as the Dimensions and Sources Table, both of which can be found and downloaded from the CIVICUS website. The composite index is made up of 53 indicators. The indicators that are part of the EEI have different units and scales. In order to be incorporated into the EEI, they are re-weighted on a scale of 0-1. These 53 indicators are clustered into 17 sub-dimensions, which are then averaged and sorted into 3 dimensions.
9
THE EEI UNPACKED
Enabling Environment Index • 3 dimensions • 17 sub-dimensions • 53 indicators
ENABLING ENVIRONMENT INDEX
Socio-Economic Environment
Socio-Cultural Environment
Governance Environment
Education
Prosperity to Participate
Civil Society Infrastructure
Communications
Tolerance
Policy Dialogue
Equality
Giving and Volunteering
Corruption
Gender Equality
Trust
Political Rights and Freedoms Associational Rights Rule of law Personal Rights NGO Legal Context Media Freedoms
10
Data Sources
THE EEI UNPACKED
The Enabling Environment Index is made up of 71 data sources, which cover the period 2005 to 2012. Over 70% of the sources are from the years 2010 and 2011. Data points from earlier years have been included where the dimensions tend to evolve slowly over time. All of the data points from the period 2005 to 2009 are used in the socio-cultural dimension. However, the socio-cultural dimension does include data sources from 2009, 2010 and 2011 also. All the data in the socio-economic and governance dimensions are from 2010 onwards.
Number of data points in the EE Index by year
40 30 20 10 0 2005
2005-7
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Coverage The EEI covers 109 countries. The number of countries included in the EEI is determined by data availability, and only countries that have scores in at least 14 out of 17 sub-dimensions have been included.
Table: Enabling Environment Index coverage6 Number of UN member states in the EEI
Number of UN member states in the region
Percentage of UN member states in the region covered by the Enabling Environment Index
Africa
29
54
53.7
Asia-Pacific7
18
58
33.3
Europe
41
47
87.2
The Americas
20
35
57.1
Even though Kosovo is not a member state of the United Nations, it is included in the EEI. The limited country coverage inhibits more detailed regional comparison. The decision to compare countries in Asia and Oceania is due to the fact that only two countries in Oceania (Australia and New Zealand) had the requisite number of data sources to be included in the index. All the other countries in Oceania had data for 9 or less sub-dimensions. The two countries from Oceania both rank extremely highly on the Enabling Environment Index and are not representative of a general trend in Oceania or the Asia-Pacific region.
6
11
Region
7
Coverage: continued
THE EEI UNPACKED
As a result of extensive existing research on various components of the enabling environment in the region, the EEI has the highest level of coverage of countries in Europe. A severe deficiency of the EEI is that it only measures 2 out of 38 Small-Island Developing States.8 This is particularly problematic with regard to countries in the Asia-Pacific region and the Americas, more specifically countries in the Pacific and the Caribbean. In the Pacific, there is hardly any information available on economic inequality, education and gender equality and there is absolutely no data available for all the components of the socio-cultural dimension. In both the Caribbean and the Pacific, there is little data on civil society infrastructure, policy dialogue and the NGO legal framework. In the case of the Caribbean, the only two Small-Island Developing States that are included in the index are the Dominican Republic and Trinidad and Tobago. If data were available for the other 14 Small-Island Developing States, then the EEI would cover 97.1% of the countries in the Americas. There is a huge discrepancy between the percentage of countries assessed in Europe and the percentage of countries in other regions that are in the EEI. This suggests that there is a need to focus further data gathering efforts on civic space in these regions. Small-island states not included in the Enabling Environment Index by region Africa - 5 The Americas - 14 Asia Pacific - 17
AVG. EEI 0.2558
0.8688
Figure: World map of the scores of Enabling Environment Index
The number of small-island developing states listed does not include small-island territories or dependencies
8
12
the eei RESULTS
13
Top five countries on the EEI
EEI RESULTS
Owing to its good implementation of human rights protections and low levels of inequality and corruption, New Zealand ranks highest on the EEI with a score of 0.87. New Zealand is the only country that is consistently in the top 5 countries in all three dimensions. It is closely followed by Canada (0.85) in second place. Canada, a country with a good education system, excellent communication infrastructure and robust human rights protections, is in the top 10 countries in the socio-economic, socio-cultural and governance dimensions. Australia (0.84) ranks third, followed by Denmark (0.81). Rounding out the top five is another Nordic country, Norway (0.80). Top 5 countries Ranking
Country
Score
1
New Zealand
0.87
2
Canada
0.85
3
Australia
0.84
4
Denmark
0.81
5
Norway
0.80
Worst five countries on the EEI Due its political instability and poor civil society infrastructure, the Democratic Republic of Congo (0.26) is the lowest ranked country on the EEI. Ruled by an authoritarian regime with a poor human rights record, Uzbekistan (0.29) is considered to have the second worst enabling environment for civil society of countries included in the index. Burundi, which is emerging from a protracted civil war, is still wrangling with establishing the rule of law. According to the index, Burundi (0.31) has the third worst enabling environment and is closely followed by Iran (0.31). A lack of gender equality and the repression of civil liberties are the primary factors which restrict the space for and the potential of Iranian civil society. Governed by a President that openly threatens civil society9, the Gambia (0.32) has the fifth worst enabling environment for civil society ranked on the index Top 5 countries Ranking
Country
Score
105
The Gambia
0.32
106
Burundi
0.31
107
Iran
0.31
108
Uzbekistan
0.29
109
Democratic Republic of Congo
0.26
The Gambiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bloodcurdling threat, The Guardian, 1 October 2009 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/oct/01/gambia-jammeh-human-rights.
9
14
Socio-cultural dimension
EEI RESULTS
The global average for the socio-cultural dimension is 0.52. The Americas ranks highest on the socio-cultural dimension with a regional average of 0.59. Five of the countries that are ranked in the top ten in the socio-cultural dimension are from the Americas (Canada, United States of America, Colombia, Guatemala and Trinidad and Tobago). A high propensity to participate, a high degree of tolerance of different ethnic and religious groups and high public trust in non-profit organisations are key attributes of these national contexts. Only 5 of the 20 countries covered by the EEI in the region were below the average. Due to limited trust in people and infrequent giving and volunteering, Ecuador (0.44) has the lowest socio-cultural score in the Americas.
Average socio-cultural score by region
Indicators of the socio-cultural dimension
Global
Propensity to Participate
Africa
Tolerance
Asia-Pacific
Trust (including trust and public image of NGOs)
Europe
Giving and Volunteering
The Americas 0.00
Top 10 countries in the socio-cultural dimension
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Low score for socio-cultural dimension in Balkans and former Soviet-bloc
10 worst countries in the socio-cultural dimension
1 New Zealand
0.83
1 Jordan
0.40
85 Georgia
0.46
2 Australia
0.80
2 Guinea
0.40
87 Montenegro
0.45
3 Canada
0.78
3 Serbia
0.40
89 Albania
0.44
4 USA
0.78
4 Kazakhstan
0.37
91 Kosovo
0.43
5 Colombia
0.72
5 Gabon
0.33
94 Macedonia
0.41
6 China
0.71
6 Gambia
0.33
95 Tajikistan
0.40
7 Guatemala
0.67
7 Angola
0.33
96 Croatia
0.40
8 Trinidad and Tobago
0.66
8 Uzbekistan
0.30
97 Kyrgyzstan
0.40
9 Burkina Faso
0.64
9 Burundi
0.29
98 Bosnia & Herzegovina
0.40
10 South Korea
0.64
10 Democratic Republic of Congo
0.28
100 Serbia
0.40
103 Kazakhstan
0.37
107 Uzbekistan
0.30
The Asia-Pacific region has the widest range of scores. Four countries in the Asia-Pacific region were in the top 10 countries (New Zealand, Australia, China and South Korea). In fact, New Zealand and Australia are the two highest ranked countries with scores of 0.83 and 0.80 respectively. As is the case of highly ranked countries in the Americas, there are high levels of public participation and public trust in New Zealand and Australia.
15
Socio-cultural dimension: continued
EEI RESULTS
In the Asia-Pacific region, the post-Soviet States are amongst the worst performing countries in the region. This is not particularly surprising given the fact that the socio-cultural dimension measures social cohesion and trust (including trust in non-profits), which is low in post-communist countries and may not have been helped by the post-communist influx of non-indigenous forms of civil society.10 The European country with the highest score in this dimension is Denmark (0.56), which is ranked 27th out of 109 countries. Low levels of giving and volunteering as well as a lack of interest in public participation are the reasons why 63.4% of the countries in Europe are below the global average. In Europe, there is a narrow range of scores in the socio-cultural dimension, with the lowest score being that of Serbia (0.40). The countries in the Balkan Peninsula, which the EEI indicates is categorised by low levels of trust in people in general, do not score highly in the cultural dimension. Burkina Faso, ranked 9th out 109 countries globally, is the nation with the best socio-cultural environment for civil society on the African continent. This is linked to a high degree of tolerance of different ethnic and religious groups in the West African nation. Much like Europe, 63.3% of the countries in Africa ranked by the EEI are below the global average. However, 6 African countries are in the bottom 10 countries in this dimension (Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Gabon, Gambia, Angola and Guinea) due to a very poor public perception of civil society.
AVG. EEI 0.2558
0.8688
Figure: Map of the socio-cultural dimension
10 Bridging the gaps: Citizens, organisations and dissociation, Civil Society Index summary report: 2008-2011, CIVICUS, August 2011. The full text is available at http://civicus.org/downloads/CSIReportSummary.pdf
16
The socio-economic dimension
EEI RESULTS
The global average for the socio-economic dimension is 0.54. It is clear that there is a strong correlation between socio-economic development and the enabling environment for civil society. However, CIVICUS does not believe that a countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s level of socio-economic development is the sole determinant of its enabling environment. With generally high education levels and good communications infrastructure, the continent that scores highest in the socio-economic dimension is Europe, with a regional average of 0.67. Norway (0.83) is the country that scores highest globally in the socio-economic dimension. Six other countries in Europe appear in the top 10 (Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Iceland, Finland and Denmark). Over 90% of the European countries in the index have a higher score than the global average. The only sub-average countries in Europe are Macedonia, Montenegro, Georgia and Kosovo whose low results can be attributed to a failure to tackle gender inequality. The lowest ranking European country is Kosovo (0.51). However, in the global socio-economic ranking Kosovo is only sixty-fifth.
Average socio-economic score by region
Indicators of the socio-economic dimension
0.8
Education Communications (with a focus on internet users and access)
0.6 0.4 0.2
Equality (with a focus on economic inequality)
0
Gender equality
The Americas
Top 10 countries in the socio-economic dimension
Europe
Asia-Pacific
Africa
Global
10 worst socio-economic environments for civil society
1
Norway
0.83
100
Tanzania
0.31
2
Sweden
0.82
101
Mozambique
0.31
3
Netherlands
0.82
102
Benin
0.31
4
Germany
0.79
103
Malawi
0.29
5
New Zealand
0.78
104
Burkina Faso
0.29
6
Iceland
0.78
105
Nigeria
0.29
7
Finland
0.78
106
Liberia
0.28
8
Australia
0.78
107
Mali
0.28
9
Canada
0.77
108
Democratic Republic of Congo
0.24
10
Denmark
0.77
109
Sierra Leone
0.23
The average for the Asia-Pacific region is 0.54. As is the case with the socio-cultural and governance subdimensions, New Zealand scores highest in the region. In Asia, the average is brought up by a few high scoring countries as only 39% of the countries scored higher than the global average. Interestingly, economic giant India (0.32) is the country which is considered to have the worst socio-economic conditions for civil society in the region. Particularly high rates of economic inequality and lack of access to communications infrastructure resulted in India ranking 99th out of 109 countries.
17
The socio-economic dimension: continued In the Americas, the highest ranked country is Canada (0.77). The regional average is 0.51, which is slightly below the global average. In stark contrast to the high scores in the socio-cultural dimension, only 6 of the 20 countries measured in the region are above the global average of 0.54 (Canada, United States of America, Trinidad and Tobago, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay). This is mainly due to the fact that residents of these countries can easily access basic services.The countrywith the lowest score in the region is Guatemala (0.43). Low rates of secondary school completion and internet access negatively impact the potential for vibrant civic action and well connected civil society organisations. Africa does not fare well in the socio-economic dimension of the enabling environment. The average for the region is 0.35, well below the global average of 0.54. The best country in the region is Botswana (0.53), which has a good education system and ranks 53rd out of 109 countries. All the countries in the bottom 10 are in Sub-Saharan Africa. As is the case of the Indian example cited above, it is clear that there needs to be investment in enhancing the communications infrastructure and addressing the pertinent issues of economic and gender inequality in the region.
AVG. EEI 0.2558
0.8688
Figure: Map of the socio-economic dimension
18
Governance Dimension
EEI RESULTS
It is very apparent that governance is the most important component of an enabling environment for civil society. Given its critical role in shaping the enabling environment for civil society, the governance dimension makes up half of the EEI score, while the socio-economic dimension and the socio-cultural dimension amount to one quarter of the score each.11 The global governance average is 0.58. Europe is the region that has the highest score on the governance dimension, with an average of 0.73. Denmark is considered to have the most conducive enabling environment for civil society, with a near perfect score of 0.96. All other Nordic countries score particularly high on the governance dimension with Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden all scoring above 0.91. Only 19% of countries in Europe were ranked below the global average of 0.58. All the European countries below the global average are post-communist States, in which old authoritarian structures and conservative political forces still wield significant influence. Belarus (0.23) and Russia (0.34) are the two worst governance contexts in Europe for civil society. Belarus ranks 106th out of 109 countries globally.
Indicators of the governance dimension
Top 10 governance environments for civil society
Civil society infrastructure • Organisational capacity • Civil society financial viability • Effectiveness of service provision organisations
Policy Dialogue • Civil society advocacy ability • Budget transparency • Networking • Civil society participation in policy
Corruption Political Rights and Freedoms • Political stability • Political participation • Political culture • Political rights • Human rights • Political terror
1
Denmark
0.96
2
Iceland
0.94
3
Switzerland
0.94
4
New Zealand
0.93
5
Canada
0.93
6
Sweden
0.92
7
Finland
0.92
8
Norway
0.91
9
Luxembourg
0.91
10
Austria
0.91
10 worst governance environments for civil society
Associational rights Rule of law • Legal Framework • Electoral pluralism • Confidence in honesty of electoral process • Independence of the judiciary
Personal rights • The rights not to be tortured, summarily executed, disappeared, or imprisoned for political beliefs • Trade union rights • Workers rights
NGO Legal Framework Media freedoms
100
Tajikistan
0.30
101
Gambia
0.30
102
Zimbabwe
0.26
103
Democratic Republic of Congo
0.25
104
Ethiopia
0.25
105
Vietnam
0.25
106
Belarus
0.23
107
China
0.20
108
Uzbekistan
0.19
109
Iran
0.17
• Free speech • Press freedom • Freedom on the Net
19
11 If the governance dimension, the socio-cultural dimension and the socio-economic dimension were simply averaged, the scores of 91 of the 109 countries in the index would only vary by +/-0.05 or less.
Governance Dimension: continued
EEI RESULTS
These four countries are in the bottom ten countries globally because of particularly poor legal frameworks for civil society and severely strained relationships between civil society and the State.
Average governance score by region Global
The Asia-Pacific region has the lowest regional average for governance, which at 0.43 is only slightly lower than the African average. As a result of minimal corruption and strong freedom of association, assembly and expression guarantees, New Zealand (0.93) and Australia (0.90) have the best governance environments. South Korea (0.72) and India (0.54) have the third and fourth best governance environments in the region.
Europe The Americas Asia-Pacific Africa 0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
The regional governance average for Africa is 0.44, which is well below the global average of 0.58. The three best governed countries on the continent are in the Southern Africa region. Botswana, South Africa and Namibia rank 39th, 40th and 41st out of 109 countries respectively. Botswana scores particularly high on guaranteeing freedom of association (0.94) and South Africa has the most conducive environment for policy dialogue between civil society and the State (0.80). It is hoped that these in-country best practices can be further studied and disseminated across the continent. The West African nations of Ghana and Benin round off the top five best governed countries in the region, both countries scoring higher than 0.60. Only 20% of countries in Africa surpass the global average of 0.58. Gambia (0.30), Zimbabwe (0.26), Democratic Republic of Congo (0.25) and Ethiopia (0.25) have the least favourable governance environments for civil society.
This sharp plummet in scores indicates that there is a huge disparity in governance environments in the region. If New Zealand and Australia were not included in the region, the average score for the Asia-Pacific region would be 0.38. Developing economy powerhouses India (0.54), Indonesia (0.52), Turkey (0.47) and Malaysia (0.44), are above the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s governance average, but they are well below the global average of 0.58. The Asia-Pacific region has the most countries in the bottom ten (Tajikistan, Vietnam, Iran, Uzbekistan and China). Poor civil society-State relations, inadequate legal protections of civil and political rights and frequent violations of the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly are the principal reasons that these countries have very low scores in the governance dimension. It is apparent that human rights protections in the region need strengthening.
AVG. EEI 0.2558
0.8688
Figure: World map of the governance environment
20
Imbalanced Scores
EEI RESULTS
One interesting aspect of the EEI scores is the imbalances between different dimensions of the index. For example, the gap between the socio-economic and socio-cultural scores reveals two types of imbalances. On the one hand, some countries, such as Burkina Faso, Mali, Guatemala and Tanzania have relatively high scores on the socio-cultural dimension but low socio-economic scores. This could suggest that, despite low socio-economic outcomes in these counties, the socio-cultural context for civil society is relatively strong. The reverse seems to be true in several European countries (Sweden, Norway, France and Germany) where, despite very good socio-economic conditions, more needs to be done to build trust in non-profits and a culture of giving and volunteering in order to strengthen civic engagement and CSO impact. Socio-economic score
Socio-cultural score
0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Burkina Faso Mali
21
Guatemala Tanzania Sweden
Norway
France
Germany Finland
Countries
Gap between the economic score and the cultural score
Socio-economic score
Socio-cultural score
Burkina Faso
0.36
0.29
0.64
Mali
0.34
0.28
0.62
Guatemala
0.32
0.35
0.67
Sweden
0.31
0.82
0.51
Norway
0.30
0.83
0.53
France
0.30
0.76
0.47
Germany
0.29
0.79
0.49
Tanzania
0.28
0.31
0.59
Finland
0.28
0.78
0.50
Iceland
0.28
0.78
0.50
Iceland
Imbalanced Scores: continued
EEI RESULTS
If we look at the gaps between socio-cultural and governance scores, the biggest imbalances are generally seen in European countries which have extremely high governance scores coupled with comparatively low scores on the socio-cultural dimension. As indicated above, this suggests that this is an area which needs to be addressed in order to enhance the impact of European civil society organisations locally. However, the big outlier in this case is China, which has a very high score on the socio-cultural dimension and the third worst governance environment for civil society. Good governance conditions are critical to the health and state of the environment for civil society. Although China clearly has great potential for civic action and for organised civil society, political and legislative reforms are essential for civil society to flourish.
Socio-cultural score
Governance Environment
1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 China
Iceland
Finland Luxembourg
Sweden
Austria Denmark Switzerland Belgium Norway
Countries
Gap between the economic score and the governance score
Socio-cultural score
Governance score
China
0.51
0.71
0.20
Iceland
0.44
0.50
0.94
Finland
0.42
0.50
0.92
Luxembourg
0.42
0.50
0.91
Sweden
0.41
0.51
0.92
Austria
0.41
0.50
0.91
Denmark
0.40
0.56
0.96
Switzerland
0.40
0.54
0.94
Belgium
0.39
0.49
0.88
Norway
0.38
0.53
0.91
22
Imbalanced Scores: continued
EEI RESULTS
Turning to the gap between socio-economic and governance scores, several Latin American countries have high governance scores, but low scores on the socio-economic dimension. Although Uruguay, Costa Rica and Chile do not have low scores on the socio-economic dimension per se, there is a clear discrepancy between their average socio-economic scores and their high governance scores. The EEI indicates that these countries, as well as Benin, Mali and Sierra Leone, should focus on closing the gender and economic gap in educational achievement and access to communications infrastructure in order to strengthen citizen participation as a whole. Although Belarus, China, Russia and to some extent Uzbekistan have fairly good socio-economic conditions for civil society, they have poor governance contexts, which are marked by acrimonious State-civil society relations. Local and international civil society must continue to pressure these governments to enact reforms to strengthen the governance environment and protect the space for civil society. Socio-economic
Governance Environment
0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Belarus
23
China
Uzbekistan Russia
Uruguay
Mali
Benin
Costa Rica
Sierra Leone
Chile
Countries
Gap between the economic score and the governance score
Socio-economic score
Governance environment score
Belarus
0.37
0.60
0.23
Uruguay
0.33
0.55
0.88
China
0.32
0.52
0.20
Mali
0.31
0.28
0.58
Uzbekistan
0.31
0.49
0.19
Benin
0.29
0.31
0.60
Costa Rica
0.29
0.52
0.81
Sierra Leone
0.28
0.23
0.51
Russia
0.27
0.61
0.34
Chile
0.27
0.56
0.83
Enabling Environment Index ranking Ranking
Country
EEI RESULTS
Score
Ranking
Country
Score
1
New Zealand
0.87
31
Costa Rica
0.66
2
Canada
0.85
32
Latvia
0.65
3
Australia
0.84
33
Lithuania
0.65
4
Denmark
0.81
34
Slovakia
0.65
5
Norway
0.80
35
Trinidad and Tobago
0.64
6
Netherlands
0.79
36
Italy
0.63
7
Switzerland
0.79
37
Argentina
0.61
8
Iceland
0.79
38
Bulgaria
0.61
9
Sweden
0.79
39
Croatia
0.60
10
United States of America
0.79
40
South Africa
0.59
11
Finland
0.78
41
Romania
0.59
12
Ireland
0.76
42
Brazil
0.59
13
Luxembourg
0.76
43
Botswana
0.58
14
Austria
0.76
44
Panama
0.57
15
United Kingdom
0.75
45
Peru
0.57
16
Belgium
0.75
46
Ukraine
0.56
17
Estonia
0.73
47
El Salvador
0.56
18
Uruguay
0.73
48
Ghana
0.56
19
France
0.72
49
Montenegro
0.55
20
Cyprus
0.71
50
Macedonia
0.55
21
Chile
0.71
51
Mexico
0.55
22
Spain
0.70
52
Albania
0.55
23
South Korea
0.70
53
Guatemala
0.54
24
Malta
0.70
54
Serbia
0.54
25
Germany
0.70
55
Namibia
0.53
26
Slovenia
0.69
56
Colombia
0.52
27
Hungary
0.69
57
Bolivia
0.52
28
Czech Republic
0.69
58
Bosnia and Herzegovina
0.52
29
Poland
0.68
59
Indonesia
0.52
30
Portugal
0.68
60
Kosovo
0.52
* All scores have been rounded off.
24
Enabling Environment Index ranking: continued Ranking
ยง
Country
Score
Ranking
Score
61
Moldova
0.52
92
Sierra Leone
0.41
62
Mali
0.51
93
Belarus
0.41
63
Dominican Republic
0.51
94
Egypt
0.40
64
Burkina Faso
0.50
95
Gabon
0.40
65
Thailand
0.50
96
Iraq
0.40
66
Georgia
0.50
97
Madagascar
0.39
67
India
0.50
98
Nigeria
0.38
68
Malaysia
0.50
99
Tajikistan
0.38
69
Benin
0.49
100
Vietnam
0.37
70
Ecuador
0.48
101
Angola
0.37
71
Tanzania
0.47
102
Ethiopia
0.36
72
Turkey
0.47
103
Zimbabwe
0.35
73
Armenia
0.47
104
Guinea
0.35
74
Malawi
0.46
105
The Gambia
0.32
75
Russia
0.45
106
Burundi
0.31
77
Honduras
0.45
107
Iran
0.31
78
Nicaragua
0.44
108
Uzbekistan
0.29
79
Kazakhstan
0.43
109
Democratic Republic of Congo
0.26
80
Kyrgyzstan
0.43
81
Venezuela
0.43
82
Senegal
0.43
83
Azerbaijan
0.43
84
Kenya
0.43
85
Mozambique
0.43
86
Rwanda
0.42
87
Uganda
0.42
88
Liberia
0.41
89
China
0.41
90
Morocco
0.41
91
Jordan
0.41 0.41
* All scores have been rounded off.
25
Country
EEI RESULTS
Countries and territories not in the EEI
ยง
EEI RESULTS
Afghanistan
Djibouti
Algeria
Dominica
American Samoa
Equatorial Guinea
Andorra
Eritrea
Anguilla
Faeroe Islands
Antigua and Barbuda
Fiji
Aruba
French Guiana
Bahamas
Greece
Bahrain
Greenland
Bangladesh
Grenada
Barbados
Guam
Belize
Guinea-Bissau
Bermuda
Guyana
Bhutan
Haiti
British Virgin Islands
Holy See
Brunei
Hong Kong
Burma
Isle of Man
Cambodia
Israel
Cameroon
Jamaica
Cape Verde
Japan
Cayman Islands
Kiribati
Central African Republic
Kuwait
Chad
Laos
Channel Islands
Lebanon
Comoros
Lesotho
Congo, Republic of the
Libya
Cook Islands
Liechtenstein
Cote d'Ivoire
Macau
Cuba
Maldives
Curacao
Marshall Islands
26
Countries and territories not in the EEI: continued Martinique
Seychelles
Mauritania
Singapore
Mauritius
Sint Maarten
Micronesia
Solomon Islands
Monaco
Somalia
Mongolia
South Sudan
Nauru
Sri Lanka
Nepal
St. Martin
Netherland Antilles
Sudan
New Caledonia
Suriname
Niger
Swaziland
Niue
Syria
North Korea
Taiwan
Oman
Timor-Leste
Pakistan
Togo
Palau
Tonga
Palestinian Territories
Tunisia
Papua New Guinea
Turkmenistan
Paraguay
Turks and Caicos Islands
Philippines
Tuvalu
Puerto Rico
United States Virgin Islands
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Reunion
Vanuatu
Saint Kitts and Nevis
West bank
Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia
27
EEI RESULTS
the DISCUSSION The creation of the EEI has been an important step in at least two longer journeys. For those interested in development effectiveness, it is an attempt to map some of the elements of an enabling environment for civil society; and for CIVICUS, it is a further contribution to understanding the state of civil society in countries around the world. We believe the EEI is an important contribution in itself, but it is also important to recognise its limitations and identify opportunities to make further progress. One of the most pertinent questions that emerged in the consultation process was that of the political utility of the EEI, with some of our constituents questioning whether the index would be useful to improve the conditions of the environment in which civil society operates. These days, there is a plethora of indices, which makes it necessary to consider how an index can be communicated widely and be visible in order to possess any political clout. From this point of view, credibility and relevance to policy-makers are among the key factors of success.12 12 Duncan Green, in his blog post, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Why do some (better) alternatives to GDP get picked up, while others sink without trace?â&#x20AC;? (http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=13574) mentions five key success factors of indices, which are 1) relevance to policymakers; 2) salience for a broad audience (simplicity, understandability, good communication); 3) credibility and legitimacy (where neutrality is a key); 4) stakeholder participation and 5) preference of single figure index over complex dashboards.
28
The Discussion With regard to the question of credibility, an index needs to have a solid theoretical foundation in order to withstand the rigorous review of the research community. More than anything, it needs to be seen as a neutral tool (i.e., communicating facts rather than selective observation or mere opinions). CIVICUS has strived to achieve this with the EEI. The EEI comes at a time of heightened attention on the issue of the enabling environment in policy-making circles and its mention in the post-Busan global monitoring framework of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) in particular. We hope that policy-makers will find our contribution useful but we acknowledge that a tool like this will not answer all of the critical questions being asked about the enabling environment for civil society. One of the reasons for the limited utility of the current EEI is the lack of data, particularly regarding the legal environment for civil society. The absence of relevant indicators limits the explanatory power of the EEI. In the EEI, only two sub-dimensions directly measure the legal and regulatory framework for civil society, which are the “civil society infrastructure” sub-dimension and the “NGO legal context” subdimension, both of which have limited country coverage. For CIVICUS, this represents a serious shortcoming but it is at the same time a significant opportunity for the international community. One lesson we have learned in the course of developing the EEI is the need for gathering in-depth primary data at country level. There is a significant shortage of research and reporting on civil society and its environment that, on the one hand, is detailed enough to monitor country-specific events and changes in a systematic manner and that, on the other hand, is comprehensive enough to highlight emerging global trends. Initiatives such as the Civil Society Index13 have been very important in collating comparative information on the state of civil society. However, the data gathered is now out of date, does not have full coverage and is not always comparable across countries. More recently, CIVICUS has been in partnership with the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) to conduct country-level assessments of the enabling environment for civil society in close to 20 countries, and the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) civil society coalition has also been mapping various CSO efforts on data collection on the enabling environment for civil society. Yet, these efforts will also not in themselves deliver the sort of comparative evidence base that policy-makers and indeed civil society itself would like to see. Here, we believe that a concerted effort by CSOs, donors14, partner governments and others is needed to develop a common and comparable knowledge base on civil society. As discussed above, such a knowledge base should be as broad as the EEI in its coverage of factors but, importantly, it should involve the collection of fresh data. There are international political opportunities that can be used to generate such data. For example, within the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) process itself, each country government has been tasked with collecting country-specific data on certain indicators within the scope of the Busan commitments. Although the enabling environment for civil society has not been included for this country-level task, there is room to use this process to bring issues to the political level in order to mobilise necessary resources for further data collection. There is also a growing awareness and effort to build a knowledge base on democratic governance, in line with the motivation to develop new indicators in the post-MDG era. Accordingly, a careful decision must be made whether to single out the enabling environment for civil society as a unit of measurement on the one hand or to create a conscious alignment with other indices on democratic governance.
29
13 The Civil Society Index is a participatory needs assessment and action-planning tool for civil society that has been implemented by CIVICUS over the past ten years in more than 75 countries. Further information about CIVICUS’ Civil Society Index is available at http://civicus.org/what-we-do-126/csi. 14 At the time of writing the European Union and several of its donor governments are developing roadmaps for working with civil society. This represents a significant opportunity for further engagement on the issue of the enabling environment.
The Discussion CIVICUS will be working with partners over the coming years to build such a comparative knowledge base, drawing on a variety of methods that have been used in this area. We would welcome ideas and suggestions on how we might go about assembling this more comprehensive database. Finally, our consultation process has also revealed that the discussion of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;enabling environment for civil societyâ&#x20AC;? is still largely occurring amongst a select few civil society organisations and donors. Hardly any of the civil society practitioners in our consultations in Johannesburg, Kampala, Lagos, Nairobi and Quito had previously heard of the concept of the enabling environment. This suggests a need to promote better connections between the immediate concerns of civil society about the operating conditions or civic space in their own countries, and the international policy discourse on the enabling environment. For CIVICUS, our over-arching aim is to ensure that the real challenges faced by our colleagues in civil society across the world are addressed. The recent interest in the enabling environment provides a useful opportunity to engage international policymakers in the concerns of civil society, and we hope the EEI goes some way in highlighting the countries and areas in which civic space is under threat.
END.
13. 14.
The Civil Society Index is a participatory needs assessment and action-planning tool for civil society that has been implemented by CIVICUS over the past ten years in more than 75 countries. Further information about CIVICUSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Civil Society Index is available at http://civicus.org/what-we-do-126/csi. At the time of writing the European Union and several of its donor governments are developing roadmaps for working with civil society. This represents a significant opportunity for further engagement on the issue of the enabling environment.
30
About Civicus CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation is an international alliance of civil society organisations and activists working to strengthen citizen action and civil society throughout the world, especially in areas where participatory democracy and citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; freedom of association are challenged. CIVICUS has a vision of a global community of active, engaged citizens committed to the creation of a more just and equitable world. This is based on the belief that the health of societies exists in direct proportion to the degree of balance between the state, the private sector and civil society, and that governance is improved when there are multiple means for people to have a say in decision-making. CIVICUS seeks to amplify the voices and opinions of people and their organisations, share knowledge about and promote the value and contribution of citizen participation and civil society, and help give expression to the enormous creative energy of a diverse civil society. CIVICUS, with its numerous partners, works by bringing together and connecting different civil society actors and other stakeholders in civil society; researching into and publishing on the health, state and challenges of civil society; and developing policy positions and advocating for the greater inclusion of and a more enabling environment for civil society. CIVICUS was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Johannesburg, South Africa. We warmly welcome new members and partners. To join us or find out more please visit www.civicus.org
Contact Civicus South Africa 24 Gwigwi Mrwebi Street Newtown 2001 Johannesburg, South Africa Tel: +27 (0) 11 833 5959 Fax: +27 (0) 11 833 7997 Email: info@civicus.org London Unit 60 Eurolink Business Centre 49 Effra Road London SW2 1BZ Tel: +44 (0) 20 7733 9696 Geneva 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Switzerland Tel: +41 (0) 22 733 3435 Web: www.civicus.org Facebook.com/CIVICUS YouTube.com/CIVICUSworldalliance Twitter.com/CIVICUSalliance
제 4회 서울시민사회포럼
[참고자료 3] OWG-SDG 11. Progress report of the Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals
A/67/941
United Nations
General Assembly
Distr.: General 23 July 2013 Original: English
Sixty-seventh session Agenda item 20 (a) Sustainable development: implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
Letter dated 19 July 2013 from the Co-Chairs of the Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals addressed to the President of the General Assembly In our capacity as Co-Chairs of the Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals, and with reference to paragraph 249 of General Assembly resolution 66/288 and paragraph 6 of resolution 67/203, we have the honour to transmit herewith a progress report on the work of the Working Group at its first four sessions. We would be grateful if the report could be issued as a document of the General Assembly. (Signed) Macharia Kamau Csaba KĹ&#x2018;rĂśsi Co-Chairs
13-40526 (E) 070813
*1340526*
A/67/941
Progress report of the Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals
I. Introduction 1. In its resolution 66/288, the General Assembly endorsed the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, entitled “The future we want”, annexed to the resolution. Paragraph 248 of the said outcome document read as follows: “248. We resolve to establish an inclusive and transparent intergovernmental process on sustainable development goals that is open to all stakeholders, with a view to developing global sustainable development goals to be agreed by the General Assembly. An open working group shall be constituted no later than at the opening of the sixty-seventh session of the Assembly and shall comprise 30 representatives, nominated by Member States from the five United Nations regional groups, with the aim of achieving fair, equitable and balanced geographical representation. At the outset, this open working group will decide on its methods of work, including developing modalities to ensure the full involvement of relevant stakeholders and expertise from civil society, the scientific community and the United Nations system in its work, in order to provide a diversity of perspectives and experience. It will submit a report, to the Assembly at its sixty-eighth session, containing a proposal for sustainable development goals for consideration and appropriate action.” 2. By its resolution 67/203, the General Assembly recalled paragraphs 245 to 251 of the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, and reiterated that the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals would submit its report to the General Assembly at its sixtyeighth session and that reports on the progress of work of the Open Working Group would be made regularly to the Assembly, taking into account the convening of the first high-level political forum, without prejudice to the format and organizational aspects of the forum, and the special event in 2013 to follow up efforts made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. 3. By its decision 67/555, the General Assembly welcomed the membership of the Open Working Group as designated by the five United Nations regional groups and as listed in the annex to the decision. 4. The present report on the progress of work of the Open Working Group is made pursuant to those provisions.
II. Organizational matters A.
Organization of work 5. Sessions were held as follows: first session (14-15 March 2013, four formal meetings); second session (17-19 April 2013, six formal meetings); third session (22-24 May 2013, six formal meetings); and fourth session (17-19 June 2013, six formal meetings).
2
13-40526
A/67/941
B.
Opening 6. On 14 March, the President of the sixty-seventh session of the General Assembly opened the first session of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals. Statements were made by him and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
C.
Election of officers 7. At its 1st meeting of the first session, on 14 March, the Open Working Group elected Csaba KĹ&#x2018;rĂśsi (Hungary) and Macharia Kamau (Kenya) as its Co-Chairs by acclamation.
D.
Agenda 8. At the same meeting, the Open Working Group adopted the provisional agenda (A/AC.280/2013/1), which read:
E.
1.
Election of officers.
2.
Adoption of the agenda and other organizational matters.
3.
Follow-up to the outcome of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, relating to a proposal for sustainable development goals.
4.
Other matters.
5.
Adoption of the report.
Methods of work 9.
F.
At the same meeting, the Open Working Group adopted its methods of work. 1
Proceedings of the Open Working Group 10. In its first session, on 14 and 15 March 2013, the Open Working Group heard the introduction by the Secretariat of the initial input of the Secretary-General to the Open Working Group (A/67/634) and conducted a general discussion and an interactive discussion on the sustainable development goals. 11. In its second to fourth sessions, the Open Working Group, through keynote addresses, introductions of issues notes by the United Nations Technical Support Team, panel discussions and interactive exchanges of views, and national statements, considered the following subjects: (a)
Second session (17-19 April 2013):
(i)
Conceptualizing the sustainable development goals;
__________________ 1
13-40526
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1692OWG_methods_work_adopted_ 1403.pdf.
3
A/67/941
(ii)
Poverty eradication.
(b)
Third session (22-24 May 2013):
(i) Food security and nutrition, sustainable agriculture, desertification, land degradation and drought; (ii)
Water and sanitation.
(c)
Fourth session (17-19 June 2013):
(i) Employment and decent work for all, social protection, youth, education and culture; (ii)
Health, population dynamics.
III. Substantive highlights of the work of the Open Working Group to date 12. The Groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work has been organized into two main phases. The first phase focuses on stocktaking, collecting views of experts, Member States and other stakeholders, from its first meeting in March this year through February 2014, when members of the Group are deliberating on the main themes, including those identified in the Framework for Action of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, and how they might be reflected in a set of sustainable development goals. In the second phase, from February through September 2014, the Group will prepare a report to the General Assembly at its sixty-eighth session, mandated by the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development and containing a strategic outlook and a proposal for sustainable development goals. 13. Work on sustainable development goals is an integral part of the ongoing discussions on the post-2015 development agenda. There is wide support for a single post-2015 United Nations development framework containing a single set of goals â&#x20AC;&#x201D; goals that are universally applicable to all countries but adaptable to different national realities and priorities. Morning meetings with major groups and stakeholders 14. Beginning with the third session, the Co-Chairs instituted the practice of daily, hour-long morning meetings with representatives of major groups and other stakeholders, prior to the start of the official business of the Open Working Group. The meetings provided a platform for major groups and stakeholders to express their views and share their experiences. Members of the Group were encouraged to attend the morning meetings. The messages of the major groups were channelled into the discussions of the Member States. 15. The Co-Chairs invited the participants to consider the means of implementation as a cross-cutting issue throughout the deliberations, as those were needed to realize the various proposals being advanced. In turn, Major Group and civil society participants proposed options such as the reallocation of fossil fuel subsidies and military expenditure, tackling tax evasion and tax havens, and creation of international transaction and green taxes.
4
13-40526
A/67/941
Conceptualizing the sustainable development goals 16. It is widely agreed that the Groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal on sustainable development goals should be accompanied by a vision and narrative that frames and motivates the selection of the proposed goals. A narrative is emerging which centres on the transformative change needed to realize our shared vision of poverty eradication and universal human development in the context of sustainable development, respecting human dignity, protecting our planet, and living in harmony with nature for the well-being and happiness of present and future generations. 17. Many reiterated the principles that should inform the proposal on sustainable development goals, notably all the Rio Principles, in accordance with paragraph 246 of â&#x20AC;&#x153;The future we wantâ&#x20AC;? (resolution 66/288, annex). 18. It is recognized that the sustainable development goals should reinforce and build upon existing international commitments in the economic, social and environmental fields. 19. Poverty eradication remains the overarching objective of the international community and needs to be central to a proposal on sustainable development goals and the post-2015 United Nations development agenda. 20. There is widespread recognition that poverty eradication can only be made irreversible if the sustainable development goals advance sustainable development in a holistic manner, that is, if they address and incorporate in a balanced manner all three dimensions of sustainable development and their interlinkages. 21. That is because dynamic and resilient economies and a healthy and resilient environment underpin poverty eradication as well as sustained and sustainable social and economic progress. 22. Thus, the advancement and completion of the most off-track Millennium Development Goals is the starting point, the sine qua non, of the sustainable development goals. But the latter will need to be more comprehensive, balanced, ambitious and transformative, also addressing the challenges ahead. 23. The need for a few aspirational goals that are easy to communicate was emphasized. Therefore global priorities will need to emerge from a common agreement on where national commitments and international cooperation are most critical to bring about greater positive impact and secure our common future. 24. There was general recognition that, while the balance of the three dimensions could be achieved in many ways, the goals and associated targets and indicators should, in the aggregate, represent a pathway to sustainable development and the future we want. The targets need to be differentiated for countries, taking into account the different levels of development. 25. Many felt that the sustainable development goals and associated targets should focus not merely on desirable outcomes but also on key drivers of sustainable development. There were frequent references to the cross-cutting nature of many of the issues under discussion, and the importance of achieving synergies wherever possible by systematically addressing their interlinkages. 26. There are several enablers and drivers, strategies and approaches for sustainable development that may be difficult to enumerate as goals, among others human rights, rights-based approaches, governance, rule of law and wider
13-40526
5
A/67/941
participation in decision-making. The interdependence and interrelated nature of the goals should be captured in the narrative. 27. The sustainable development challenges the international community faces are not amenable to solution unless all countries, developed and developing alike, cooperate and commit to action. 28. The prospects for permanent eradication of poverty and sustainable human development depend critically on the state of our planet. It is imperative, therefore, that sustainable consumption and production patterns take hold in all countries, with the developed countries taking the lead. 29. A substantially strengthened global partnership will be critical to advancing sustainable development. Some of the direst problems we face do not lend themselves to solely national or local solutions. 30. Progress on sustainable development goals will require resources and concerted actions, and for this reason many stressed that a proposal on sustainable development goals would need to include provision for means of implementation such as financing, technology and capacity-building. 31. Governments, acting in concert, will need to lead, but a truly effective global partnership will have to enlist as active partners all of society, including the business sector, which is the main driver of global economic growth and job creation, and also a major source of the technologies needed to address global problems. 32. On partnerships, it was noted that targeted multi-stakeholder partnerships have met with some success in mobilizing international efforts and resources behind specific Millennium Development Goals, and that similar goal-oriented partnerships could be effective in progressing towards the sustainable development goals. 33. To ensure that progress is measurable and measured, it will be important to have quantified targets and to ensure that countries have the necessary data collection and statistical capacities to support robust indicators of progress. Poverty eradication 34.
Eradicating extreme poverty in a generation is an ambitious but feasible goal.
35. The progress in reducing poverty over the past generation has been impressive in some regions. However, more rapid and sustained progress is needed, particularly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. 36. Income poverty remains the principal target, but poverty is multidimensional and other dimensions need to be addressed in the sustainable development goals, as they were to a degree in the Millennium Development Goals. That includes universal access to adequate and nutritious food as well as to basic services like water and sanitation, primary health care and education, and modern energy services. 37. Setting universal coverage targets with respect to those essentials of human well-being would ipso facto address inequalities, as meeting the targets would require that even the poorest and most vulnerable be covered. 38. Still, to measure progress, it would be important to collect disaggregated data, to ensure that no income group or other social group is left behind.
6
13-40526
A/67/941
39. In that way, poverty eradication would be addressed not only as a stand-alone goal but also as a cross-cutting objective in other goals. 40. The poor suffer not only from lack of access to basic services but also very often from the poor quality of the services provided. That applies with particular force to education and health care. Thus, both access and quality of services available to the poor need to be addressed going forward. 41. With respect to provision of universal access, many stressed the importance of strengthening institutional capacities at all levels to deliver better targeted and higher quality services. That was frequently formulated in terms of the need to address weaknesses in governance. Food security and nutrition, sustainable agriculture, desertification, land degradation and drought 42. The fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger was stressed. In this regard, it is critically important to secure access for all to safe, sufficient and nutritious food. Affordability of food is a crucial concern for the poor. 43. An end to hunger and malnutrition is achievable in a generation or less, and it was broadly agreed we should work towards that goal. 44. Adequate nutrition during the critical 1,000 days from the beginning of pregnancy through a childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s second birthday merits a particular focus. 45. Beyond adequate calorie intake, proper nutrition has other dimensions that deserve attention, including micronutrient availability and healthy diets. Unhealthy diets and lifestyles are closely linked to the growing incidence of non-communicable diseases in both developed and developing countries. 46. Globally, poverty remains most widespread in rural areas, and many smallscale farmers as well as landless agricultural labourers and their households are numbered among the poor and the hungry. 47. Thus, a lasting solution to the scourges of poverty and hunger must include raising smallholder productivity and rural incomes on a sustainable basis. 48. That will require greater investments in agricultural research and rural infrastructure, as well as measures to provide more secure access to land, credit, crop insurance and other productive inputs to smallholder farmers, especially women farmers. 49. Access of small farmers to national, regional and international markets is also critical, including through removal of trade barriers and market-distorting subsidies. 50. Healthy, productive and sustainable fisheries are critical for food security as well as livelihoods in many countries; likewise, sustainable livestock-raising to augment farm incomes and productivity. 51. Agricultural value chains need strengthening in many developing countries, including post-harvest processing, storage and transport to markets. Losses at these stages significantly reduce food availability and raise costs. 52. Food wastage at the retail and consumer end of the value chain is also a major problem that hampers the capacity of the food system to meet demands from growing populations and changing diets.
13-40526
7
A/67/941
53. Sustainable agricultural practices will need to play an increasingly important role in meeting growing food demand going forward. Sustainable farming systems must make more efficient use of all scarce resources and inflict far less damage on the environment than currently pervasive input-intensive systems. 54. There are many elements of traditional farmer knowledge that, enriched by the latest scientific knowledge, can support productive food systems through sound and sustainable soil, land, water, nutrient and pest management, and the more extensive use of organic fertilizers. 55. Halting and reversing land degradation will be critical to meeting future food needs. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development called for achieving a land-degradation-neutral world in the context of sustainable development. 56. Some question whether the objective is sufficiently ambitious, given the current extent of land degradation globally and the potential benefits from land restoration not only for food security but also for mitigating climate change. There is also a recognition that scientific understanding of the drivers of desertification, land degradation and drought is still evolving. Water and sanitation 57. Water is at the core of sustainable development. Water and sanitation are central to the achievement of many development goals, including agriculture, health and education. 58. While the world has met the target of halving the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water five years ahead of schedule, the task of providing universal, reliable access remains far from complete. 59. Moreover, extending improved sanitation facilities in rural areas and poor urban communities remains a major challenge, with insufficient progress realized to date towards the Millennium Development Goal 7 target. 60. There is also a strong case for continuing to link sanitation with safe drinking water, as the two are intimately linked health determinants. 61. Scientific evidence shows the global character of hydrological processes and the strong interdependencies among different water functions and uses. Hence the value of an integrated approach to water resources management spanning multiple levels. The importance of transboundary cooperation in water management was underscored. 62. Water scarcity and water variability are becoming more serious concerns with climate change, and therefore sustainable water management needs to feature prominently in the post-2015 development agenda. 63. Beyond ensuring essential requirements for healthy living, water use needs to become far more efficient almost everywhere, especially in agriculture and industry. 64. Technologies, infrastructure improvements and incentives are needed for reducing water losses, wastage and pollution in order to free up supplies for productive uses. 65. As technologies are needed to use water efficiently, reduce water pollution and treat polluted waters, any targets in this regard should be considered in relation to technology availability and costs.
8
13-40526
A/67/941
66. Sustainable management of ecosystems for enhanced water regulation, water quality and water availability needs to be reinforced. Experience shows that investing in protection of critical watersheds, for example, can have high returns, but the services provided by such ecosystems are consistently underappreciated and undervalued. 67. There was broad support for a dedicated water sustainable development goal, as the complex interrelations among various water-related concerns call for an integrated approach that would be better catalysed by a single water sustainable development goal. 68. Targets could cover various aspects, including possibly: equitable, universal and sustained access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene; sustainable development, management and use of surface and groundwater resources respecting ecosystem requirements; reduction of water pollution and collection and treatment of used water and wastewater; reduction of exposure and impacts from floods, droughts and other water-related disasters; and enhanced water cooperation and improved water governance. Employment and decent work for all, social protection, youth, education and culture 69. Creation of enough productive jobs to employ all those seeking work at decent pay: this is a major challenge facing all countries, developed and developing alike. 70. In low-income countries, while unemployment as such is also a pressing issue, of more immediate concern is the dominance of low-productivity employment, mostly in the informal sector, which provides insufficient household income to escape poverty. 71. Building dynamic, resilient, sustainable and diversified economies is critical to addressing the employment challenge in developing countries. Africa, for example, has the possibility, given its large “youth bulge”, of reaping a sizeable demographic dividend, but only if economies are able to generate enough decent jobs through structural transformation, including industrialization. 72. As private companies create the lion’s share of decent jobs, a policy environment conducive to private investment and entrepreneurship is critical. 73. Tackling youth unemployment is a global priority. Stronger systems to facilitate the school-to-work transition are vital, including for skills development linked to labour market needs. 74. A variety of proposals have been made on employment and decent work, including as a stand-alone goal and as a target(s) associated with a higher-order goal like “eradicate poverty” or “create jobs, sustainable livelihoods and equitable growth” (goal 8 of the annex to the report of the High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda (A/67/890)). 75. Social protection programmes are important anti-poverty measures that also help to build social cohesion. Protecting children from extreme deprivation is a valuable long-term investment in individual and societal well-being.
13-40526
9
A/67/941
76. Access to basic health services, income support, school and other supplemental nutrition — these are all elements of a social protection floor. Thus, some elements of a social protection floor may be addressed through food security and health goals. 77. Unemployment insurance and old-age pensions are also important elements of social protection, common in developed countries but spreading more widely. 78. Evidence suggests that a basic, country-specific social protection floor is affordable and feasible even in low-income countries. 79. Education is absolutely central to any sustainable development agenda. It is not only an essential investment but an important basis for human enrichment through lifelong learning. 80. The post-2015 development agenda must achieve the Millennium Development Goal of primary education for all. However, it should also aim to address quality as reflected in learning outcomes, which will need to be more widely and effectively measured. 81. Gender equality in education is an important objective in its own right, with multiple social, economic and environmental benefits. 82. Moreover, to ensure productive employment in increasingly knowledge-based economies, greater emphasis is needed on secondary school and even tertiary attainment, and some countries may choose to set relevant targets. 83. Even if the emphasis is put on educating young people, continued attention is needed in many countries to raising adult literacy and, in all countries, to lifelong learning to facilitate adjustment to changing labour market conditions. 84. Culture and cultural diversity are widely understood to be important to societies’ creativity, cohesion and resilience, but it is not clear that culture per se is “goalable”. Health, population dynamics 85. Health is a right and a goal in its own right, as well as a means of measuring success across the whole sustainable development agenda. 86. There was a fairly broadly shared sentiment that, while the health priorities captured in the health-related Millennium Development Goals continue to require focus, that could be achieved by integrating them as targets along with other health targets under a single, overarching health goal. 87. One proposed variant of a health goal is: maximize health at all stages of life, and another is: maximize healthy life expectancy. Any such goal would also need to address the quality of life of those with disabilities. 88. Another proposed health goal focuses on access to services more than outcomes: universal health coverage, which encompasses equitable access to quality basic health services; health promotion, prevention and treatment, and financial risk protection from illness and disability. 89. Achieving an outcome like “maximizing healthy lives” would require not only universal health coverage but that a range of social and environmental determinants of health are addressed — from poverty and malnutrition to pollution.
10
13-40526
A/67/941
90. The diseases that primarily afflict the poor must remain a central focus of post-2015 global health efforts, and that needs to be reflected in the health targets. 91. Sustained progress is needed on vaccination against common childhood diseases as well as on prevention and treatment of communicable diseases like gastrointestinal disorders, malaria, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. There was a call for realizing the vision of a generation free from HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. 92. At the same time, reducing the burden of non-communicable diseases has become a high priority in many countries, highlighting the need, inter alia, to promote healthy diets and lifestyles. 93. Health is an area where the costs of realizing the same outcome, say in terms of life expectancy or disability-adjusted life years, can vary enormously. Therefore, Governments will need to look at cost-effective approaches, especially where an ageing population is expected to strain health-care systems. 94. The importance was highlighted of respecting and promoting sexual and reproductive health, and protecting and fulfilling reproductive rights in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences. Also stressed was the need to end violence against women and girls, including sexual violence and abuse. 95. Any set of sustainable development goals and related targets must be cognizant of population dynamics, as those will condition their feasibility. Eradicating poverty, for example, becomes all the more challenging in the context of high fertility rates and rapid population growth. Providing adequate health care for all becomes more challenging in the face of rapid population ageing. 96. Population dynamics also have important implications for economy and the environment. The rate of increase of the labour force relative to the young and old has implications for potential gross domestic product (GDP) growth. Population increase and rapid growth of urban middle classes both have implications for resource use, consumption and production patterns, and environmental pressures. 97. Migration is an aspect of population dynamics that brings important social and economic benefits — through new skills and expanded labour supply in destination countries, remittance flows to sending ones, and return of migrants with increased investment potential to their countries of origin — as well as challenges, including the loss of skilled labour by sending countries and social and cultural integration of migrants in destination countries. Respect for migrants’ human rights is a basic touchstone.
IV. Side events at the third and fourth sessions of the Open Working Group Open Working Group (third session) 98. A total of four side events were organized during the third session of the Open Working Group. The German Ministry for the Environment organized a side event entitled “Environment as part of an overarching agenda: the case of water resources, food security and land degradation”, which examined the environmental dimension
13-40526
11
A/67/941
of sustainable development while focusing on the interlinkages among thematic areas. The United Nations Development Programme and the Millennium Campaign held a side event on “My world: a snapshot of citizens’ priorities for the new development agenda: a focus on access to clean water and sanitation and affordable and nutritious food”. The Permanent Mission of Brazil and the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity organized a side event on “Water and biodiversity” on the occasion of the International Day for Biological Diversity. The World Food Programme (WFP) held a side event entitled “Nutrition in the post-2015 context”, featuring a presentation jointly prepared by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WFP. Open Working Group (fourth session) 99. A total of 14 side events were organized during the fourth session of the Open Working Group. Those included presentations of the report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, as well as the report of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The former featured Amina Mohammed, Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on Post-2015 Development Planning, and Homi Kharas, Lead Author and Executive Secretary of the Panel secretariat. Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and Guido Schmidt-Traub, Executive Director, presented the Network’s report, entitled An Action Agenda for Sustainable Development. 100. Three side events addressed issues related to youth, one organized by the Commonwealth Secretariat’s Youth Programme and the United Nations Major Group of Children and Youth, entitled “Indicators and benchmarks for children and youth within a potential SDG framework”, and another on “Youth and adolescents in the post-2015 agenda: priorities, challenges and opportunities”, organized by the United Nations Population Fund. In addition, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland held a side event on “Youth unemployment: going beyond just those not in employment, education and training towards quality jobs”. 101. Addressing the conceptual framing of the sustainable development goals, the Governments of Colombia and Guatemala held a side event to discuss “The Dashboard Proposal — how to arrive at a post-2015 agenda that is universal and responsive to national circumstances”. For its part, the European Union held a side event entitled “Post-2015: global action for an inclusive and sustainable future”. The International Labour Organization held a side event on “Connecting environment, economy and society through decent work”, showcasing concrete experiences and recommendations for decent work policies. On water, the Steering Committee of the Friends of Water (Finland, Hungary, Tajikistan and Thailand, together with Switzerland) organized “The road to a global goal on water”, which included a presentation of the Swiss proposal on “a water-secure world” as a stand-alone goal. 102. The World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Foundation and Sustainable Energy for All organized a side event on “The health nexus — sustainable cities, transport and energy delivering healthy people”. The Permanent Missions of Mexico, Norway and Uruguay, together with Plan International, Save the Children, World Vision and the Management Sciences for Health and Beyond 2015, held a side event on “Ending extreme poverty: getting ambitious on health and education
12
13-40526
A/67/941
for children”, highlighting ways to make progress towards universal health coverage. Also on health, the Permanent Missions of Sweden and Botswana, WHO and UNICEF, with the support of other partners, organized a side event on “Health in the sustainable development agenda: reflections on the Open Working Group, the Global Thematic Consultation on Health and the High-level Panel Report”. 103. The Government of Bangladesh and the International Organization for Migration organized an event on “Migration in the post-2015 development agenda”, during which diverse stakeholders shared their views and discussed the significance and impact of migration in the context of the post-2015 development framework. Addressing transdisciplinary research and resilient governance, the Governments of Japan and Australia organized a side event entitled “SDGs as a driver for transdisciplinary research and education — a view from the Nature article authors”.
V. The way forward 104. At the midpoint of its stocktaking exercise, the Open Working Group has already explored a great deal of relevant information. Valuable inputs to the Group’s deliberations have been made, inter alia, by the reports of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda and the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. 105. A range of crucial topics will be considered in the forthcoming sessions, including sustained and inclusive economic growth, means of implementation, sustainable consumption and production, climate change and disaster risk reduction, and oceans. The continuation of the encouraging experience to date of open and interactive exchange of ideas and concrete proposals would further enhance the Group’s deliberations. In the same vein, the Group could continue to take up the challenge of considering, hand in hand with proposals on goals or targets, the need to prioritize and consider associated means and resources. As the discussions advance, there is also a need to keep in mind the broader framing or narrative, in addition to the consideration of goals and targets. 106. Going forward, the Open Working Group can build on the convergence of ideas around the need to balance the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. This endeavour is guided by the unquestioned imperative of poverty eradication, while also integrating more comprehensively economic growth and environmental sustainability in order to make poverty eradication and human development irreversible.
13-40526
13
제 4회 서울시민사회포럼
[참고자료 4] UN High-level Political Forum (HLPF) on Sustainable Development 12. HLPF on Sustainable Development - Introduction 13. HLPF on SD Press Release (24 Sept 2013) 14. HLPF on DS Press Release (26 Sept 2013)
Intergovernmental High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. Introduction One critical outcome of the Rio+20 Conference was the decision to establish a universal intergovernmental high-level political forum on sustainable development. As a result of a process of informal consultations co-facilitated by the Permanent Representatives of Brazil and Italy the General Assembly adopted resolution 67/290 which which defined the "Format and organizational aspects of the high-level political forum on sustainable development." The high-level political forum, consistent with its intergovernmental universal character, will: • • • •
provide political leadership, guidance and recommendations for sustainable development, follow-up and review progress in the implementation of sustainable development commitments, enhance the integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development, and have a focused, dynamic and action-oriented agenda, ensuring the appropriate consideration of new and emerging sustainable development challenges.
The meetings of the forum will be convened: • •
every four years under the auspices of the General Assembly at the level of Heads of State and Government -- for two days at the beginning of the General Assembly session every year under the auspices of ECOSOC -- for eight days, including a three-day ministerial segment to be held in the framework of the substantive session of the Council, building on and subsequently replacing the annual ministerial review as from 2016
Both meetings will adopt a negotiated declaration. The forum, under the auspices of ECOSOC, will conduct regular reviews, starting in 2016, on the follow-up and implementation of sustainable development commitments and objectives, including those related to the means of implementation, within the context of the post-2015 development agenda. The first meeting of the forum under the auspices of the General Assembly will be convened by the President of the General Assembly at the beginning of the 68th session for one day. It will have an inaugural character. The outcome of the meeting will consist of a President's Summary.
PRESS RELEASE
High‐level Political Forum Brings Poverty and Sustainability Issues Together at Inaugural Session New York, 26 September—The initial session of the United Nations High‐level Political Forum on Sustainable Development “augurs well for the future,” according to General Assembly President John Ashe, in his summation of the proceedings at the close of the meeting, held on 24 September. "Today, we confirmed that we are ready to implement the vision of Rio+20, putting poverty eradication and sustainable development at the core of the post‐2015 development agenda,” the President said. “We committed to a Forum that ensures sustainability is factored into global and national decision‐making and development activities. Leaders from around the world agreed to put serious energy and resources toward making our vision for this Forum a reality." Presidents and prime ministers, along with other high‐ranking officials, participated in the Forum’s first session, representing a follow‐up of the commitment made at Rio+20 to continue to press for action on sustainable development at the highest levels. At Rio+20 – the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, held in Brazil in June 2012 ‐‐ in its outcome document “The Future We Want,” Member States called for the creation of the High‐level Political Forum to ensure that sustainable development tops the agenda of the highest levels of government and is embraced by all actors. “I am pleased to see such high‐level representation here today,” UN Secretary‐General Ban Ki‐moon said. “Your forum is a key platform for examining today's challenges in a holistic and integrated manner.” “This is a new forum, but we are not starting anew,” he added. “We have more than 20 years of work on sustainable development behind us. The Forum can build on what has been learned through its parent bodies, in particular the Commission on Sustainable Development. At the same time, it will take us in new directions, guide the UN system and hold it accountable. By establishing the forum, Rio+20 imagined new ways of pursuing our common agenda. We must be bold as we lay the ground for the Forum’s next sessions. Let us make the best use of its collected expertise, wisdom and influence. Let us make a real difference in the well‐being of current and future generations.” “We’re off to a good start,” said UN Under‐Secretary‐General Wu Hongbo. He said that the forum must be at the forefront of analysis and policy thinking on sustainable development. “Rio+20 wisely calls on the HLPF to strengthen the science‐policy interface; a global sustainable development report will help serve this important purpose."
Brazilian President Dilma Roussef, who presided over the Forum as the President of Rio+20, said that States had taken a decisive step towards consolidating the Rio sustainable development agenda, having agreed that eradicating poverty was the biggest global challenge. “The task now is to realize their commitments. The Forum should provide a platform for leadership, recommendations and monitoring to ensure the integration of sustainable development’s economic, social and environmental pillars.” She added, “We must live up to the expectations of our peoples.” “Rio+20 created momentum,” World Bank President Jim Yong Kim told the Forum. “We have the opportunity to take it to the next level.” But he warned that environmental degradation could reverse the gains made over the last 20 years that have lifted 660 million people out of poverty. He said that environmental degradation was already costing some countries eight per cent of their gross domestic product, and that “green, inclusive growth was both necessary and affordable.” “We are here today for one reason and one reason only—” said Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, “—to agree on the actions we must take as a global community to support global sustainable development. “We need 21st century policies for a 21st century global economy, which means thinking more creatively, more cohesively, and more collaboratively than in the past. Why? Because our planet faces a triple challenge: from economic instability, from environmental damage, and from insufficient equity. We cannot view these in isolation. Each feeds on and magnifies the other.” In his concluding remarks, General Assembly President Ashe said that the task ahead is "daunting and governments cannot do it alone," suggesting that development actors must join forces to find new ways to partner and combine resources and creative energies for the common good. "Genuine partnerships and mutual accountability are necessary as we move toward a post‐2015 development agenda,” he added. “The Forum can act as a catalyst for effective partnerships and a place for international action for development cooperation." Ashe called the decision of Rio+20 to establish a high‐level political forum "a powerful step in mainstreaming sustainable development in the post‐2015 agenda." He said the forum will be "a home for the international community to address and coordinate the entirety of sustainable development issues. As guardian of sustainability, it can provide a platform for leaders to reflect on today’s priorities, not in isolation but holistically." The report of the Forum’s first session will be followed up next year during the ECOSOC ministerial session. The Forum will next meet under the auspices of the General Assembly in four years. More information on the Forum can be found at http://bit.ly/126ZanH MEDIA CONTACT Dan Shepard, UN Department of Public Information, 1‐212‐963‐9495, shepard@un.org Issued by the UN Department of Public Information
PRESS RELEASE
High‐level Political Forum Brings Poverty and Sustainability Issues Together at Inaugural Session New York, 26 September—The initial session of the United Nations High‐level Political Forum on Sustainable Development “augurs well for the future,” according to General Assembly President John Ashe, in his summation of the proceedings at the close of the meeting, held on 24 September. "Today, we confirmed that we are ready to implement the vision of Rio+20, putting poverty eradication and sustainable development at the core of the post‐2015 development agenda,” the President said. “We committed to a Forum that ensures sustainability is factored into global and national decision‐making and development activities. Leaders from around the world agreed to put serious energy and resources toward making our vision for this Forum a reality." Presidents and prime ministers, along with other high‐ranking officials, participated in the Forum’s first session, representing a follow‐up of the commitment made at Rio+20 to continue to press for action on sustainable development at the highest levels. At Rio+20 – the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, held in Brazil in June 2012 ‐‐ in its outcome document “The Future We Want,” Member States called for the creation of the High‐level Political Forum to ensure that sustainable development tops the agenda of the highest levels of government and is embraced by all actors. “I am pleased to see such high‐level representation here today,” UN Secretary‐General Ban Ki‐moon said. “Your forum is a key platform for examining today's challenges in a holistic and integrated manner.” “This is a new forum, but we are not starting anew,” he added. “We have more than 20 years of work on sustainable development behind us. The Forum can build on what has been learned through its parent bodies, in particular the Commission on Sustainable Development. At the same time, it will take us in new directions, guide the UN system and hold it accountable. By establishing the forum, Rio+20 imagined new ways of pursuing our common agenda. We must be bold as we lay the ground for the Forum’s next sessions. Let us make the best use of its collected expertise, wisdom and influence. Let us make a real difference in the well‐being of current and future generations.” “We’re off to a good start,” said UN Under‐Secretary‐General Wu Hongbo. He said that the forum must be at the forefront of analysis and policy thinking on sustainable development. “Rio+20 wisely calls on the HLPF to strengthen the science‐policy interface; a global sustainable development report will help serve this important purpose."
Brazilian President Dilma Roussef, who presided over the Forum as the President of Rio+20, said that States had taken a decisive step towards consolidating the Rio sustainable development agenda, having agreed that eradicating poverty was the biggest global challenge. “The task now is to realize their commitments. The Forum should provide a platform for leadership, recommendations and monitoring to ensure the integration of sustainable development’s economic, social and environmental pillars.” She added, “We must live up to the expectations of our peoples.” “Rio+20 created momentum,” World Bank President Jim Yong Kim told the Forum. “We have the opportunity to take it to the next level.” But he warned that environmental degradation could reverse the gains made over the last 20 years that have lifted 660 million people out of poverty. He said that environmental degradation was already costing some countries eight per cent of their gross domestic product, and that “green, inclusive growth was both necessary and affordable.” “We are here today for one reason and one reason only—” said Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, “—to agree on the actions we must take as a global community to support global sustainable development. “We need 21st century policies for a 21st century global economy, which means thinking more creatively, more cohesively, and more collaboratively than in the past. Why? Because our planet faces a triple challenge: from economic instability, from environmental damage, and from insufficient equity. We cannot view these in isolation. Each feeds on and magnifies the other.” In his concluding remarks, General Assembly President Ashe said that the task ahead is "daunting and governments cannot do it alone," suggesting that development actors must join forces to find new ways to partner and combine resources and creative energies for the common good. "Genuine partnerships and mutual accountability are necessary as we move toward a post‐2015 development agenda,” he added. “The Forum can act as a catalyst for effective partnerships and a place for international action for development cooperation." Ashe called the decision of Rio+20 to establish a high‐level political forum "a powerful step in mainstreaming sustainable development in the post‐2015 agenda." He said the forum will be "a home for the international community to address and coordinate the entirety of sustainable development issues. As guardian of sustainability, it can provide a platform for leaders to reflect on today’s priorities, not in isolation but holistically." The report of the Forum’s first session will be followed up next year during the ECOSOC ministerial session. The Forum will next meet under the auspices of the General Assembly in four years. More information on the Forum can be found at http://bit.ly/126ZanH MEDIA CONTACT Dan Shepard, UN Department of Public Information, 1‐212‐963‐9495, shepard@un.org Issued by the UN Department of Public Information
제 4회 서울시민사회포럼
[참고자료 5] UN Inter-governmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing (IGCE-SDF) 15. IGCE on SDF (28-30 Aug. 2013) Co-Chair Summary
Co-Chairs’ Summary of the First Session of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing New York, 28-30 August 2013
The Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing was established by the General Assembly on 21 June 2013 in follow-up to the outcome of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) with a mandate to prepare “a report proposing options on an effective sustainable development financing strategy to facilitate the mobilization of resources and their effective use in achieving sustainable development objectives.” A common view is that the wide range of expertise among its members is a strength of the Committee, which should greatly benefit the final report. The Committee held its first session from 28 to 30 August 2013. During its highly interactive meetings, the Committee took a range of important decisions, as follows: 1. Agenda: The Committee adopted the provisional agenda for the whole duration of its work, as contained in document A/AC.282/2013/1. The following items are included as part of its agenda: - Election of presiding officers (completed during the first session); - Adoption of the agenda and other organisational matters (completed during the first session); - Preparation of the report proposing options on an effective sustainable development strategy to facilitate the mobilisation of resources and their effective use in achieving sustainable development objectives; - Other matters; - Adoption of the report. The Committee took note of the proposed programme of work for its subsequent sessions, as contained in the annex to document A/AC.282/2013/1, on the understanding that the programme could be revised for each session of the Committee, taking into account the progress made in the Committee’s work. 2. Modalities of work: The Committee approved its modalities of work, as distributed during the session. 3. Calendar of meetings: The dates of the future sessions of the Committee were set as follows, reflecting co-chairs’ decision for the December session: Second Session: 2-6 December 2013 Third Session: 3-7 March 2014 Fourth Session: 12-16 May 2014 Fifth Session: 4-8 August 2014 4. Clusters: The Committee agreed to organise its work in three thematic clusters, facilitated by Committee members, tentatively titled as follows (subject to amendments): - Cluster 1: Assessing financing needs, mapping of current flows and emerging trends, and the impact of domestic and international environments. Facilitators: Mr. Reginald Darius (Saint Lucia), Ms. Liz Ditchburn (UK); - Cluster 2: Mobilisation of resources and their effective use. Facilitators: Mr. Nathan Dal Bon (Australia), Mr. Francisco Gaetani (Brazil), Mr. Zou Ji (China), Mr. Norbert Kloppenburg (Germany), Mr. Joseph Enyimu (Uganda); 1
-
Cluster 3: Institutional arrangements, policy coherence, synergies and governance issues. Facilitators: Mr. AndrĂŠ Lohayo Djamba (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Mr. Tonis Saar (Estonia), Mr. Amjad Mahmood (Pakistan).
It was further agreed that intersessional work on cluster 1 would start immediately, as well as consultations on cluster 2. 5. Terms of Reference. As requested by the Committee, the Co-chairs prepared terms of references for the facilitators of each cluster based on the principles of inclusiveness and transparency and taking into account limited support capacity available to some of the Committee members. 6. Communication and Consultation Activities. The Committee members agreed to consult with stakeholders broadly on their work. Four types of activities were proposed: (i) multistakeholder consultations in the form of written contributions and dialogues; (ii) dedicated periods reserved for interaction with Member States and other relevant stakeholders during each Committee session; (iii) interventions by outside experts (e.g., academics, think tanks, regional development banks and representatives from the private sector and institutional investors) at Committee meetings; and (iv) regional meetings organised by UN regional commissions, in collaboration with regional development banks or other actors and with participation of interested Committee members. On this basis, it was decided that the Co-Chairs will share a document outlining communication and consultation activities with Committee members, with the understanding that this is a living document that can be reverted to in the December session.
2