The UN’s Post-2015 Development Agenda & the Rio+20 Follow Up discussed at South Conference

 

The South Centre Conference in Geneva held a session on Sustainable Development issues. This article focuses on two presentations on the UN’s post-2015 Development Agenda and on the post-Rio+20 Summit process.

By Bhumika Muchhala

The South Centre held a conference in Geneva on 31 January – 1 February, which stressed the importance of addressing national development strategies and social development policies in the United Nation’s Post-2015 development framework and in the follow-up to the Rio+20 Summit held in June 2012.

The conference addressed important issues in the global economy and in multilateral negotiations and cooperation, including the imperative of South-South cooperation, the impact of free trade agreements and investment agreements on development and policy space in developing countries and the current economic problems, policies and prospects across Africa, Latin America and Asia.

Deepak Nayyar, Professor of Economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, India and Vice Chairman of the South Centre Board, addressed the UN’s Post-2015 development framework.

The Post-2015 development framework will establish the framework for development priorities in the UN and beyond starting in 2015.  Since the year 2000, the global development framework has been largely characterized by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The ongoing development of the Post-2015 agenda is taking place in the UN system through several processes, including national consultations and a High-Level Panel chaired by the heads of state of the UK, Indonesia and Liberia.  Several UN agencies have also been carrying out thematic consultations on a range of topics such as inequality, governance, employment and food and hunger.

Nayyar said that much of the discussion on the Post-2015 development framework is concentrated on the multilateral system, in which there is a proactive engagement on the part of industrial countries.  He noted that nothing is more ironic than the fact that UK Prime Minister David Cameron leads the High-Level Panel.  Thus far, developing countries of the South are at best reactive and at worst marginal to this process.  A repeat scenario of the past, where the MDGs were drafted by a small group of diplomats in New York and then presented to member states in the General Assembly, must be avoided.

Nayyar noted that the MDGs, for better or worse, need to be considered as a starting point.  However, the future cannot and should not be a prisoner of the past, he stressed.  The international community needs to look at what can be learned from the MDG experience.  Several key questions arise.  First, is the 2015 juncture the same or significantly different than 2000?  Second, what should be done by developing countries in the national context?  And third, what can be done to reshape the international context so that it is more conducive to development?

The various reasons why the MDGs, much like the Human Development Index, caught the popular imagination are obvious.  The MDGs were simple, with quantitative targets and objectives that are easy to comprehend.  The good intentions of the MDGs are hard to disagree with.  However, the accountability of the international community and national governments has been a limited endeavour.  This is partly due to the reality that the constituencies for poor people simply didn’t have voice or the power of sanction.

As it turned out, the MDGs did not serve the larger strategic purpose of changing the discourse on development.  The limitations of the MDGs as a construction requires some evaluation of the concept and design of the MDGs as a framework.

Conceptually, the MDGs present an outcome but does not set out a process to achieve them.  In other words, a destination is defined but the journey is missing.  The MDGs do not fully consider the diverse positions at which countries are starting from in their developmental pathways.  The MDGs are also laid out in terms of aggregates and averages that often conceal distributional outcomes.  Its design, characterized by a multiplicity of objectives that span a wide range, has serious limitations as well.

The MDG’s goals are set out in proportions, such as “half the number of people,” and addresses good intentions such as literacy and preservation of biodiversity.  However, Nayyar asserted that some indicators are inappropriate or misleading.  There is a misplaced emphasis on stepping up the rate of economic growth.  Indeed, the formulation of the indicators reveal the ways in which the MDGs have been misunderstood, misused and misappropriated.  For example, global norms have been presented as national targets and the dominant economic and social ideology of our times, which is orthodox, have not been questioned or challenged.

Nayyar stressed that more of the same cannot be an option, the Post-2015 framework has to be different.  However, it is to be accepted that there will be genuine differences of opinion between countries and constituencies on framing the Post-2015 development framework.  In particular, achieving political consensus on the means of implementation will be exceedingly difficult.  Developing countries will need voice and influence to focus on equitable growth, aid, and improved governance.

For the MDGs to be substantially changed into its future incarnation, Nayyar presented three points of departure.  First, it is imperative that there is structural flexibility at the national level.  It is necessary to recognize the possibilities of some interdependence among objectives and some trade-offs between objectives.  For this purpose, the new framework should state in its premises that development objectives are a norm rather than a floor or a ceiling.  They should also state that development outcomes are illustrative rather than exhaustive, and suggestive rather than definitive.

It must also be explicitly stated that the Post-2015 development framework represents objectives for the world as a whole, which are not a scale to measure progress in every country because national goals must be formulated domestically, with the use of global norms as a point of reference.

Second, structural inequalities must be analyzed in any assessment of outcomes.  It is necessary to monitor progress at a disaggregated level or compute statistical averages by introducing some weights that reflect the distribution among people.  This is essential because inequalities exist and distributional outcomes matter.

There are two ways in which this can be done.  The simplest method would be to focus on the bottom 1/4th or poorest 40% of the aggregate national population.  Spatial inequality can be seen through disaggregated evidence at provincial or regional levels.

And third, it is imperative that the new framework for 2015 and beyond must incorporate the means rather than simply focus on ends.  In other words, something needs to be said not only on outcomes but also on process.  However, there must be resistance to the temptation of setting out specifics of policies.  Rather, the intention should be to produce an outline through which countries have the freedom to follow their own national development policies.

It is important that the Post-2015 development framework avoids an attempt to produce generalized prescriptions or universal blueprints.  Policies and strategies must evolve at a national level as times and circumstances change.  However, the framework could enunciate some general propositions that are suggestive rather than definitive or exhaustive.

Some examples of suggestive and general propositions are the following:

  • Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to bring about development.
  • It is necessary to create institutional mechanisms that would transform economic growth into meaningful development by improving the living conditions of people.  Public action is an integral part of this process.
  • Employment creation provides the only sustainable means of poverty reduction.
  • Policies should not be prescribed once-and-for-all because there are specificities in time and space.
  • External finance is a complement to but cannot be a substitute for domestic resources.
  • The role of the state remains critical in the process of development.

The Post-2015 development framework must at its outset acknowledge that we live in a world that is significantly different from the world in 2000.  The consequences of the global financial and economic crisis has worsened development prospects in many developing and even some developed countries.  It is now clear that the developing world is not immune, but rather more resilient, from what happens in the world economy.  The looming menace of climate change and all its consequent impacts on economic, social and food security, also persist.

Furthermore, Nayyar highlighted that deprivation is no longer about developing countries alone.  There is relative, absolute deprivation in developed countries as well, as witnessed in the profound increase in economic inequalities both between countries and among people.  Inequality is increasingly difficult to sustain in democratic politics.  The idea of austerity now for prosperity later is something people are not easily willing to accept.  Democratic change must be on the horizon, especially with the reality of industrial societies aging and ongoing significant international migration despite draconian immigration laws.

The Post-2015 development framework must also acknowledge a shift in the balance of global economic power in the world that is discernible now in a way that it wasn’t in 2000.  However, while the share of developing countries GDP in world global GDP rose to its highest in 2010, the influence and voice of developing countries in the policymaking fora of the international community remains negligible.

Abandon MDG 8 and start over

On Goal 8 of the MDGs, which is the global partnership for development, Nayyar argued that Goal 8 should be abandoned and the Post-2015 should start over in defining and committing to changes in the international financial architecture.  Simply put, the international community needs to do better on this unfinished business of the global partnership for development.  Its essence should be indeed that of partnership, not patronage, which is the result of an aid-dominated discourse which leaves much to be desired.

Even if all the official development aid had been committed with good intentions, it would not have solved the problem.  Evidence and experience suggest that aid is a mixed blessing, often turning out to be an equivalent of the ‘natural resources curse.’  It is clear that for developing countries, rather than an overwhelming focus on external finance, access to medicines, technology and markets is imperative and would serve to reduce some of the asymmetries in development.

Goal 8 as it currently stands should be abandoned, and three key actions in the international context should be focused on.  First, remove the asymmetrical relations within and between rich and poor countries.  Instead of more performance criteria for developing countries, there ought to be a more equal partnership.  The asymmetries in the development framework should also be removed, in particular by addressing the various protectionist policies of developed countries.

Second, increase the policy space for developing countries that has been encroached on through the international regimes.  And third, move toward the logic and spirit of international cooperation and solidarity and away from the history of asymmetrical and unjust policies and systems.

Prioritizing a development-oriented national policy strategy

Nayyar asserted that there is a global momentum toward the role of the state and national development strategies, which is coming from many different sources.

To revive the idea and plan of a national development strategy, macroeconomic policies must be reformulated.  It is essential to return to a developmental approach in macroeconomic policies, he said, in the prioritization of short-term countercyclical monetary and fiscal policies with an eye toward long-term development objectives.

For this, economic growth with human development must become an integral part of the mandate of financial ministries and central banks.  Long-term poverty reduction is only possible through such an approach.  Education and social consumption in health and public goods must be scaled up.  Substantial investments in infrastructure must be made.  And exclusion must be addressed, particularly through the widening of social safety nets and government programs.

However, it is not sufficient to speak about ‘inclusive growth’ as governments often do.  Rather, it is necessary to ensure that the process of growth is pro-poor.  Employment must be placed at the center-stage in the 2015 process.  The critical importance of public action must be stressed, in that the developmental role of the state is critical across the entire spectrum of what needs to be done.

It is imperative that the moral authority of the state is restored.  The state has been eroded in the current era of market fundamentalism.  Illogical conclusions about the state have been made by using the select examples of inept and corrupt governments.  But governments cannot be replaced with markets.

Nayyar emphasized that the external and internal must be viewed in terms of markets and resources.  External markets must be a complement not substitute for domestic markets, which are critical for development.  We need to remember that domestic markets are at one level constitutive of development because it means that ordinary people have purchasing power.  On the other hand, domestic markets are also instrumental because they can drive the process of growth in ways that rely on domestic resources and productive capacity.

In rethinking development, there is a vital need to restore the balance between states and markets, for the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of markets.  So much of what needs to be done needs to be done by states.  Governments are accountable to people, markets are not.  A crash in stock markets is a system failure, but a crash in government has grave consequences.

Martin Khor, executive director of the South Centre, addressed the future of sustainable development and the onset of an intergovernmental process in the UN to formulate sustainable development goals (SDGs).

Khor outlined three immediate follow-up actions to the Rio+20 summit of the UN on sustainable development, which was held in June 2012 in Brazil.  The first follow-up action is the establishment of the SDG process.  The second is the creation of two groups in the UN that will address the means of implementation (financing of sustainable development) and technology.  And the third is the establishment of a High-Level Political Forum for sustainable development.

The first action, the SDGs, is currently preoccupying UN missions in New York.  The establishment of the Open Working Group on the SDGs is now complete. However, there is an important question of what developing countries want out of the SDGs.  During the Rio+20 process, European countries had at first come up with the idea of a Green Economy Road Map.  However, they did not succeed. Instead, the concept of Sustainable Development Goals was accepted.

Towards the end of the process, European countries proposed six or seven SDGs in order to create something concrete in the summit.  Their goals were on the environmental side.  Developing countries argued it was too early to adopt a few SDGs. There should be economic and social goals as well, as the idea of sustainable development is to recognize that environmental crises exist alongside economic and social crises, and that in order to address environmental issues, social and economic issues have to be simultaneously addressed.

The SDGs thus have to be walking on three legs, that of economic, social and environment.  These three legs are the cornerstone of the SDGs, and developing countries would not accept the articulation of goals based solely on environmental factors.  The task now is to articulate goals in all three pillars.

In the area of environment, the goals could be selected from issues such as: climate and atmosphere, biodiversity and forests, oceans and seas, toxic chemicals and wastes, sustainable agriculture, water, and energy.

Khor stressed that the challenge now is to come up with the economic and social goals.  Some examples of economic goals for the SDGs are to regulate financial markets to prevent future financial crises, to re-orient the financial system to meet the needs of the real economy, to prevent and properly manage external debt crises, to address the volatility of commodity prices and markets, to achieve adequate and inclusive growth and to have a balanced set of macro-economic policies and goals.

Social goals for the SDGs can include, for example, the reduction of social inequalities and achievement of greater equity between and within countries, full employment and adequate rural livelihoods in the formal and informal sectors, adequate policy space for developing countries to promote social development and a re-orientation of the international intellectual property regime to enable social development in developing countries.

High-Level Political Forum must ensure substance of sustainable development

Khor also addressed the establishment of a High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) which is going to address sustainable development.  In adopting the Rio+20 outcome document in the General Assembly it was agreed that the Commission for Social Development (CSD) would be replaced by the HLPF.

Consequently, the issues of the CSD would be addressed in the HLPF.  Khor said that the HLPF must have a strong organisational base and adequate number of days in a year for meetings to cover the sustainable development issues. It must be stronger than the CSD. But some countries seem to want a weak organisation instead. Khor stressed that this would be an unfortunate development, because it will most likely reduce the substantive issues in the CSD to a few roundtables held during the annual General Assembly sessions held in September of each year. It would be tragic for developing countries to have the substance of CSD replaced with panel sessions.

There may be weaknesses in the CSD, but there is a secretariat, programme of work and 2-3 weeks meetings per year.  If this entire establishment of the CSD is closed down and replaced with just a forum, then how is the Rio+20 outcome document going to be implemented, Khor asked.

With regard to the follow-up process for the financing of sustainable development, Khor emphasized that developing countries need to address the issues of technology transfer and development.  There are significant hurdles, as developed countries were very reluctant to have any wording on technology transfer during the Rio+20 negotiations.

Khor also highlighted the need for a home for the SDGs, which logically should be the HLPF.  In essence, the MDGs never had a home.  Although the UNDP and DESA, to some degree, coordinated the functions and processes of the MDGs on the national level, the MDGs never had a formal secretariat.

A secretariat must be established for the HLPF in order to ensure that it will remain strong and influential, and to ensure that it will meet for more than two weeks per year. The Human Rights Council in Geneva meets 250 days per year, with many subsidiary bodies and processes.

The HLPF for sustainable development should also ideally become an organization of 100 or so professionals working on sustainable development issues.  Such an organization would then work alongside implementing bodies such as the United Nations Environment Program and the Food and Agriculture Organization.  The HLPF could then also ensure that important economic and social issues that are integrally connected to sustainable development would also have a home.

However, Khor noted that a key challenge for the HLPF is that it would have to interface with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).  If the reform of ECOSOC takes a number of years, as it has done for many years in the past, then during that process of revitalization there might be a vacuum where in the absence of the CSD there may be no operational forum or council for sustainable development.

Bhumika Muchhala is a Senior Researcher with the Third World Network.

 

0

Your Cart