As world leaders craft the framework that will succeed the Millennium Development Goals, there is an opportunity to rise above local hurdles
In an interdependent world of increasingly convergent interests, might global governance solutions rise above our nationalist and protectionist tendencies?
On financial regulation and climate change thus far we’ve clearly failed. Not so, perhaps, on matters of world poverty and human health, where there’s an accepted global development framework backed by an assortment of state actors, international institutions and civil society organisations, all of which use and promote the UN-backed Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
A UN conference in September 2010 reviewed progress to date and adopted a global action plan to achieve the eight anti-poverty goals by the 2015 target date. At a subsequent meeting in 2012, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon appointed 26 civil society, private sector, and government leaders from all regions to a high-level panel to advise on the global development agenda beyond 2015.
Recently, US development agencies and the European Union have weighed in on specific thematic proposals. Gender parity of performance in secondary schools continues to lag, as do malnutrition numbers, according to USAID.
The European commission, in its policy proposal, A Decent Life for All: Ending Poverty and Giving the World a Sustainable Future, echoes this sentiment in calling for food security and nutrition to be treated as explicit goals.
“Our post-2015 framework must build on the MDGs’ successes, but also address their shortcomings,” said Andris Piebalgs, European commissioner for development, speaking at a conference in Brussels.
Agriculture is drawing a great deal of attention, because of its large multiplier effect – it encompasses both farming and economic activity, alongside the human need for food and the tangential impact it can have on climate change, education and, ultimately, poverty eradication.
Early reports indicate a reticence to include the politically sensitive topic of climate change as a standalone target. Rather, it’s more likely to find its way into the post-2015 framework through things such as energy consumption, efficiency, renewable sources, water use and sustainable agriculture.
Political timidity of this sort could very well hold back the MDGs from achieving their stated aim. The negotiations will become highly politicised, say insiders, given the ultimate decision-making authority of UN member states – even though secretary-general Ban and his staff profess to want a participatory and fully transparent process.
Who’s in charge?
Critics say the development goals framework is now too heavily focused on measurement and reporting at the national level, without ever specifying which political actors are responsible and without including any accountability mechanisms.
Moreover, in the compromise document that emerged in 2000, the acknowledgement of human rights, social inclusion and inequality was absent. The striking omission of gender, for example, in many of the development targets may be partially explained through the absence of civil society, and women’s groups in particular, in the project of target setting.
This time around, there have already been 22 deliberations in 30 countries. More than 700 organisations are participating, according to Beyond 2015, the umbrella organisation currently co-ordinating civil society engagement on the post-MDG framework.
And the corporate community has a front-row seat through the UN Global Compact, which has been assigned a position on a par with the UN high-level panel, the lead body organising the ongoing talks.
A shared, global civil society position may yet emerge. Let’s hope they get it right.