Participants agreed that it is important that the post-2015 development
agenda combines poverty and environmental sustainability objectives. Although this
view also featured strongly in the High Level Panel (HLP) report, Homi Kharas
warned that it is by no means a guaranteed outcome, as some countries would
prefer separate agendas – or simply an ‘MDG 2.0’ type of agreement that builds
directly on the current MDGs. However Homi Kharas and David Hallam pointed out
that there is a clear need to go well beyond the MDG agenda, to reflect that
our understanding of poverty has changed, and that the MDGs left out important
interrelated issues, such as sustainability, governance, peace and security.
While the inclusion of these elements could make a future agenda harder for
governments to agree on, they will be central to an effective future agenda to
fight poverty. Hallam stressed that
through consultations such as My World it has become clear that issues of
governance and freedom from violence matter hugely to people and should not be
ignored this time round. Neva Frecheville, however, warned that while My World
was an excellent tool, it had to be used to complement - not guide - post-2015
thinking, as it has not incorporated crucial priorities such as environmental
sustainability. Homi Kharas made the point that poverty is dynamic –
some people
are lifted out of it, others fall back into to it, and the nature of poverty
itself changes over time and the agenda needed to reflect this by including goals and targets on
resilience.
Thinking about what comes next, Kharas underlined 4 aspects
which weren’t fully dealt with in the UN High Level Panel report and still need
attention:
-Implementation and
accountability: How is the agenda going to be translated into practice?
What are the mechanisms for responsibility and accountability? These issues still
need to be clarified.
-Finance: The
MDGs were cemented at the Monterrey conference on finance: developing countries
saw an increase in donor pledges to finance development as a central benefit of
adopting these Goals. Kharas argued that Post-2015 needs to go through a
similar process to provide incentives for its uptake, but cautioned that it
should not take the form of a pledging session like Monterrey. Instead, it
should be a discussion on how to reform and improve development financing. He
also pointed out that more work needs to be done to reform global governance as
this was not strongly addressed in the HLP report.
-Data Revolution:
Kharas stressed that the word ‘revolution’ is being used deliberately. There
needs to be a rethink on how to collect and process data, preferably in real
time, as currently time lags between data collection and processing are too
long. Hallam argued that if MDGs could drive progress in data collection,
post-2015 could help drive a data revolution. Frecheville, however, stressed
that while the ‘data revolution’ offers great potential, it should not be seen
as a panacea, as it is likely to do little to tackle structural inequalities,
and risks marginalising those who are not digitally connected. Further, she pointed
out that the data revolution is emerging as a very top-down initiative,
requiring government and corporate investment, and therefore is not incorporating
grass-root concerns.
Identifying related
national level issues, Kharas stressed that the agenda will only be
successful and truly universal if there is national ownership with national
targets, and global minimum floors in order to encourage a race to the top. However,
he cautioned that although national ownership will be key as many post-2015
struggles will need to be fought domestically, a global agreement cannot ensure
that those countries which choose not to engage with its objectives are held
accountable or forced to do so.
Frecheville discussed the role of Civil Society Organisations
(CSOs), pointing out that they raise the level of debate by making certain
issues unavoidable. She added that the HLP’s response to CSO consultations and
engagement was positive, and efforts should made to prevent the debate form moving into a
‘black box’ phase without clear opportunities for CSO engagement now that the
Open Working Group phase is under way.
She added that there are still highbarriers
to entry in the post-2015 debate for smaller CSOs, and for ordinary people –
especially in terms of the time, resources and reach required to impact
high-level conversations.
These barriers would have to be addressed by making resources avaialbe to
support further CSO engagement in the future.
Panellists noted that uncertainties remain around the next
steps in the process. Hallam was optimistic about national engagement with the
HLP report, which generated debate amongst national missions to the UN. However
Kharas pointed out that it is still too early to expect strong country engagement,
as most national missions are still in an information gathering phase. Kharas further
stressed that conversations needed to move to national capitals, as the process
was still far too New York / UN-centric.
Pannellists also noted that local authorities would be on
the front-line of actually implementing the process and making sure ‘no one was
left behind’. There was also substantial
agreement on the need for more youth engagement. Frecheville stated that young
people shouldn’t wait for opportunities or engagement to come to them, but
should create their own. Kharas mentioned that youth engagement already had
provided the HLP with a reality check, exposing how much work still needed to
be done despite MDG progress.
