Heads will be collectively scratched in Washington on Friday at a mystery. Why do the world's elites not spot an emperor with no clothes on?
As the great and the good gather for the Spring Meetings of the World Bank they will also be mulling over what the international development agenda could or should look like after the expiry of the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs). They are not short of ideas, as we saw in London when the High Level Panel of Eminent Persons established by the UN Secretary General were subjected to a two hour mass lobby.
Tony Blair recently said "to decide is to divide" and there is no doubting the difficulty of making the priority call on a long list of vital issues to include in the next global set of targets to measure how the world is doing by its most vulnerable and poorest citizens.
Yet there is one subject, almost uniquely, that both the elite and the development lobby agree on: we have to do something about conflict. A quick look at the MDG league table reveals the stark reality that the poorest and most vulnerable have been left behind by the old way of doing things, with no conflict affected country set to meet a single MDG.
It's not difficult to see why. Conflict is political but the MDGs are technical. Conflict takes generations to tackle, but the MDGs set a 15 year deadline. In short conflict goes to the heart of the relationship between the governing class and the governed. And that raises all sorts of tricky questions. Best stick with counting the schools we've built. Even if the children can't get to them for fear of kidnap.
And, worryingly, the emerging post 2015 consensus seems to be repeating the mistake if you judge by recent communiques, speeches and statements.What seems obvious - a development goal on peace - is being quietly side-stepped.
Last year the chief author of the MDGs, Mark Malloch-Brown, told me that for the next generation of development goals to tackle the political, long term and tricky issues of governance would be the achievement of a generation. And those countries affected by conflict agree, with the G7+ group of nations having formed a new partnership with donors called the New Deal for Engagement with Fragile States, or the New Deal for short. It sets out a new partnership for doing development, based on transparency, local ownership, accountability and trust.
The good news is that the New Deal learns the lessons from the MDGs. It establishes that:
- Peace and security are essential for broader progress on development, and that this should be explicitly acknowledged in the post-MDG framework;
- That transitioning out of fragility is a long political process that requires country leadership and ownership;
- That fragile countries need to set the priorities for the way aid in which aid is spent in their countries while;
- Mutual accountability mechanisms need to established between donor and recipients based on transparency and trust.
"...significant – and welcome – contribution to a more equitable and productive partnership between fragile states and their development partners"While US Secretary of State Clinton was equally impressed:
"The New Deal for Fragile States, which [the g7+] have developed from the very beginning, is an exciting and fresh approach that has the chance to deliver real results."
|UN Post 2015 Consultation for Africa|
Are we in danger of repeating the same mistakes of 2000?
Amid the enthusiasm at the new way of working represented by the New Deal we knew this point would come. Power politics was always going to take centre stage. Muscles flexed and quiet words had.
The meeting on the 19th is a chance to air those issues and get the New Deal back to being centre stage. It's not perfect, and this is also a chance to discuss its shortcomings. Questions to be posed to participants, which will include Jim Yong Kim President of the World Bank, Rajiv Shah the Director of USAID, Helen Clark Head of the United Nations Development Programme, Judy Cheng-Hopkins Director of the UN Peace Building Support Office and Klaus Rudischauser Deputy Director General, Development and Cooperation at the European Commission include:
- What are some of the key achievements, opportunities and challenges to deliver change through the New Deal at the country level?
- What can the New Deal and the International Dialogue contribute to redefine the new development agenda?
- How can states and societies affected by conflict and fragility best make their voices heard, taking a lead role in shaping such an agenda?
- What does it take to implement the New Deal?
You have to hope the answers coming back from the panel inspire more confidence than many of us trying our best to support this process feel at the moment. 1.5 billion people depend on them. The emperor must be clothed.