Post 2015: Business as Usual is not an option

Post 2015 Business as Usual is Not an Option

At a special meeting on the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) in September the Open Working Group of the UN General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG) will become the principal international forum for debating what framework replaces the MDGs in 2015. International Alert, for whom I work, this week published a briefing intended to assist them in that work and to stimulate debate among others. We hope it is a helpful addition to the debate.


KEY MESSAGES

• Evidence and experience illustrates that to achieve human progress the post 2015 development framework must place the development of open, transparent and accountable government at its core. Failure to include this in the MDG framework left the poorest and most vulnerable behind.
• A new framework must take into account new global realities, including the emergence of shared challenges and threats.
• The global framework must recognise the unique circumstances of each country by enabling a flexible pursuit of a single global vision with nationally specific goals.
• The New Deal pilots offer practical insights into the barriers and opportunities of operationalising a participatory and explicitly political approach to development, based on a holistic framework. They provide valuable practical evidence for the OWG to use in its deliberations.
• Accountability, transparency and effectiveness are intricately linked. It is not possible to generate sustainable development without oversight or open participation.
• Development is not achieved if the private sector cannot function and grow. The post-2015 framework must create the national conditions for this.
• The OWG must actively solicit the expertise of academia, science, civil society, regional intergovernmental bodies and the private sector in developing its report.

Civil society, intergovernmental bodies and the private sector must also rise to the challenge by making their voices heard, and coalescing as far as possible around the evidence and insight of the High Level Panel report; supporting the OWG in its critical work of synthesising those conclusions with complementary themes arising from the Sustainable Development discourse and the findings of the UN Task Team consultations to date.

BACKGROUND

Development is a political process. Yet the approach taken to achieving development as set out by the Millennium Development Goals since 2000 is explicitly non-political, favouring a socio-economic set of mainly technical targets. People in fragile countries where political institutions are weak, legitimacy is contested and violence is widespread have made little or no progress. The poorest were left behind.

1.5 billion people and 50% of the world’s poor live in parts of the world that are threatened by armed violence. The international community categorises these places as “conflict affected states” and regards them as separate to the rest of what is called “international development”. The problem with that approach is that it serves neither those areas affected by violence nor those countries fortunate enough to experience relative calm. Development is not simply a socio-economic process, whether in conflict affected or relatively peaceful societies. It is inherently political in both, which means the lessons from conflict affected areas are applicable to all.

Reaching the poorest

No fragile or conflict affected state has made significant progress in the globally defined fight against poverty as measured by the MDGs. The reason, as the World Development Report of 2011 told us, was that the MDGs were the wrong targets measured in the wrong way. Technical targets had replaced the inclusive political vision set out in the Millennium Declaration, implying that socio-economic progress could be achieved without addressing the unique political circumstances of each country. The report called for a “fundamental rethink”[1], citing human security, justice and jobs as essential elements of a revised and more holistic approach. Despite some limited progress since the 2011 report, with 20 conflict affected states meeting one or more targets[2], the World Bank Director recently observed:

“…While these successes offer hope, the reality is that far too many fragile and conflict-affected countries lag behind the rest of the world[3]”.

A New Deal? 

The emergence of the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States (‘New Deal’) is one attempt to try a new approach. Based on a broad narrative of progress, the New Deal proposes a mechanism through which government and citizens of fragile countries can work together with outside agencies to define a unique strategy for reducing fragility and thus building resilience. Each strategy looks at security, justice, the legitimacy of the political system and culture, the economy, tax revenues and the provision of services, in a framework which highlights some of the indicators of fragility. The New Deal recognises the primacy of national actors, as well as the role and relevance of donors and intergovernmental organisations, aiming to redefine the donor-recipient relationship as a different kind of partnership while also formalising the need for domestic civil society organisations to play an essential role in governance. While the New Deal emerged out of a conversation between states facing conflict and donor partners, its pilot implementation in seven countries now offers practical insights into the opportunities and barriers faced when a new development process is attempted in some of the most challenging and complex environments.

The New Deal is not a perfectly working model, but a generally applicable framework that has experienced challenges as well as successes in its adaptation to each context. It represents an important source of experience of what works and what doesn’t when attempting a more holistic approach to development, and is thus of critical importance to the OWG.

Multiple, parallel processes

To date there have emerged three separate processes concentrating on the future of development after 2015. They are represented by the High Level Panel of Eminent Persons established by the UN Secretary General (High Level Panel), the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development (OWG) arising out of the Rio+20 Sustainable Development conference and the Expert Committee on Sustainable Financing for Development[4], also arising out of the Rio+20 process. This has resulted in duplication of resources and, particularly in the case of the Expert Committee, risks the emergence of a financial framework that does not take account of the new vision of development likely to emerge out of the OWG.

A different world

The world meets to discuss these questions amid changed circumstances, compared with 2000. Among them are shared global threats and issues that have come into much sharper focus since then. These include climate change and other environmental threats, the continuing impact of the economic crisis of 2008, international terrorism, the desire for political and economic transformation illustrated by the Arab Spring, and the opportunities presented by the rise of new and emerging powers who are rightly not prepared to play a passive role.

In that context putting politics at the heart of development is difficult. There are genuine tensions between donors and recipient governments which can appear to challenge sovereignty. The fragility and lack of space in political systems in many developing countries make it hard for even well-meaning governments and their citizens to engage constructively. Countries are represented in the international system by the governments in power, whether or not they are the legitimate voice of all of their people. Donor countries meanwhile are under considerable pressure to justify their international aid contributions. Yet despite these very real difficulties, the overwhelming evidence of the limit to how far the current approach represented by the MDGs can transform lives means the debate cannot be ignored.

The challenge in front of us, therefore, is to create opportunities for positive collaboration while avoiding the temptation created by political sensitivities and the global economic slowdown to revert to a business-as-usual approach. This would allow governments to illustrate short term results to voters but would do little or nothing to meaningfully tackle the long term and deep rooted political factors that prevent a genuinely transformative development agenda. That in turn means making little if any progress towards achieving the goal set out by the High Level Panel to “…eradicate extreme poverty from the face of the earth.[5]”

In recognition of the challenge we make the following suggestions as a contribution to the debate within the OWG. These are organised in three categories. First we address what kind of mechanism ought to be used instead of the MDGs. Next we discuss the substance, and finally we make recommendations about the process the OWG might follow.

MECHANISMS

The mechanism for post-2015 needs to learn from both the strengths and weaknesses of the MDGs. Having a single model was a strength because it became a rallying point. But it got in the way of context-specific strategies. The MDGs therefore incentivised some unfortunate as well as some positive kinds of behaviour by governments and other actors. Accountability is key, but accountability of governments to their citizens is worth a great deal more in terms of development, than accountability in an international system. The MDGs themselves were global goals which were applied in each country irrespective of local circumstances. Such an approach, in hindsight, was always bound to fail in fragile contexts where accountability and open government was weakest.

Global vision, national goals

Without a global vision it would be difficult to mobilise resources and sustain the commitment of governments but by definition a single vision does not address every country’s specific issues. International Alert, drawing on its experience in over 25 conflict-affected countries and territories, proposes that a single global vision has to be augmented by national indicators of progress. This offers the best prospect of getting the best from a single model and avoiding its disadvantages[6]. There are several possible mechanisms that such an approach could adopt, such as that set forward by over 50 peacebuilding and development organisations in 2012[7]. This is in line with the declaration made in The Future We Want report arising from the Rio+20 conference which states[8]:

“We recognize that progress towards the achievement of the goals needs to be assessed and accompanied by targets and indicators, while taking into account different national circumstances, capacities and levels of development”.

Accountability, transparency & effectiveness

Experience since 2000 also shows, however, that whichever mechanism is adopted must have accountability and transparency at its core, so that all those engaged can be held to account for their actions and contribution. This, in turn, relies on a politically engaged and aware population which is only possible through genuinely participatory politics, free from violence or repression. The Administrator of UNDP Helen Clark outlined the connection between political participation and developmental effectiveness to an audience of African leaders in Senegal in 2012:

“… more politically aware populations have also led to improvements in the accountability and responsiveness of a number of African governments. That, in turn, helps make government policies more effective and inclusive[9]”.

In other words, a politically engaged population is an essential part of effective policy making leading to sustainable development. The High Level Panel, UN Task Team Global Consultation, New Deal, World Development Report 2011 and numerous research reports from multiple perspectives all point to the need to place open, transparent and accountable government at the core of any approach to achieving human progress in a post 2015 development framework. Doing this will create a kind of virtuous circle, in which citizens of developing countries have a say in the elaboration of development strategies, in which they participate and for which they hold their governments to account; and in so doing the habits of participation and accountability are embedded in the political culture, thus contributing to developmental progress.

Finance fit for purpose

Experience, history and evidence illustrates that economic growth led by a vibrant national private sector is an essential pre-requisite for development. Indeed, it can be argued that most development is financed, or at least resourced, by individuals and families. Yet much of the current debate around financing for development remains rooted in the old idea of transfers from rich to poor, as represented by the debates surrounding the target of 0.7% of GDP being allocated by donor countries to the developing world. A more sophisticated conversation is needed about how national and local economies can developed and provide a sustainable route out of poverty and toward shared prosperity. It is well understood today that tax revenues are an essential part of the picture, not only for a reliable and autonomous source of financing but also because tax systems encourage government accountability. A key enabling element for that is the rule of law. This enhances consent to being taxed and lets the private sector operate in a predictable framework of regulation rather than on the arbitrary basis of networks, alliances and nepotism, which in turn encourages Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). It is tremendously important that the OWG’s discussion of financing mechanisms focuses at least as much on revenues generated in country, and on FDI, as on aid mechanisms and transfers.

SUBSTANCE

Taking as a given that a holistic approach to development – including political, as well as social and economic factors – represents the only effective way to achieve genuine human progress, the OWG’s work will benefit by drawing on the High Level Panel report of 2013 and the New Deal.

Taking the Rio +20 Sustainable Development strand as its starting point, the OWG may make its greatest contribution between March and late 2014 by synthesising the HLP ideas and the New Deal principles into a coherent vision to be used as the basis for negotiations in 2015. We draw out the following elements of each strand and urge the OWG to reflect these elements at a minimum in their final outcome document due in September 2014.

The High Level Panel report redefined development. Highlighting the need to “build peace and effective, open and accountable institutions for all” as one of five transformative shifts needed to achieve genuine development for all, it argued that:

“We must acknowledge a principal lesson of the MDGs: that peace and access to justice are not only fundamental human aspirations but cornerstones of sustainable development”.

Inter alia this means that paying attention to the relationships between people and between people and their governments is a critical factor in any effective approach to sustainable development. The report set out how this could be defined and measured in a post-2015 framework by suggesting two key goals: Ensure Good Governance and Effective Institutions and Ensure Stable and Peaceful Societies. In addition the report sets out indicators of progress that would ensure “no one is left behind” by calling for data to be disaggregated and that targets “…should only be considered ‘achieved’ if they are met for all relevant income and social groups”.

In addition, and building on the evidence of what works, the New Deal places these relationships at the core of a new and participatory form of governance as a basis for good development. The Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals (PSGs) currently being piloted in 7 countries are[10]:

• Legitimate politics: fostering inclusive political settlements and conflict resolution 
• Security: establishing and strengthening people’s security 
• Justice: addressing injustices and increasing people’s access to justice 
• Economic foundations: generating employment and improving people’s livelihoods
• Revenue & Services: managing revenue and building capacity for accountable and fair service delivery

The OWG can thus build on insights gained through the New Deal so far and draw on practical experience of the barriers and opportunities encountered in pioneering this new way of framing and operationalising development. We urge the OWG to seek the input of those pilot countries in order to utilise their expertise alongside the findings of the High level Panel.

The OWG can and should integrate them into its deliberations and final report to the UN Secretary General in September 2014, which we expect to frame development in a broad and holistic framework, just as the HLP did.

PROCESS: HOW DO WE GET THERE? 

The OWG is a new and innovative inter-governmental structure. There are challenges both to its member states but also to civil society and the private sector to ensure its success. Just as we challenge member states, so civil society, businesses and others wanting to get involved must also rise to those challenges, rather than waiting to be asked.

The Rio+20 outcome document The Future We Want states that the OWG will develop ways of ensuring 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. This is welcome, necessary and critical. We urge the OWG to draw on each of these three constituencies in the drafting stage of the final report due in September 2014.

We also urge the OWG to engage regional intergovernmental bodies and the domestic constituencies of member states as equally important stakeholders and future implementers.

In responding to the invitation to contribute to the OWG, members of civil society must continue to push for their interests and ideas, but we strongly suggest that they now start to coalesce around the emerging perspectives outlined in the High Level Panel report; at least as far as the substance of the new framework is concerned.

The private sector is an essential feature of development and is therefore a critical voice. Yet few leaders of industry are involved thus far. They are taking a leadership role and must encourage others to follow suit.

While the OWG is now the principal international forum for the substantive elements of the development debate it is not operating in a vacuum, since the Expert Committee for the Financing of Sustainable Development is meeting in parallel. Both the OWG and members of the Expert Committee must synchronise their efforts to avoid contradictory conclusions.

WITHIN REACH

None of these challenges is beyond the capacity of our collective efforts. What is needed is a new and participatory approach – involving States, civil society and the private sector at global, national and local levels. There are plenty of good ideas in the public domain. The experience of the New Deal is already highlighting the opportunities and challenges of implementing a new partnership based on participatory politics, open government, transparency and accountability, and using a broad holistic development framework. At the global and the local level there are formidable challenges of co-ordination, domestic politics, economic uncertainty and rapidly changing circumstances in many of the countries that have made least progress thus far. Conflict and fragility affects at least 1.5 billion people, and it is they who need the international community to rise to these challenges the most.



[1] World Development Report, 2011
[2] World Bank Global Monitoring Report, 2013
[3] http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/05/01/twenty-fragile-states-make-progress-on-millennium-development-goals
[4] http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1558
[5] A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies Through Sustainable Development: The report of the High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Agenda (2013) p7
[6] Vernon, P, Baksh, D (2010) Working with the Grain to Change the Grain, International Alert – puts forward a set of possible goals and indicators
[7] Bringing peace in to the Post 2015 Framework (2012) A joint statement by civil society organisations
[8] http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1549#para
[9] http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/presscenter/speeches/2012/07/23/helen-clark-speech-at-the-undp-regional-bureau-for-africa-conference/
[10] http://www.pbsbdialogue.org/documentupload/49151944.pdf

Post 2015: Stability & Peace

In case you're one of the many attending the various events around the United Nations General Assembly meetings later next week, the event below is well worth attending. If you do, you'll gain perspectives from North, South, the rising powers in the form of China and civil society from the grass roots of some of the most challenging and complex environments in which to "do" development. I hope to see some of you there.

 

Stability and Peace:

Finding the Heart of Sustainable Development

 

 

15.00-18.00 Monday 23 September 2013

Scandinavia House 58 Park Avenue New York, NY  10016

 

15.00 Introductions

 

·         Andrew Tomlinson, Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO)

 

15.15 Keynote speakers

 

·         HE Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Minister of Finance,  the Federal Republic of Nigeria

·         Ms Ann Sofie Nilsson, Director General of the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs

 

15.45 Discussants

 

·         Mr Theophilus Ekpon, National Peace Summit Group, Nigeria

·         Dr Zhang Chun, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS), China

·         Ms Carolyne Zoduah, AGENDA, Liberia

 

16.15 Open discussion

 

17.00 Drinks reception

·         Hosted Mr Jay Naidoo, Chair of the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), South Africa

 

Syria: Why now, Why us and What next

We are about to go to war with Syria. That means many innocent people will die, be maimed and displaced. I think three key questions remain unanswered, and fear we are about to do entirely the wrong thing.

Instead of firing missiles, the Damascus gas attack could instead be used as a catalyst for meaningful peace talks.

Why now

We live in a YouTube world. Earlier this year I was sent a clip that journalists reporting on the Syrian conflict were posting to each other. It was of a young man who had had his jaw and the lower part of his face blown off by shrapnel from a missile strike. He was fully conscious and well aware of what had happened to him. As others ran shouting around him, he sat on his gurney bolt upright and could only half shout half groan, with what was left. 

It is impossible to comprehend the mental and physical agony that that young man was in at that time. He was from Daraa where the conflict first erupted, and a quick web search reveals he died some days later.

I give this utterly horrific example to ask my first key question: why now? The answer we're given is that chemical weapons have been used for the first time and that that represents a line that humanity simply cannot allow to pass. But as commentators elsewhere have observed, that line was crossed months ago already (contrary to what William Hague claimed this afternoon) and as horrendous as the deaths of hundreds of innocent people from poison gas quite clearly is, can anyone explain to me why the suffering of the young man from Daraa is any less horrendous, even if it wasn’t as a result of gas? 

The answer seems to be a determination by the UK, US and France to diplomatically outwit Russia and China by using the shock effect of the Damascus attack to break the logjam that has repeatedly paralysed the Security Council at the UN. So its more about high politics than high principles, which is presumably why even Ban Ki-Moon has responded to today’s UK tabled resolution with the argument that it is too early and that the inspectors need four more days to complete their work.Why not use the pressure on Russia and China to have a meaningful conversation about how to bring the warring parties to the table instead of bypassing them in a rush to ... well what, exactly?

Why us

As journalists breathlessly produce graphics highlighting the locations of UK, US and French warships, complete with flags, the images take me back to A level history classes when we learned about gunboatdiplomacy. This was the tactic of choice for the colonial powers in the Middle East and North Africa and it appears we are about to return to our nineteenth century roots.  The point of this observation is that it de-legitimises the forces we claim to support, even if we don’t actually understand who they are.

Another answer we are given to this question is the Responsibility to Protect, or R2P. This mandates the international community to intervene in order to protect civilians from harm, including from their own governments. But as Sir John Holmes, former head of the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs argues, it is far from clear how firing missiles from submarines is set to achieve this, and is likely to make aid workers targets themselves. 

What next 

The big question to which nobody – including those leading the calls for military action - has an answer. Any answer at all. Lord West, a former First Sea Lord of the British military today asked pointedly: "You can do a surgical strike but you need to be clear what is your whole campaign plan, where do you go from there?". He went on to point out that you cannot simply drop a few missiles and then withdraw – you have joined a war, with all that that entails. And as Dan Smith in his blog points out, mission creep happens as sure as casualties follow bombing campaigns.

It seems to me that without a clear answer to any of those questions  now is not the time to act, and using missiles is not the right tactic. In the words of Ban Ki-Moon earlier today, it is perhaps still time to give peace a chance. 

ODI goes retro: negative peace

“…you, the said Galileo... have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the centre of the world."

Father Vincenzo Maculano da Firenzuola, June 22nd 1633, at the trial of Galileo Galilei.

Every now and again something comes along that proves people haven’t really moved all that further forward in responding to inconvenient truths with knee jerk and perverse conclusions. One such example was the recent paper on post-2015 by the otherwise excellent Overseas Development Institute (ODI). 

This paper by Lisa Denney is a response to the call by the High Level Panel to establish a stand alone goal on peace and conflict in the post 2015 development agenda. It seems to argue that, since there is little evidence of good governance leading to economic progress, the drafters of a new development agenda shouldn’t bother with it. Instead, they should concentrate on the absence of actual violence rather than anything like human rights, participatory politics, accountability or transparency as indicators of progress. There just isn’t the evidence, she argues, to justify all that rights and governance stuff. So as long as people aren’t actually being killed, we might still eradicate poverty.

Deep breaths.

It’s difficult to know where to start with an argument like that, which is perhaps why I went for the Holy Roman Empire. But let’s just take Ms Denney’s arguments in sequence.

The paper essentially argues that we have lots of evidence of how violence can disrupt development, and quotes Collier’s famous “30 years of GDP lost” in support. So we know, then, that the absence of violence is good for economic growth. But it goes on to say that there is not the same evidence illustrating how the existence of good governance – for example democracy, freedom from repression, accountability and human rights – actively contributes to that economic growth. Thus, the author claims, we must prioritise “negative peace” (the absence of violence) over “positive peace” (not just the absence of violence but the active involvement and rights of people). Denney argues:

“…there does not appear to be sufficient evidence to argue that anything beyond a ‘negative peace’ approach is actually instrumental to other developmental outcomes”.

and goes on to claim that 

“there is stronger evidence for linking insecurity and poverty than peace and development … therefore while some might suggest that peace enables development, it is empirically more accurate to say that conflict or insecurity disrupts development”

Three points in response: what is development, why is there a lack of evidence and what does this conclusion mean.

What is development?

Denney spends a lot of time in the first part of her paper deconstructing terminology and vocabulary, which is fair enough given the amount of jargon floating around in these debates. But the one word that is left alone is probably the most important: development. It is clear throughout this paper that Denney conceives of development as being solely about economic growth rather than, for example, political institutions. So with such a narrow definition of development it becomes possible to make the case she does. Or does it? What sort of economic growth are we talking about? 72% of the world’s poorest people live in Middle Income Countries. In other words even when you have economic growth as measured by GDP you do not necessarily achieve equitable economic growth and, thus, the majority of people remain poor. And, in situations where violence is routinely used by elites, very vulnerable. Without a politically engaged and aware population, who are able to hold their governments to account through robust political institutions, that situation will not change any time soon and the glaring inequalities it creates and perpetuates will contribute directly to the potential for violence. Which will disrupt growth. Now how much “development” have you achieved? One of the reasons the World Development Report of 2011 linked jobs, security and justice was for precisely this reason – development is political as much as economic, and to pretend otherwise is a recipe for repeating the errors the report was concerned with, which has left over 1.5 billion people in conflict affected states as poor and vulnerable as they ever were at the outset of the MDG era.

Consider too that a post-conflict state is also, statistically speaking, a pre-conflict state with the majority of wars being recurrences of old. To achieve any kind of growth at all you need to break that cycle.. Here’s the World Development Report:

“…strengthening legitimate institutions and governance to provide citizen security, justice and jobs is crucial to break cycles of violence.”

Even the IMF, the bastion of econometrics, in a report released in January this year recommended, based on a study of 146 civil conflicts:

"...a strategy for reconciliation and recovery centered on three main pillars—implementing growth enhancing policies, reforming dysfunctional institutions, and addressing urgent social needs— to reduce the risk of conflict recurrence."

And here's Mthuli Ncube, Chief Economist and Vice President of the African Development Bank:

"Deliberate policies to reduce inequalities and promote inclusion are now needed more than ever before. It is time to focus on people’s expectations: decent work, a living wage, access to basic service, more democracy, and accountable governments...Governance is now one of the cornerstones of economic development. Good governance, in its political, social, and economic dimensions, underpins sustainable human development and the reduction of poverty, in that it defines the processes and structures that guide political and socio-economic relationships"

In other words, 'growth enhancing policies' will only work in these situations if combined with political development too. Denney’s argument, if taken up by the OWG, risks perpetuating violence and undermining progress by ignoring the role of political institutions, 'urgent social needs' and accountable governance. 

Why the lack of evidence?

Denney claims that while there is a wealth of evidence highlighting the causality of violence and a lack of growth there is not an equivalent amount linking positive peace with that growth. She is of course completely right: because it hasn’t been tried yet. Is it any wonder after nearly 15 years of the whole world pumping vast resources into an MDG inspired focus on economic and technical indicators that we now have a wealth of evidence about how violence is an inhibitor? No, not particularly. Is it any surprise that, given there has not been an equivalent scale global push to establish and pursue the elements of positive peace – where people have the right to participate in the running of their own countries without fear or repression – that there is not a wealth of evidence of what works and what doesn’t? Well, guess what folks, no. To use the lack of equivalent evidence for something you haven't tried yet as the basis to do nothing new is both retrograde and reductionist in the extreme.

What does this mean?

So what does Denney’s conclusion that ‘negative peace’, simply the absence of a body count, be prioritised over the rights of people to play a full role in their countries mean? To be fair to Denney she states:

“The arguments made here should not be construed as being ‘anti peace'”. 

That’s good, but hang on a minute, she continues:

“…of course living in open and accountable societies is more desirable to many people … [but] … there are endless ‘goods’ that we could include in the post-2015, [sic] … it is important to make decisions about the key priorities, given that the ultimate focus is on eradicating extreme poverty…[and]… the stronger correlations between insecurity and poverty than between peace and development suggest that our efforts should be focussed on a negative peace approach. That is what we know is most likely to have the greatest dividend for reducing poverty.”

This is a pernicious argument. I don’t claim it is made with malign intent but the effect is sinister. Quite apart from it being disturbing for a comfortable Western research institute to casually dismiss the hopes of the poorest to have the fundamental rights we enjoy in a cast off comment; “..there are endless ‘goods’ we could include..”, - the more dangerous implication of her argument is that we should carry on as usual, seeing ‘development’ as purely economic and people’s rights as nice-to-haves rather than must-haves. Music to the ears of strongmen everywhere.

To make this case also requires you to ignore recorded human history. The richest countries in the world achieved that status not through a focus solely on a set of economic goals but through centuries of contested political ideas in which groups of people fought for rights, and elites sought to deny them. The context in which they did that might have been economic: for example the industrial revolution, but the battles themselves were about power and politics. What emerged in the West were constitutional democracies, within which that economic growth and the emergence of the rule of law took place. And that is precisely the aims of those living in the states most affected by the absence either of good governance or economic progress and scarred by endemic violence, as can be seen by the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States. Far from perfect, the New Deal nevertheless for the first time redefines ‘development’ as being as much about a participatory journey towards growth, between State and citizen, as well as a partnership of equals between donor and recipient.

The clue to the New Deal lies in the name. It is new. The evidence of what works doing things this way is scarce precisely because it hasn’t been tried systematically or on a global scale before. The ODI know this, yet still argue for a reductionist approach which disregards the elements of a broader vision of human development including peace, justice and human rights which have emerged as the central themes not only of the New Deal but of the global civil society response to the High Level Panel, leading them to call for a specific peace and justice goal in the post-2015 framework in those terms.

You have to ask why the ODI don't agree. 

Post 2015: Development redefined, but can we adjust?

Baton is passed

The High Level Panel report on the post 2015 development agenda has redefined development and placed the most difficult issues, that have robbed the poorest and most vulnerable from sharing in the progress enjoyed by some since the MDGs were first unveiled, centre stage.

We know that 1.5 billion people live in countries that have made the least, if any, progress toward the technical milestones of progress represented by the MDGs. Just stop to think for a moment about that number. 1.5 billion out of a global population of just over 7 billion.

The reason for this was that world leaders at the time simply avoided one of the most obvious reasons for extreme poverty in front of them – bad or non-existent governance and resource capture by rapacious elites, in many places – and opted for global measures that would allow them to maintain the pretence that you could somehow end poverty by massive financial transfers, in many cases to those same elites, while concentrating solely on technical projects that had nothing to do with the political factors lying at the heart of so much human misery. Vested interests, from donors and recipient governments, as well as the aid industry itself, won out. Progress, in some cases amazing progress, was nonetheless reserved exclusively for people living in areas that were already relatively stable.

The Panel have identified five “transformational shifts” to deliver radical change in pursuit of the goal to end extreme poverty by 2030. One of those is peace and security, both as an inalienable human right to which all should be entitled but also as a basic pre-requisite to growth. Sounds simple, and many have been saying it for years, but it’s going to mean some fundamental change – both for governments and the aid industry itself.

High Level Panel

Gone is the certainty of only responding to violence in a way that picks up the pieces, such as services for victims of sexual violence. In is the approach that also sees the active political participation of those communities – including women, the young and people with disabilities – as a non-negotiable part of the deal. Superb. And we have some of the more progressive voices from within the Panel, which inevitably had internal differences, to thank for it. Here’s Sweden’s Foreign Minister Gunilla Carlsson on the thinking behind it:

"We have had frank debates, and I have chosen to focus on areas that often encounter resistance around the world. I am therefore pleased that the panel was finally able to agree on strong language on, for example, political freedom, freedom from corruption and the importance of sexual and reproductive rights. It's a great victory, certainly for Sweden, but above all for people around the world living in poverty and exclusion…"

Not sure about the ‘victory for Sweden’ language, there, but you get the picture. Ms Carlsson was one of the stars of the Panel for me, diplomatically but very firmly rejecting the idea of some of her colleagues that all we needed to do was roll over the MDGs.

So what does this new world of political inclusion and active citizenship look like? Highlights from the report include:

• More jobs and equitable growth
• Improved political governance and effective institutions
• Stable and peaceful societies
• Sustainable management of natural resources

So in other words growth in which everyone can participate and freedom from violence tackled by giving people a say in the governance of their countries and communities. The logic was quite nicely summed up by Owen Barder in his weekend blog entitled “it’s the politics, stupid”.

No single lobby got everything they wanted out of this process. They were never going to. And it was clear from the two hour lobby-fest that the Panel were subjected to by the 200 or so lobbyists that took part in the London meeting that there were going to be some upset people. Oxfam, for example, is upset that there was no goal on inequality.

And while this may look like a paradigm shift from a peace and conflict perspective, which it is, for me the relegation of the New Deal for Engagement on Fragile States to the status of an annexe at the back of the report is baffling, particularly since its implementation represents much of this new agenda in action, right now. During the Africa consultation of the UN Task Team on Post 2015’s Global Consultation on Conflict, Fragility and Disaster President Johnson-Sirleaf dropped in for what I will never forget was called a “Fragility Dinner” (yes, really) – the first thing she asked the UNDP bods was “where is the New Deal” and the last thing she asked them was, er, “where is the New Deal”. Well, it doesn’t seem to be anywhere in the report that she helped co-chair, much.

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf at the "Fragility Dinner": Where's the New Deal?

 So there will be obstacles. And they will come very soon and at times appear insurmountable. But while most people’s understanding of that is the power politics and inter-governmental negotiations that will now take place within the Open Working Group my own sense is that global civil society itself now needs to significantly up its game and, in some cases, work in very different ways.

I have been told by several officials closely involved with the High Level Panel, from a number of countries, that their greatest fear is that the momentum of this report is somehow lost or diluted. And that fear is well placed. Those elites in 2000 that opposed any reference to peace, security or political participation to the last set of MDGs are in many cases still there. And some of the newly powerful actors in global governance are at best ambivalent about the ideas. 

So what should we do? In my view, for what it is worth, we need to think about legitimacy, organisation and ideas.

Legitimacy

The Open Working Group is a strange name for a group where the main business will be conducted, in classic UN style, behind closed doors. The meetings will not be where the action is at. It will be, to a large degree, a closed working group. In fact one senior official who will be representing their country at some of these negotiations told me that it is already known as the “open wound group” which at least shows that there is a good sense of dark humour among some of them!

Civil society needs to shine a consistent light on how the group is working, and the activities of its members between now and the conclusion of its work.

This will be actively welcomed by some, and very much resisted and resented by others. It may be that some civil society groups are actively intimidated by their own governments from speaking out. How is global civil society going to support them? One way, it strikes me, is through making information available using new technologies and old, in the way that the MyWorld consultation has apparently managed to do with a great deal of success. If MyWorld, as imperfect as it is, manages to generate a sustained public involvement in the debate which is demonstrably coming from the ground up, even the hardest nosed negotiators will find it hard to justify ignoring them.

Organisation

The Beyond2015 coalition has been more effective than many of us I think expected it to be. Civil society recognised that we needed a platform and formed one. But networks need to be maintained and kept active, and what concerns me at present is that while the High Level Panel along with the UN Task Team events led to literally hundreds of opportunities around which civil society could interact and mobilise there is no obvious means by which the Open Working Group provides the same level of engagement. How do you interact, for example, if you are a grassroots organisation in a country who’s government is not even a member of the Open Working Group? The coalition will need to find a way to facilitate that active discourse.

Globally, despite all our disappointments at various elements of the report, we will need to recognise that this is the best chance we have to achieve a vision of development that actually works for everyone. And that will mean coming together and getting behind it in a co-ordinated way. 

Ideas

We are in a new phase of global governance. New powers have risen as have new coalitions among them. The High Level Panel consisted of classic representatives of governments, but it also included a human rights activist and CEO of a global corporation. The Panel identified civil society, youth and business as their core constituencies with which to engage and the report is clear that the private sector, for example, has a key role to play.

I do worry, then, when I hear perfectly legitimate complaints about tax avoidance appearing to spill over sometimes into an anti business approach by some. I have been at numerous discussions in the last months at which “business” has been spoken about as if they are the enemy and a threat. They are not. In fact at local level they are often the same people who take huge risks to bring peace to their communities, while developing opportunities for people to pursue their own ambitions and provide for their families.

So just as governments will need to adjust to a new way of doing business, some of the old ideology of the aid industry may also need to change. The reality is that we all need checks and balances, business, government and us included, but we are all part of the solution.

Interesting times ahead.

MEPs size up BRICs: but who are they both?

In a typically impenetrable EU document, meant as a press release but written more like an insurance policy, the European Parliament has given an insight into how it regards the emerging BRIC bloc as a potential foreign policy actor. The question seems to be “are they partners, or rivals … and who are they anyway?" while their very long answer seems to go to the heart of who or what the EU should be as a global foreign policy power for the next decade which makes it quite interesting as Europe starts to consider who should replace the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, who has announced she will be stepping down next year.

The EU has a foreign policy?

The EU’s own evolution as a foreign policy actor is frequently talked about from a negative starting point. There are, after all, no shortage of examples from Yugoslavia, the on-going games of nuclear footsie with the Iranians and a failure to predict or respond to the Arab Spring to illustrate its weaknesses.

Yet the recent Serbia-Kosovo accord, for which High Representative Cathy Ashton was rightly lauded, is not easily dismissed and suggests that when the EU plays to its strengths then breakthroughs in the most irreconcilable situations can become possible.

What’s the big picture?

Foreign policy analysts tend to look at the EU’s evolution from three perspectives. A realism perspective holds that this is all about balancing: pure power politics in this case aimed at giving Europe enough weight to push back against the dominant US. Liberal theorists think this is an outdated view and suggest that it is instead a collaborationist venture with partnership and trade at its core. While normative thinkers bewail the EU’s abandonment of its original aim of being a civilian power, projecting values instead of soldiers, and suggest that this is all now part of a journey towards supranational statehood with the acquisition of accoutrements of statehood along the way, such as the Common Security & Defence Policy.

Whichever is closer to the truth probably depends on who you ask, but the emergence of an alternative power, trading or value system in the form of the BRICs is a direct challenge to any and all of those agendas, so no surprise that the European Parliament has been giving it some thought.

Martin Schulz

Why should we care what the Parliament thinks?

The European Parliament has long been a paper tiger, with MEPs unable to exert any influence between the two extremes of a) nothing and b) Armageddon. The Armageddon option has only been used once, triggering the resignation of the entire Commission, so they rarely present a major challenge to Berlaymont.

So who cares, you might ask.

The answer is that in recent years the Parliament has grown in bargaining power vis the other three elements of the EU – the executive arm of the Commission, the Member State Council and the European Court. This can be observed by the likelihood that the budget recently agreed by the Council and Commission will be rejected by the Parliament and be re-negotiated, while the current President of the Parliament Martin Schulz is widely regarded as the incoming President of the Commission.

Put that power next to the forthcoming 18 months of jockeying for position to replace Cathy Ashton as the next High Representative, and you have a Parliament entering and shaping the debate about what that replacement should actually be doing. In other words, what is the role of the EU as an actor on the global stage for the next decade? So they matter, for once.

Altogether now

What do they think of the BRICS, then?

It makes interesting reading. If you separate out some of the ridiculous demands, such as the Parliament should be represented in bilateral meetings between the EU and BRIC countries (what other foreign ministry would do that?) and the mundane, then you have some very pertinent observations that are worth dwelling on. There are too many to list exhaustively, but three stand out for me.

First, the BRICS are not a coherent group. The MEPs note:

“major differences characterise them in political, economic and social terms; … in particular, that their political systems vary from strong authoritarian regimes to credible and stable democracies; [and calls on] the EU to step up relations and develop synergies, in particular, with those BRICS that genuinely share and respect democratic values and strive for a social market economy.”

So, roughly translates as develop relations with India and Brazil, while taking Russia and China to task over civil liberties. Big ask.

Secondly, the EU’s power is not on the wane in the new multi-polar world, represented by the rise of the BRICs, or “emerging powers”:

“…with the emergence of new economic and foreign policy powers, the EU will not see its leverage reduced but has an important role to play in promoting a common understanding on policy choices and should show leadership in tackling global challenges; … the EU and its transatlantic partners should focus on achieving the necessary economies of scale and develop concerted efforts to enable them to interact with the emerging powers constructively and effectively both in a bilateral and multilateral fashion, and in a spirit of true partnership and good cooperation; [there is a] need to develop an inclusive system of global governance, based on cooperation and coordination with the BRICS and other emerging countries, as appropriate, for the benefit of all; [which] points further to the key role of the EU and its transatlantic partners in promoting an inclusive system of global governance; [and] that the EU should act more strategically so as to bring Europe's true weight to bear internationally, in particular by managing the implications of interdependence, instigating reforms of global governance, and mobilising collective action in areas such as the rule of law, sustainable environment and regional security, through constructive interaction with the BRICS and other emerging powers”

Bit of a long one that but I thought it worth quoting in full – they seem, in classic liberal terms, to be calling for a new world order based on collaboration (note “with our transatlantic colleagues” interestingly, no realist balancing of the US here), free trade and the rule of law. Not a bad goal, if a little lofty.

And thirdly, despite all this new world order stuff, we’d quite like global governance to pretty much stay as it is, please:

"[The Parliament] believes that the current sovereign debt crisis will be an important test for the G-20 as an effective forum for strategic political dialogue able to promote a truly global system of economic and financial governance reflecting the interdependence between developed economies and emerging ones, creating the foundations for the elimination of systemic unbalances which can be particularly damaging both for developed economies and, in a longer-term perspective, emerging ones, and promoting solidarity in international financial fora such as the International Monetary Fund”

Ignoring the fact that the G20 does not include many nations who would, both by population size and GDP, surely equal those who are members (such as Indonesia) the Parliament is here calling for things to stay as they are. Indeed the reference to the IMF is also interesting – especially since the Director is always European, by tradition. So no great difficulty working out what’s going on there.

So what do they want?

Looking at these three it seems the Parliament want a) to be at the negotiating table, b) a bit of new world order based on liberal trade and c) for the EU’s foreign policy goal to be to defend Europe’s grip on at least some of the levers of global governance. A cocktail of liberal free trade with a dash of power politics.

Will they get it? Doubtful, but as a contribution to the debate over how Europe's role as a global foreign policy actor in the next decade, it’s not a bad starter.