URU, Alm.del - 2011-12 - Bilag 233: Henvendelse af 29/6-12 fra Concord Danmark om Europa-Kommissionens høring "Towards a Post-2015 Development Framework"

Introduction: the changing landscapeIn 2013, a UN special event will follow up on efforts made towards achieving theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs) and will likely raise the issue of what mightfollow after the target year of 2015. Following the decisions taken at the reviewmeeting in 2010, the UN Secretary General has started preparatory work.The global political and economic landscape has significantly changed over recentyears. Growth in emerging economies has become the key driver of global growth.Disparities within and between developing countries have increased and the GNI percapita of a few upper middle-income countries has outscored some European memberstates. Likewise, new actors have emerged in the development sphere, includingprivate actors. Some of these were also acknowledged in the Global Partnership forEffective Development Cooperation, agreed at the Busan High Level Forum on AidEffectiveness in 20111.Recently, discussions on the formulation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)have been held in the context of the Rio+20 Conference. The outcomes at Rio willinfluence the process for any post-2015 development framework.The Millennium Declaration2, affirming the "collective responsibility to uphold theprinciples of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level" remains relevantin many aspects. But we must take into account new global realities and trends –political economy, major macroeconomic shifts, climate change and depletion ofnatural resources, crises and volatility, population dynamics, governance issues andhuman development challenges, migration, mobility, among others.This debate gives rise to different options and scenarios to be considered for post-2015. None of them can be excluded at this early stage. Options could either bedesigned following the logic of the MDG framework with new time-lines, with orwithout new goals, targets or indicators, or proposing a more fundamentally revisedapproach to development.

The post-MDG agenda is being discussed in many quarters. Governments,international institutions, think-tanks and non-governmental organisations are startingto debate a post-2015 framework. The number of workshops and recent publicationsconfirm a growing interest in this issue.The EU, which continues to actively support the MDGs, is engaging in this debate. Inparallel, the independent European Report on Development (ERD)32013 willconsider some of the main challenges for the next 15 years and reflect on how theinternational community could help address them, including through a potential post-2015 development framework.The Commission in consultation with the EEAS is currently preparing a basis for theEU's initial contribution to the forthcoming international discussions, setting outprinciples for an EU position on a post-2015 framework.The objective of the current Public Consultation is to inform the preparation ofan EU contribution to the UN process.This public consultation is published on the Commission's website(http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/). The consultation will run from 15/06/2012 to15/09/2012 and is open to any interested stakeholder. Individuals, organisations(governmental/non-governmental, parliamentary, academic, private sector etc) andcountries are invited to send their contributions, in the form of answers to thequestions presented in the document and/or as general comments on the issues raised.Contributions received will be published, possibly in a summarised form, unless theauthor objects to publication of their personal data on the grounds that suchpublication would harm his/her legitimate interests. In this case, the contribution maybe published in anonymous form. Otherwise, the contribution will not be publishednor, in principle, will its content be taken into account. Furthermore, since the launchin June 2008 of the Register for Interest Representatives (lobbyists) as part of theEuropean Transparency Initiative, organisations are invited to use this Register toprovide the European Commission and the public at large with information abouttheir objectives, funding and structures. It is Commission policy that submissionsfrom organisations will be considered as individual contributions unless theorganisations have registered.Contributions should be sent to:[email protected]Enquiries about this consultation can be sent to the same mailbox, or to theEuropean Commission, DG Development, Unit DEVCO.A1, Office 11/41, B 1049Brussels, Belgium.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION QUESTIONSThe consultation seeks stakeholders' views on four aspects of the debate on the post-2015 development agenda:A. The MDGs: benefits and limitationsB. Feasibility of a future frameworkC. The potential scope of a future frameworkD. The potential shape of a future frameworkBelow a brief explanation of each of these issues, followed by a set of questions towhich to respond.(Pleaselimit your responses to max 2 pages per issue)A. The MDGs: benefits and limitationsIt is generally recognised that the MDG framework has been powerful in catalysingpolitical momentum for development and that it has been instrumental in supportingan increase in Official Development Assistance (ODA) after a period of declinefollowing the end of the Cold War. The MDG-framework has put the global spotlighton poverty eradication as the central objective of development cooperation and madeit an important objective of international relations in general.As far as the EU is concerned, the MDGs have been key priorities of EU developmentpolicy since their inception in 2000. With the adoption of the European Consensus onDevelopment4in 2005, they became EU commitments in a politically bindingdocument agreed by the Commission, Council and Parliament. The second revision ofthe Cotonou Agreement5(2010) and the EU's financial instruments for externalaction6all refer to the MDGs as shared objectives. The MDGs have therefore playedan important role in driving and focusing the development policies and practices ofboth the EU and its Member States. Similar policy impacts have also been observedamong other donors and development actors.As an example of an MDG targeted initiative, and as part of the EU's continuingeffort to support progress towards the MDGs, €1 billion of extra financing wasmobilised in 2010 for the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries through the EUMDG Initiative. This Initiative focuses on countries that have high quality policies toachieve results in the areas where progress is most needed: hunger, water andsanitation, maternal health and child mortality.

Through the Agenda for Change7the EU has reaffirmed its focus on reducing andeventually eradicating poverty, as mandated in the Lisbon Treaty, and committeditself to increasing the impact of its development policy on poverty and the MDGs.This is to contribute as much as possible in the global effort to achieve the MDGs by2015, an aim from which the EU has not wavered.Yet, at the same time, the MDG-framework has not been without criticism. Firstly,most of the MDGs are based on desired social outcomes (such as poverty and hungereradication, health, education, gender). The importance of issues such as growth andquality jobs, equity and social protection, governance and human rights, conflict andfragility, population dynamics or environment and climate change in eradicatingpoverty and hunger may, some have argued, not have been emphasised sufficiently.Secondly, the MDG indicators are monitored using country averages and they oftenhide growing inequalities within countries, between regions and groups of thepopulation, and between women and men. Thirdly, it has sometimes been difficult totranslate the global goals into specific national targets and hence into nationalprogrammes of action and there has been criticism of it being a donor-drivenapproach. At country level, there is no real certainty that the MDGs have transformedpolicies deeply.

A: The MDGs: benefits and limitations1. To what extent has the MDG framework influenced policies in the country/iesor sectors you work in/with?2. To what extent has the MDG framework been beneficial for the poor in thecountry/ies or sectors in/with which you work?3. What features and elements of the MDG framework have been particularlyvaluable in the fight against poverty?4. What features and elements of the MDG framework have been problematic, inyour view?5. In your view, what are the main gaps, if any, in the MDG framework?

B. Feasibility of a future frameworkWhile the first and overriding political priority is to ensure that the MDGs are met by2015, in as many countries and regions as possible, the debate is also beginning on"what happens after 2015."Looking to the future, we can begin to identify both opportunities and challengesassociated with formulating a framework to follow on from the current MDGs after2015.From a development perspective, some of the advantages of having a post-2015framework could include:A framework could give a positive signal that the international community iscoming together as one to solve some of the global challenges. This could lead to areal partnership of nations and a new vision of the future of internationalcooperation.A framework could bringallcountries (developed, developing, emerging) and allactors (traditional and new donors, developing country governments, the privatesector, NGOs, social partners, etc.) into a coherent and inclusive process whereresponsibility is shared. Such a framework could therefore go beyond the currentconcept of public action and aid.A framework could provide a more comprehensive approach to povertyeradication, placing it in a broader political and economic context, and in particularcould better encompass the three dimensions of sustainable development,economic, social and environmental, as well as promote rights-based approaches.While it may seem appropriate to seize the opportunity to boost poverty eradicationglobally, nationally and locally, there are also challenges and costs associated todeveloping a post-2015:The relevance and credibility of designing a post-2015 framework with new ormore goals could be challenged if important parts of the existing MDG-frameworkhave not yet been achieved.A set of representative goals – particularly if they are global goals - might bedifficult to negotiate: too many actors, too many conflicting interests, too hard toquantify, with a possible risk of failure.There are already numerous frameworks, initiatives, agreements and consensusdocuments that guide international relations (UN Declarations and Conventions,Human Rights Law) and help international actors deliver development cooperation(e.g. Global Partnership on Effective Development Co-operation, the EuropeanConsensus) or address global challenges (e.g. the G20 Seoul consensus, Energy forAll, Education for All, L'Aquila Food Security Initiative, the UNFCCC and Kyotoprocesses). In this light, the Millennium Declaration could prove sufficient, on itsown, to guide development policies and international cooperation.

B. Feasibility of a future framework6. In your view, in what way, if at all, could a future framework have an impactat global level in terms of global governance, consensus building, cooperation,etc.?7. To what extent is a global development framework approach necessary oruseful to improve accountability with regard to poverty reduction policies indeveloping countries?8. What could be the advantages and disadvantages of a global developmentframework for your organisation/sector, including how you work effectivelywith your partners?C. The potential scope of a future agendaGiven the changing political-economic landscape and the importance of globalchallenges, some suggest the need to shift towards the principle of "universality" – i.e.a future framework should be applicable in all countries (developed, emerging,developing, fragile), spelling an end to the donor-beneficiary approach. A broad post-2015 framework could help consolidate the shift away from the increasinglyirrelevant North-South discourse that up until recently has dominated internationaldevelopment thinking and practice.A framework could be an opportunity to make real progress on policy coherence fordevelopment (PCD)8. Some of the underlying causes and factors affecting poverty liebeyond the remit of development cooperation and of Official Development Assistance(ODA), relying on integrated policy agendas, and these could be better included andaddressed in a future framework. PCD could become a key element at partner countrylevel, as well as at the level of international institutions and donors. In this way, wecould also see an increase in development effectiveness.The post 2015 debate should be an opportunity to reflect on the need to develop anintegrated and comprehensive approach to development financing, building on theMonterrey Consensus as well as interrelated policy areas (e.g. Trade, Climate change,Environment).It could therefore question the nature and role of ODA and of other innovative sourcesof financing.

C. The potential scope of a future agenda9. In your view, what should be the primary purpose of a future framework?10. In your view, should its scope be global, relevant for all countries?11. To what extent should a future framework focus on the poorest and mostfragile countries, or also address development objectives relevant in othercountries?12. How could a new development agenda involve new actors, including theprivate sector and emerging donors?13. How could a future framework support improved policy coherence fordevelopment (PCD), at global, EU and country levels?14. How could a new framework improve development financing?D. The potential shape of a future agendaIf a positive decision is taken to formulate a post-2015 development framework, whatshould it look like? The options include:continuing the existing MDG frameworkwithoutchanging the goals, targets,indicators and instruments, but setting a new time-line;continuing on from the existing MDG framework butwithnew goals, targets,indicators and instruments;a new approach to development, for instance going beyond development policies,development cooperation and ODA, towards a more comprehensive internationalagenda.When defining the shape of any future framework, many decisions will need to betaken, including:What sectors or areas the framework should focus on;How the framework should be structured – e.g. goals, targets and indicators aswith the current MDGs or a more general framework of commitments?How the framework could be implemented and resourced.How the framework should be monitored and progress measured, including theneed to adapt and strengthen statistical capacity;How the partners to the framework should be held accountable;