A Post-2015 Framework for Development: Starting a Substantive Conversation
From Wikiprogress.org
A Post-2015 Framework for Development:Starting a Substantive Conversation
This article was prepared for the Overseas Development Institute (ODI)/United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Cairo workshop on a post-2015 Global Development Agreement, 26-27 October 2011.
In prevision of the expiration of the MDGs in 2015, UNDP and ODI organized a framework about a framework post-2015 Sticking with the framework is may not be the wisest choice since new challenges have emerged, the development landscape has changed and new issues like human rights and climate change are increasingly pertinent and related to development issues. New development partners like China are focusing in the infrastructure and capacity-building whereas the MDGs aimed at the social sectors.
The report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress about how to conceptualize well-being can serve as starting point for a framework post-2015. “Development in the MDGs largely reflects a basic needs agenda, but this fails to capture the broader dynamic of development (particularly growth and employment, but also human rights, empowerment and dignity).”
The workshop centered on “what norms should be promoted in a new framework?”and there were two positions to that question: one encouraged a more ambitious agenda and the second established that a development framework should reflect a global policy consensus and therefore a narrower and more realistic agenda should suffice.
Key question for post 2015:
Four key questions were discussed in the workshop.
What would we want a global agreement to do, and how?
The key issues in this session was about finding the balance between what kind of agreement would be useful for the progress of the development agenda beyond 2015 and what was feasible politically. As such, the main conclusions were to deepen the current framework by adding indicators such as inequality (which could be tackled by new targets or a change in the monitoring of the existing ones), the addition of indicators pertaining to employment/economic production and growth and if goals and targets were the best way to promote them. Global issues such as migration, trade and climate would make the current framework more comprehensive but political obstacles might and the difficulty to find a consensus on these topics among countries might preclude them from the post-2015 framework. The workshop called too, for the inclusion of targets based on well-being, as stated in the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress report.
How could an agreement be designed to encourage these changes at global or national level?
The second session proposed guidelines for any changes of the framework, of the indicators and of the monitoring. Three options were considered:
- Same goals new framework and agreement
- New goals and same framework or
- New goals and new framework with the possibility to include the indicators presented in the Stiglitz commission
The targets of a new agreement might include the national government, the donors and the private sector. As such, it will create a balance between national considerations and global progress. Changes could be made at the national level in both developed and developing countries or at the global level. Peer pressure was considered as a good incentive to push for change at both levels.
How should a new global agreement link to the national level?
There was a recognition that while targets were global, development happens at the national level. To reconcile global targets and national realities, three options were put forward:
- The targets could shape the relations between aid donors and recipient governments.
- Targets could be promoted via activists and supporters.
- Targets could be put aside on the national level while focusing on good policy on progress and poverty issues.
What kind of politics and coalitions are needed to produce a new global agreement?
Participants were quite pessimistic on the prospects of a multilateral agreement and therefore were more keen to put forward a narrow agenda,which would be more feasible. Developing countries could take the lead and present a new framework for the post-2015 development agenda. A lot of work could be done among the UN bodies, NGOs and academists to push for a new agenda, after 2015.
See also
References
Overseas Development Institute and UNDP. A Post-2015 Framework for Development: Starting a Substantive Conversation.Workshop Report26-27 October 2011. Cairo, Egypt.http://www.odi.org.uk/events/docs/4872.pdf.
