That will not be easy. As a senior diplomat close to negotiations explained to the Diplomatic Courier, “focusing too much on a post-2015 framework might undermine our incentive to accomplish the goals at hand. But we must accomplish the MDGs to prove to the world that we are qualified to lead a post-2015 framework. We must walk and chew gum at the same time.”
The world body’s ability to meet the 21st century’s biggest challenges may be riding on it.
Track One: Meet the 2015 Deadline
Global leaders convened a high-level summit at the UN headquarters in 2010 to evaluate the first 10 years of the MDGs experiment and plan for the final five. They emerged from the meeting with a mixed outlook. On the upside, record levels of official development assistance (ODA) in 2010, combined with increased aid flows to the world’s least developed countries and the creation of new development partnerships, have given fresh impetus to the maturing program.
But three major obstacles stand in the way. First, despite donor governments’ record levels of spending in 2010, the projections from 2011 to 2013 are more modest. Second, in spite of intense efforts at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to revitalize the Doha Development Agenda—which seeks to stimulate global trade by lowering trade barriers—there are no assurances the Round will deliver. Finally, the prohibitive costs associated with increasing access to medicines, information, and communication technologies have stifled development efforts. A stubborn global financial downturn is exacerbating all of these obstacles.
Track Two: Develop a Post-MDGs Framework
The following year, Secretary-General Ban-Ki moon debuted the dual track strategy. Part rally cry to meet the 2015 deadline, part justification should the UN fail to do so, the report smacked of an MDGs re-election campaign. Its central messages were that “the MDGs will still be relevant after 2015” and that the UN is best equipped to lead post-2015 efforts.
Indeed, the MDGs will still be relevant after 2015. But the UN’s role in the process may not be. The post-2015 framework could take many forms, and fall under the direction of a variety of (non-UN) actors. It could be as simple as pushing back the deadline and raising the targets, or as complex as collapsing the old structure and building anew. There may be no post-2015 framework at all, if indecision or disagreement sap political will and derail implementation efforts.
Post-2015 Options
Amy Pollard of the Catholic Overseas Development Agency (CAFOD) sees five distinct ways in which a post-2015 framework could develop: a legitimate UN-led process; an “inside-out framework” where UN experts implement a politically inspired vision; an “outside-in framework” in which civil society organizations lobby governments to adopt a development plan; a “jigsaw framework,” whereby political coalitions such as the G8, the BRICS, and others “piece together” goals and targets for the broader international community to follow; and failure.
In the first scenario, the UN develops a new framework through a series of international summits in which all 193 member states participate. Ultimately, the General Assembly ratifies the framework, endowing it with legitimacy, universal ownership, and maximum buy-in. The problem with an inclusive, UN-led route, Pollard notes, is that “ratification through the UN General Assembly risks ending up with a lowest common denominator framework,” a process the current MDGs framework would likely not have survived.
The “inside-out framework,” by contrast, lacks legitimacy, ownership, and buy-in. However, its exclusive, expert-led process, could “secure a more ambitious set of goals precisely because it avoids bringing contentious and technical issues into political arena composed of 192 countries,” according to Pollard. Indeed, the MDGs were created in this very way—though many argue that was a fluke. The next framework will undoubtedly be more inclusive, they say.
The “outside-in framework” could gain traction if the UN is unwilling or unable to take the lead. Even then, however, Pollard sees at least three challenges: convincing myriad civil society actors to focus on one framework; having it ready to implement by 2015; and finally, lobbying governments to sign up for it one-by-one—a multi-year process in itself.
The fourth scenario also arises from an absence of UN leadership. To fill that void, “pieces of a new framework are brokered one-by-one through the G20, G8, UNFCCC, and other international policy processes,” Pollard explains. Then, “as 2015 approaches, these coalitions work to ‘piece together’ individual goals and targets, eventually forming something like a coherent framework.” The likelihood of back door deals driving the negotiation process is high, while the prospects for efficient integration of the different goals low.
Plan For Failure to Succeed
Failure is also a possibility. There are no assurances that the international community will muster the political will necessary to develop and implement a post-2015 development framework. If too many of the MDGs’ targets are missed, for example, or if divergent interests impede compromise, the value of a new global development agreement may be called into question.
One thing is certain. In September 2015, when world leaders convene a high-level summit at the UN headquarters, its ability to walk and chew gum at the same time will determine whether it is capable of leading the next phase of the most ambitious development project in history. More importantly, its relevance in tackling 21st century problems will be on the line.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's January/February issue.
Photo: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters
a global affairs media network
The UN’s Millennium Dilemma
February 10, 2012
That will not be easy. As a senior diplomat close to negotiations explained to the Diplomatic Courier, “focusing too much on a post-2015 framework might undermine our incentive to accomplish the goals at hand. But we must accomplish the MDGs to prove to the world that we are qualified to lead a post-2015 framework. We must walk and chew gum at the same time.”
The world body’s ability to meet the 21st century’s biggest challenges may be riding on it.
Track One: Meet the 2015 Deadline
Global leaders convened a high-level summit at the UN headquarters in 2010 to evaluate the first 10 years of the MDGs experiment and plan for the final five. They emerged from the meeting with a mixed outlook. On the upside, record levels of official development assistance (ODA) in 2010, combined with increased aid flows to the world’s least developed countries and the creation of new development partnerships, have given fresh impetus to the maturing program.
But three major obstacles stand in the way. First, despite donor governments’ record levels of spending in 2010, the projections from 2011 to 2013 are more modest. Second, in spite of intense efforts at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to revitalize the Doha Development Agenda—which seeks to stimulate global trade by lowering trade barriers—there are no assurances the Round will deliver. Finally, the prohibitive costs associated with increasing access to medicines, information, and communication technologies have stifled development efforts. A stubborn global financial downturn is exacerbating all of these obstacles.
Track Two: Develop a Post-MDGs Framework
The following year, Secretary-General Ban-Ki moon debuted the dual track strategy. Part rally cry to meet the 2015 deadline, part justification should the UN fail to do so, the report smacked of an MDGs re-election campaign. Its central messages were that “the MDGs will still be relevant after 2015” and that the UN is best equipped to lead post-2015 efforts.
Indeed, the MDGs will still be relevant after 2015. But the UN’s role in the process may not be. The post-2015 framework could take many forms, and fall under the direction of a variety of (non-UN) actors. It could be as simple as pushing back the deadline and raising the targets, or as complex as collapsing the old structure and building anew. There may be no post-2015 framework at all, if indecision or disagreement sap political will and derail implementation efforts.
Post-2015 Options
Amy Pollard of the Catholic Overseas Development Agency (CAFOD) sees five distinct ways in which a post-2015 framework could develop: a legitimate UN-led process; an “inside-out framework” where UN experts implement a politically inspired vision; an “outside-in framework” in which civil society organizations lobby governments to adopt a development plan; a “jigsaw framework,” whereby political coalitions such as the G8, the BRICS, and others “piece together” goals and targets for the broader international community to follow; and failure.
In the first scenario, the UN develops a new framework through a series of international summits in which all 193 member states participate. Ultimately, the General Assembly ratifies the framework, endowing it with legitimacy, universal ownership, and maximum buy-in. The problem with an inclusive, UN-led route, Pollard notes, is that “ratification through the UN General Assembly risks ending up with a lowest common denominator framework,” a process the current MDGs framework would likely not have survived.
The “inside-out framework,” by contrast, lacks legitimacy, ownership, and buy-in. However, its exclusive, expert-led process, could “secure a more ambitious set of goals precisely because it avoids bringing contentious and technical issues into political arena composed of 192 countries,” according to Pollard. Indeed, the MDGs were created in this very way—though many argue that was a fluke. The next framework will undoubtedly be more inclusive, they say.
The “outside-in framework” could gain traction if the UN is unwilling or unable to take the lead. Even then, however, Pollard sees at least three challenges: convincing myriad civil society actors to focus on one framework; having it ready to implement by 2015; and finally, lobbying governments to sign up for it one-by-one—a multi-year process in itself.
The fourth scenario also arises from an absence of UN leadership. To fill that void, “pieces of a new framework are brokered one-by-one through the G20, G8, UNFCCC, and other international policy processes,” Pollard explains. Then, “as 2015 approaches, these coalitions work to ‘piece together’ individual goals and targets, eventually forming something like a coherent framework.” The likelihood of back door deals driving the negotiation process is high, while the prospects for efficient integration of the different goals low.
Plan For Failure to Succeed
Failure is also a possibility. There are no assurances that the international community will muster the political will necessary to develop and implement a post-2015 development framework. If too many of the MDGs’ targets are missed, for example, or if divergent interests impede compromise, the value of a new global development agreement may be called into question.
One thing is certain. In September 2015, when world leaders convene a high-level summit at the UN headquarters, its ability to walk and chew gum at the same time will determine whether it is capable of leading the next phase of the most ambitious development project in history. More importantly, its relevance in tackling 21st century problems will be on the line.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's January/February issue.
Photo: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters
