UN World Summit 2005: What is at stake?
 

by Eveline Herfkens

Over the last few weeks, the focus of the world's media has turned towards negotiations within the United Nations on the outcome document for the September World Summit. While detailed negotiations on 39-page bureaucratic documents don't usually make for great headlines, the battles raging between Member States have caught the attention of the international press.

This is because Member States have been arguing about the most minimal of collective commitments, even simple restatements of past promises. Most worrying has been the possibility that Member States dilute their commitment to the Millennium Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

That being said, I am not convinced that the policy changes required to meet the MDGs can be achieved through texts such as the Summit outcome document.

Of course, I am not saying that the outcome of the Summit is unimportant. Far from it. At a minimum, the outcome should reinforce and not water down the international commitments included in the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs.

Nevertheless, the internationally-agreed language included in such documents, by its very nature is vague (i.e. it is not country-specific) and usually reflects the lowest common denominator between countries with differing interests and opportunities. More importantly, if such commitments are not translated into concrete action by individual countries, there can be no progress in addressing the extreme poverty suffered by millions in developing countries.

Goals should be met. The Goals will only be met if individual countries implement what they have promised and go beyond the minimal international consensus wherever possible.

One country that has done this is Sweden, which will provide 1 per cent of GNI in official development assistance next year. Countries in East Asia and Latin America are another example, as some have decided to extend the Goal on universal access to education beyond primary to secondary education.

The Summit provides a golden opportunity for leaders from both rich and poor countries to announce country-specific action plans to make their commitments concrete. Action plans should be tailored to the national context and should include quantified commitments and time-bound implementation schedules.

Commitments are not worth the paper they are written on, if they are not followed through. Rich countries should focus on aid, debt and trade. Those that have not already done so should set a timetable and implementation schedule for increasing official development to at least 0.7 per cent of GNI by 2010 at the latest.

They also need to improve the effectiveness of aid: donors need to harmonise and streamline aid procedures and ensure that they support and don't undermine local priorities, programmes and capacity.

One measure that could immediately increase the value of assistance to poor countries would be to fully untie all aid. Debt relief should also be extended to cover 100 per cent of the official debt of all low-income countries, allowing resources to be released to finance development.

Perhaps most crucially developed countries need to reform trade and agricultural policies. Even if rich countries prefer to make formal commitments in the context of WTO negotiations, they need to fully engage now to ensure that the Doha round of negotiations will indeed be a development round as promised.

They need to be proactive in pushing the negotiations forward, for example by setting dates for the elimination of agricultural subsidies that distort the markets that poor countries depend upon, and by committing to full duty- and quota-free access for all low-income countries to allow them to sell their products on rich country consumer markets.

In turn, leaders of poor countries need to outline time-bound action plans for meeting the Goals in their countries and for improving governance, accountability and transparency. The opportunity offered to world leaders to announce their concrete plans country-by-country, is the reason why I remain hopeful that the Summit can make a difference in meeting the Goals. However, leaders cannot afford to be complacent.

The first five years since the adoption of the Goals show why we cannot rest on our laurels. While there has been some progress, it is limited and patchy and slow. If current trends continue there will be large gaps between targets and outcomes by 2015.

The human costs of the failure to meet the Goals would be staggering. Focusing on just one indicator, according to the 2005 Human Development Report, based on current trends we are likely to miss the target for reducing child mortality, meaning an additional 41 million of avoidable child deaths between now and 2015.

We are the first generation to have the resources, knowledge and technology to end poverty. This is why I call upon governments to announce concrete plans of action at the Summit. The Millennium Campaign will be taking note of these commitments; we intend to monitor progress against them, and we are ready to help civil society and parliaments remind Governments when they are not meeting their promises.

We will be watching. Indeed the world will be watching. (IPS)

(The author is the Secretary General, Executive Coordinator for the MDG Campaign) (Deccan Herald)