Paying for Zero: A new global vision for sustainable development

forumblog.org, Mar 7th 2014

When the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were first established nearly 15 years ago, the half-joke reminder among global health experts was that they needed to replace the “M” with a “B” when talking about financing – meaning the solutions required budgets in the order of billions rather than millions of dollars. Today, as the MDGs approach their 2015 deadline and the world negotiates a new global vision for sustainable development, the time has come to shift mindsets from “B” to “T”, since the next frontier is talking about trillions of dollars in required investment throughout the global economy.

To that end, members of the Global Agenda Council on Poverty and Sustainable Development have this week released a report distilling key financing challenges to be addressed in establishing a new generation of global development goals. The report, Paying for Zero: Global Development Finance and the Post-2015 Agenda, stresses the crucial complementary roles and opportunities for public, private and “blended” finance at the domestic and international levels. The word “zero” is used to signal a broad theme of transformation for sustainable development: eliminating extreme poverty, eliminating the most pernicious forms of inequality, and eliminating environmentally unsustainable economic activities.

Stressing ongoing generational shifts in the global development landscape, the report argues that ambitious post-2015 goals will require accompanying ambition and innovation in development finance.Watch Full Movie Online Streaming Online and Download

The conclusions tackle a wide range of issues, including:

  • Development finance will increasingly be integrated across types. Flows from public finance will need to leverage additional private finance, and all forms of finance will need to adhere to common standards of transparency, measurement and reporting.
  • As many developing countries continue to make long-term economic gains, the process of graduation from official development assistance (ODA) needs very careful consideration. For example, emerging lower-middle-income countries, especially those with large numbers of extreme poor, should not face a stark drop-off in access to external finance.
  • It is crucial that the international community place special emphasis on protecting and enhancing properly-targeted ODA budgets. These will need to prioritize the poorest countries and programmes that most effectively reduce poverty. But even with complete success in eliminating extreme poverty by 2030, ODA will continue to play a crucial role tackling many deep global priorities through to 2030 and beyond.
  • Improving the capacity of developing countries to mobilize their own resources should be an important element of ODA, without imposing unwanted conditionalities.
  • Greatly enhanced instruments are needed to incentivize the amount and nature of required private finance post-2015. Big ticket investments in infrastructure, energy and agriculture will all require some degree of blending between public and private sources.
  • Many of the infrastructure investments for sustainable development will be the same ones that determine the future of the world’s climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.

The report’s release coincides with this week’s meetings of both the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing and the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals at the UN Headquarters in New York. The Global Agenda Council on Poverty and Sustainable Development brings together a variety of eminent leaders and practitioners from public, private and non-profit sectors around the world.  An earlier draft of the paper was circulated for public comment in January.

Author: John McArthur is a Senior Fellow at the United Nations Foundation and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader and chair of the Global Agenda Council on Poverty and Sustainable Development.

Image: People walk past closed shops in a slum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 23, 2013. REUTERS/Pilar Olivares.

 

How Much Aid for Basic Needs to 2030? Some Very Coarse Numbers

Brookings – Opinion | February 6, 2014

Amidst the growing global consensus around a target of “zero” extreme poverty for 2030, there is renewed debate around the role of official development assistance (ODA) and how much will be required to achieve the goal. The ideal way to assess this question would be through country-specific, bottom-up costing assessments that account for general equilibrium price dynamics and allow for the possibility of shocks, whether positive (e.g., technology) or negative (e.g., conflict or fuel price spikes). In the absence of such rigorous scenario-based analysis, some back-of-the-envelope calculations help inform the approximate orders of magnitude of aid required.

Two conceptually distinct approaches can help inform deliberations on the issue:

  • The first is to estimate the cost of essential services for extremely poor people and the amount of public expenditure required to finance them.
  • The second is to estimate the dollar value of the extreme poverty gap, i.e., the amount of transfers theoretically required to bring each person in the world up to a living standard of $1.25 a day.

1. Essential Services Budget GapWatch movie online The Transporter Refueled (2015)

A budget gap for basic services can be estimated through some simple arithmetic. Assume the following:

(1) A full package of basic public services for health, education, infrastructure, agriculture and public administration costs $200 per capita per year, including roughly $100-140 for Millennium Development Goal-type public investments (in line with the bottom-up estimates of the U.N. Millennium Project, 2005). [Read more…]

How to Pay for Sustainable Development?

Published January 24 at forumblog.orgfarmers

A plan without a budget is just a hallucination. My colleague Jasmine Whitbread, Chief Executive Officer of Save the Children International, cited this line in today’s televised Davos debate on the global agenda to end extreme poverty by 2030. A similar message was conveyed earlier in the day by Nigerian Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who stressed the need to come to grips with financing amid the interwoven practicalities of tackling climate change and global development goals.

The challenge for the world in this regard is that the nature of global development finance has changed tremendously over the past two decades. Targeted aid flows have increased, prompting tremendous breakthroughs in such areas as health and education. Meanwhile many developing countries have experienced long-term economic growth and thereby transitioned to more market-based financing mechanisms. Innovations have empowered many new sources of finance to contribute to global development. Government, business and civil society are increasingly seen as necessary partners for promoting prosperity and sustainability.Watch Full Movie Online Streaming Online and Download

A new generation of global priorities requires a renewed strategy for global development finance. Recognizing the complexity, many colleagues and I in the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Poverty and Sustainable Development have been working to distill some key issues to be addressed to underpin success after the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) expire at the end of next year.

This week we are circulating a working draft paper for feedback. Entitled “Paying for Zero: Global Development Finance and the Post-2015 Agenda”, the draft is shared to invite comments, and is not yet meant for quotation. It is intended as a contribution to ongoing global deliberations regarding the composition of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda.

Below is an excerpt from the draft’s concluding section. We look forward to comments and suggestions from all those who are interested.

“Financing a post-2015 sustainable development agenda will require policy-makers and publics to consolidate and bolster the key components of the current system that already work well, while addressing key constraints. At the same time they should expand the system to include a more nuanced and layered approach to match the evolving set of needs and actors around the world.

“We conclude with four key points:

  1. Transparency and accountability towards results must be a centrepiece of post-2015 finance. All stakeholders, public and private, must commit to common standards anchored in forthright reporting and measurement of transactions, beneficiaries and impacts.
  2. The ambition of ending extreme poverty by 2030 should not be confused with ending ODA by 2030. The needs for ODA go well beyond US$ 1.25/day poverty and even a fully successful extreme poverty agenda will likely require targeted support beyond 2030. Moreover, well targeted ODA is catalytic for mobilizing broader private sector investments. A dollar of ODA is typically the hardest dollar of development finance to mobilize. Even if required aid volumes might look smaller than complementary private volumes, ongoing political diligence will be required to ensure ODA is adequate to the post-2015 challenge.
  3. Greatly enhanced instruments are needed to accompany and incentivize the amount and nature of private finance that will be required to achieve a post-2015 sustainable development agenda. The biggest ticket investments are in infrastructure, energy and agriculture, all of which will typically require some degree of “blending,” whether in the form of risk guarantees, advantageous long-term borrowing structures or other appropriate structures. Many of these will also be the same investments that determine the future of the world’s climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.
  4. Private sector actors have a major role to play in partnering with government and civil society to ensure a suitably ambitious and fair approach to mobilizing post-2015 private development finance. Private investors need to know that policymakers are keen to create the incentives that will mobilize the needed long-term investments. Policy-makers need to fulfil their mandates in serving the public trust. And publics need to know that the gains will be widely and equitably shared, towards a sustainably prosperous global future for all.”

John McArthur is a Senior Fellow at the United Nations Foundation and a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader. He is participating in the Annual Meeting 2014 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland.

Image: Ethiopian farmers Mandefro Tesfaye and Tayto Mesfin collect wheat. REUTERS/Barry Malone

All opinions expressed are those of the author. The World Economic Forum Blog is an independent and neutral platform dedicated to generating debate around the key topics that shape global, regional and industry agendas.

Op-Ed: Canada’s next act of global health leadership

By John W. McArthur, Ottawa Citizen, November 27, 2013

Canada’s global health contributions remain underappreciated in our national debates. Amid flashpoint foreign policy topics of conflict and military deployment, the quieter business of delivering health services usually affects a far greater number of lives around the world. In recent years, Canada’s contributions have been nowhere more evident than in its founding support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria. Over the coming week, Canada has an opportunity to provide decisive leadership for the institution’s critical next phase of expansion.

The Global Fund’s Fourth Replenishment conference begins in Washington next Tuesday, Dec. 3. It will cover the three year period 2014 through 2016, including the final stretch of the Millennium Development Goals through to end-2015. As a pioneering blend of government, non-profit and private sector partners, the Global Fund has played a pivotal role in transforming minimum global health standards.

Canada has long been in the middle of this global health revolution. The 1996 Vancouver International AIDS Conference was the watershed moment presenting evidence that antiretroviral medicines could convert AIDS from a death sentence to a treatable disease. But by 2000, treatment still remained essentially inaccessible throughout the developing world. At the time roughly 30 million people were HIV infected, mostly in Africa, where the disease was killing more than a million people year. In 2001, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for the launch of a new global fund to make treatment possible at scale. Canada joined the Gates Foundation, the United States and a handful of other countries to seed the institution.

Many individual Canadians have been centrally involved in the global effort. For example, Stephen Lewis served with passionate distinction as UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa. James Orbinski was a leader in advancing academic research and access to essential medicine. Stephanie Nolen vividly documented the personal journeys of individuals struck by the AIDS pandemic. Ernest Loevinsohn played a crucial role helping to shape and govern the Global Fund itself. By 2010, Prime Minister Stephen Harper had assumed a personal leadership role on global health accountability, especially on areas linked to maternal, newborn and child survival.

Today the Global Fund has racked up a stunning track record of success. It has made AIDS treatment possible for more than five million people, including an extra million people registered in the first part of 2013 alone. Thanks to the Fund and its partners, nearly 300 million malaria cases have been treated, and nearly half of at-risk African households are using modern anti-malaria bednets, compared to less than three per cent in 2000. Amid perhaps inevitable growing pains, the institution has also continuously innovated in its procurement methods to cut costs and leverage dollars.

Under its highly respected leader, Dr. Mark Dybul, the Global Fund has established a Fourth Replenishment budget of $15 billion, or $5 billion per year. They anticipate this will be enough to save 5.8 million lives and improve hundreds of millions more. Crucially, the Fund also sees the opportunity for a decisive “tipping point” in slashing underlying infection rates of major diseases.

How much should Canada contribute? Earlier this year, the Obama Administration pledged $1.65 billion for 2014, or roughly $5 per American, through a challenge whereby the U.S. matches every $2 of other countries’ funding with $1 of its own. However, the U.S. situation is unique, since it also has major bilateral disease control programs and makes only a small share of its global contributions through the Global Fund.

For Canada’s purposes, more comparable pledges have recently been made by the Nordic collaborative of Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden. These countries have a combined population of around 26 million and committed $250 million per year, or nearly $10 per person. Meanwhile the United Kingdom pledged $533 million per year, more than $8 per citizen. A similar annual commitment of $8 to $10 per Canadian works out to roughly $280-350 million per year. This represents an important increase on our most recent contributions of roughly $175 million per year, or $5 per Canadian. I believe most Canadians would be proud to invest an extra $5 per year toward the world’s most transformative multilateral health institution.

Canada has not yet announced how much it will pledge at next week’s conference, but the timing matters almost as much as the amount. In addition to the 50 American cents unlocked by each Canadian dollar, campaigners feel that an early Canadian commitment can also help to crowd-in additional funds from other countries that have not yet formally pledged. An announcement before the end of this week can still have a significant multiplier.

At a September global health event in New York, Harper eloquently stated that, “Degrees of failure are not measured in dollars. They are measured in thousands of lives.” Moreover, “Before 2015, and in pursuit of what are urgent and noble Millennium Goals, therefore let us give one final vigorous and decisive effort.” Over the coming week, Canada can decide to offer such measurably life-saving global leadership. If we do so, it will mark the next rung in a ladder of global health contributions, one in which all Canadians can rightfully be proud.

John W McArthur is a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Senior Fellow at the UN Foundation. He previously managed the UN Millennium Project. Follow him at Twitter.com/mcarthur.

Watch Fifty Shades Darker (2017) Full Movie Online Streaming Online and Download

Can we slash poverty and starvation by 2015? Yes, if we get to work [op-ed]

Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

JOHN MCARTHUR

Wednesday, September 25, 2013


If global development targets followed a National Football League format, we would be approaching the two-minute warning. December 31, 2015, marks the final deadline for the Millennium Development Goals, the global anti-poverty targets that have mobilized an unprecedented generational success in tackling extreme poverty around the world, most notably the burdens of disease in the poorest countries. We are now facing the final moment to bend the relevant curves of progress. For decision makers, 2013 is the real 2015. [Read more…]

Foreign Affairs article – Condensed history of MDGs

I have an article in the new March/April edition of Foreign Affairs, entitled “Own the Goals: What the Millennium Development Goals Have Accomplished.”  Here is the magazine teaser:

Since their inception in 2000, The Millennium Development Goals have revolutionized the global aid business, using specific targets to help mobilize and guide development efforts. They have encouraged world leaders to tackle multiple dimensions of poverty simultaneously and provided a standard for judging performance. As their 2015 expiration looms, the time has come to bank those successes and focus on what comes next.

Full text also available (for a little while) on my Brookings page and below.

Own the Goals

What the Millennium Development Goals Have Accomplished

By John W. McArthur

March/April 2013

[Read more…]

Short ForumLive Interview with Prof Chan Yuen Ying

On Saturday I did a short (if sleep-deprived) ForumLive interview in Davos with Prof Chan Yuen Ying, Director of the Journalism and Media Studies Centre at Hong Kong University.  In it we talked about some of the issues covered in the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Outlook 2013, which includes some commentary from Prof Chan (and my friend Michael Elliott) on the role of journalism in restoring trust in public institutions, plus some commentary from me and Wu Changhua regarding the MDGs and the post-2015 development agenda.

Video here:

 

“Getting to Zero” on Child Mortality

[Cross-posted with the World Economic Forum’s blog site earlier this week]

What child survival goals should be included in a global vision of “getting to zero” on extreme poverty? This question will be increasingly debated as the world maps out a framework to succeed the Millennium Development Goals post-2015. As a first crack at an answer, I suggest a universal target of no more than 30 deaths per 1,000 live births for every community on the planet by 2030.

For context, one of the biggest global breakthroughs of the past decade has been faster progress in reducing child mortality. In statistical jargon, the developing world’s aggregate child mortality rate dropped from 80 per 1,000 live births in 2000 to 57 in 2011, en route to a projected 51 in 2015.

In plain English this means that, as of 2000, more than one out of every 12 children born in the developing world did not live to see their fifth birthday. By 2011, the figure improved to one in 17, and for 2015, it is on track to be one in 20.

But even though every developing region has seen progress quicken since 2000, mortality rates still vary tremendously, as shown in the table below.streaming film Suffragette 2015

TABLE: Under Five Mortality Rates and Projections

(Deaths per 1,000 live births)

Recent Data

At current trend

REGION

1990

2000

2011

2015

2030

East Asia

48

35

15

11

4

South Asia

116

88

61

54

34

lyLatin America and Caribbean

53

34

19

17

10

Sub-Saharan Africa

178

154

109

96

59

All developing regions

97

80

57

51

33

Source: UN Inter-Agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (2012), author’s calculations

In light of ongoing advances in programmes and technology, it makes sense to set an absolute minimum standard for all of humanity: no more than 30 per 1,000 by 2030, and perhaps even 25 per 1,000. For comparison, Algeria and Mongolia are currently at 30. Most rich countries are at around 4 or 5.

If Africa continues to improve at recent rates, its mortality will hit 59 per 1,000 in 2030. If it improves almost as quickly as East Asia did in the 2000s, it could get below 30. With slight acceleration, South Asia could also reach 20 or 25 by 2030, making sure averages don’t mask disparities and no community remains above 30. Technology improvements could accelerate things even more.

Nonetheless, it is important to remember that even a child mortality rate of 30 still tragically implies that more than 3% of babies do not reach their fifth birthday. That single sobering fact should serve as enormous motivation when considering how historic it would be to ensure every part of the world reaches at least that standard within the next 18 years.

John W McArthur is a Senior Fellow with the UN Foundation and Non-resident Senior Fellow with the Brookings Institution. He is vice-chair of the Global Agenda Council on Poverty and Sustainable Development and a member of the Forum’s community of Young Global Leaders. Follow him on Twitter @mcarthur.

 

Sifting Headlines and Undercurrents

[This post originally appeared at Forum: Blog]

This year’s Annual Meeting in Davos takes place at a time when nearly every major global policy topic is clouded by concerns of macroeconomic fragility. In the days ahead, I’ll be tracking those issues as closely as any other warm-blooded economist, but I’ll mainly be on the lookout for advances on other global undercurrents, especially those relating to inequality, sustainability and social renewal.

One big question is the extent to which the 2011 “Occupy” and “99%” movements infuse early conversations in 2012. The protestors’ media footprint may be in winter hibernation, but plans are reportedly underway for a spring ramp-up, targeting the US election season in particular. Last year, the protests spurred debates around the globe on core issues of policy fairness. While many question the protestors’ methods, they have received public support from global economic heavyweights ranging from George Soros, the financier and philanthropist, to Mark Carney, the Canadian Central Bank Governor and Chairman of the Financial Stability Board. I’m wondering how mindful people are of the possibilities for a deepening economic protest movement in the months ahead?Watch Full Movie Online Streaming Online and Download

As ever, I’ll also be focused on how longer-term issues of extreme poverty and sustainability are discussed. The Millennium Development Goals are entering the final phase before the 2015 deadline and this year will see a major environmental focus at the UN’s June Rio+20 summit. Around the world, conversations are taking shape on how a next generation of post-2015 goals could “get to zero” against extreme poverty while more robustly advancing environmental sustainability and equality of opportunity. Some hope Rio+20 will map out new “sustainable development goals”. If done right, such goals could improve significantly on MDG gaps. If framed too broadly, they risk losing the focus that has made the MDGs successful.

Perhaps the most important innovation I’m interested to see this week is the new Global Shapers Community. To the Forum’s credit, it has launched a major effort to invite 20-something year olds from around the world who are already pioneering major contributions in their societies. I have a pet theory that, despite increasing life expectancies, the average age of societal leaders is on a long-term decline, due mainly to the advances in technology. In between the heady formal sessions, let’s hope the wiser elders take time to grab coffee and share insights with the young innovators standing next to them.

SharedSolar’s “Pay As You Go” Power in Africa

[This post originally appeared at txchnologist.com on April 18, 2011]

Lack of access to modern energy sources is both a major cause and consequence of economic underdevelopment around the world. For the very poorest communities, including hundreds of millions of people living on less than a dollar a day in rural sub-Saharan Africa, the challenges take many forms. Historically, a lack of modern cooking fuels implies households spend huge amounts of time searching for biomass to burn indoors, with severe health consequences in the form of acute respiratory infections and in many cases links to negative environmental consequences such as deforestation.Movie Passengers (2016)