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.

 

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…]

The Need for a New Canadian Conversation on Foreign Aid

I have a new post at OpenCanada.org, the first of a 3-part series that aims to help kick start a new Canadian conversation around how the country approaches foreign aid over the coming generation.  Please feel encouraged to share comments directly!

New-Conversation

Canada’s foreign aid conversation is lost.  The recently announced merger of CIDA into the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade prompted a spate of agitated commentary across the country.  But the public debates underscored the extent to which an institutional tail is wagging the policy dog.  The issues to be resolved are much more fundamental than problems of bureaucratic org charts.  They require systematic and robust thinking, rather than the loose commentary commonly trotted out during moments of sporadic media debate.

Most significantly, there is one central question that needs to be flipped on its head.  Instead of becoming stuck in the supply-driven query, “How should Canada’s foreign aid structures be improved?” the country needs to start with a demand-driven approach, mapping out the nature and scale of the global development challenge, and then asking how Canada can best organize itself to help to tackle the problems at hand.

To that end, this post marks the start of a three-part series.  To help set the stage, below we start by unpacking some of the most common misconceptions around foreign aid.  The second installment provides some historical context for the current debates, and some recent assessments of global need.  The third proposes a way forward, not just for the Canadian government, but for the range of key constituencies that will be essential for moving Canada’s national development strategy forward.

 

[Read more…]

Who’s the most innovative thinker on Canada’s role in the world?

The Canadian International Council has a novel weekly “Rapid Response” initiative in which they e-mail a topical question  to a bunch of people around the world, aiming to elicit rapid fire answers. A couple of weeks ago they asked, “Who is the most innovative thinker on Canada’s place in the world today?”  I have relatively strong views on this topic, so re-post my original answer here:Watch Full Movie Online Streaming Online and Download

“I’ll answer in three parts. First, there are so many dimensions to Canada’s place in the world that I can’t pick a single most innovative thinker. Second, it is easy to think of many people providing leadership thinking on key elements of the equation – people like Mark Carney on the management of the global financial system; Elissa Goldberg on the practice of global diplomacy; Jim Balsillie on the business and economics of global sustainability; Chrystia Freeland on the rising tensions between global and local communities; Naheed Nenshi on the role of Canadian cities in global society; Bruce Jones on the role of multilateral institutions in fragile states viagra pfizer 25 mg. But the third part of my answer is a more sober critique. We need much more active public thought leadership on Canada’s role in the world – starting from the vantage point of the world’s interests rather than Canada’s interests. Too much of Canada’s foreign policy thinking has been anchored in an implicit premise of adjusting from what the country has been doing until now, instead of focusing on what the world needs Canada to do moving forward. Public opinion surveys consistently show that Canadians want to contribute to global problem-solving. Canadian thought leaders need to spend more time hashing out what that should look like.” (April 22, 2012)