The Geneva 2000 Special Session of the UN General Assembly to follow up the World Summit for Social Development will examine the progress made since the adoption of the Declaration and Programme of Action on Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995. On the basis of this assessment new initiatives will be proposed as a means to ensure that the targets set out in the Copenhagen Declaration and Action Plan will be met. The proposals set out in this paper are an elaboration of the 'Geneva Benchmark Issues, 10 NGO Demands towards the 2000 Social Summit'.
The Copenhagen Summit established a comprehensive set of qualitative and quantities targets for achieving social development and for working towards the eradication of poverty. The Copenhagen Summit recognised that while the primary responsibility for establishing and implementing strategies for meeting these targets lay with national governments. An enabling environment for social development needed to be created by the international community. Adequate support, including resources and other forms of assistance, also needed to be provided by the international community.
Progress in implementing the agreements reached in Copenhagen has been disappointing. Social components of development processes are accepted as being of crucial importance. Nevertheless, many targets set for the year 2000 have not been met, and in some cases the situation has deteriorated. Absolute poverty continues to grow and global inequality has increased over the past five years.
The Special Session in Geneva is the first opportunity for Heads of State to comprehensively re-examine strategies for ensuring that the processes of globalisation can be made conducive to national priorities in social development. Eurostep believes that in adopting further initiatives at the Geneva 2000 Special Session of the UN governments should commit themselves to:
| Eurostep
is a coalition of European NGDOs which is working
for policies and practices of the European Union
and national European governments that promote
people centred sustainable development in all
parts of the World. This paper sets out Eurostep's
position towards the review of the 1995 World
Summit for Social Development and identifies
perspectives that Eurostep believes need
to be reflected in the outcome of the UN General
Assembly Special Session in June 2000. The
perspectives set out in this paper are drawn from
the experiences gained in development by Eurostep’s
member organisations through their involvement in
development programmes in Africa, Asia and Latin
America. It builds on the positions and
proposals that have been put forward in previous
positions and briefing papers published by Eurostep. The membership
of Eurostep includes: ActionAid, UK; CONCERN Worldwide,
Ireland; Deutsche Welthungerhilfe,
Germany; Forum Syd, Sweden; Frères des
hommes, France; Helinas, Greece; Hivos,
Netherlands; Ibis, Denmark; Intermón,
Spain; Kepa, Finland; Mani Tese,
Italy; Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke, Denmark;
Movimondo, Italy; NCOS, Belgium; Norwegian
People’s Aid, Norway; Novib,
Netherlands; Oikos, Portugal; Oxfam
GB; Oxfam Ireland; Swiss Coalition of Development
Organisations, Switzerland; Terre des hommes,
France; terre des hommes, Germany. |
1 April 2000
The Geneva 2000 World Summit for Social Development will examine the progress made since the adoption of the Declaration and Programme of Action on Social Development by the Copenhagen Summit of 1995. On the basis of this assessment new initiatives will be proposed as a means to ensure that the targets set out in the Copenhagen Declaration and Action Plan will be met. The proposals set out in this paper are an elaboration of the 'Geneva Benchmark Issues, 10 NGO Demands towards the 2000 Social Summit'.
Meeting the
Targets
The Copenhagen Declaration and Plan of Action set out a number of specific targets:
(a) By the year 2000, universal access to basic education and completion of primary education by at least 80 per cent of primary school-age children; closing the gender gap in primary and secondary school education by the year 2005; universal primary education in all countries before the year 2015;
(b) By the year 2000, life expectancy of not less than 60 years in any country;
(c) By the year 2000, reduction of mortality rates of infants and children under five years of age by one third of the 1990 level, or 50 to 70 per 1,000 live births, whichever is less; by the year 2015, achievement of an infant mortality rate below 35 per 1,000 live births and an under-five mortality rate below 45 per 1,000;
(d) By the year 2000, a reduction in maternal mortality by one half of the 1990 level; by the year 2015, a further reduction by one half;
(e) Achieving food security by ensuring a safe and nutritionally adequate food supply, at both the national and international levels, a reasonable degree of stability in the supply of food, as well as physical, social and economic access to enough food for all, while reaffirming that food should not be used as a tool for political pressure;
(f) By the year 2000, a reduction of severe and moderate malnutrition among children under five years of age by half of the 1990 level;
(g) By the year 2000, attainment by all peoples of the world of a level of health that will permit them to lead a socially and economically productive life, and to this end, ensuring primary health care for all;
(h) Making accessible through the primary health-care system reproductive health to all individuals of appropriate ages as soon as possible and no later than the year 2015, in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, and taking into account the reservations and declarations made at that Conference, especially those concerning the need for parental guidance and parental responsibility;
(i) Strengthening efforts and increasing commitments with the aim, by the year 2000, of reducing malaria mortality and morbidity by at least 20 per cent compared to 1995 levels in at least 75 per cent of affected countries, as well as reducing social and economic losses due to malaria in the developing countries, especially in Africa, where the overwhelming majority of both cases and deaths occur;
(j) By the year 2000, eradicating, eliminating or controlling major diseases constituting global health problems, in accordance with paragraph 6.12 of Agenda 21;
(k) Reducing the adult illiteracy rate - the appropriate age group to be determined in each country - to at least half its 1990 level, with an emphasis on female literacy; achieving universal access to quality education, with particular priority being given to primary and technical education and job training, combating illiteracy, and eliminating gender disparities in access to, retention in and support for education;
(l) Providing, on a sustainable basis, access to safe drinking water in sufficient quantities, and proper sanitation for all;
(m) Improving the availability of affordable and adequate shelter for all, in accordance with the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000;
The following targets were also set by the year 2000:
(a) To ratify the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women.
(b) To designate 0.7% of GNP of OECD countries to aid, and 0.15% to the least developed countries as soon as possible and increasing the share of funding for social development programmes.
The Summit also agreed on the monitoring the implementation of those commitments at the highest appropriate level and considering the possibility of expediting their implementation through the dissemination of sufficient and accurate statistical data and appropriate indicators.
Assessment
Implementation by
governments
Social Watch, which has been monitoring the implementation of the time-bound targets, has found that many countries have not met the goals set for 2000. At the same time many industrialised countries have performed poorly or have experienced setbacks towards the goals that were set in 1995 for the year 2000. This raises the question as to whether governments are serious about implementing the commitments that they made in Copenhagen.
Most striking are the contradictions in developments that took place between 1995 and 2000. Assessing the overall implementation of the WSSD Declaration and Platform of Action by governments, the UN Secretary-General concludes that the 1995 Summit succeeded in putting social development on to the global agenda. However, while it is now widely accepted that the social components of development processes are of crucial importance, the results of the Copenhagen plan’s implementation leave little room for optimism. The Secretary General observes serious contradictions in his assessment, and points in particular to the following.[1]
Þ While the level of relative poverty may have declined, the absolute number of people living in poverty has continued to grow;
Þ Local and regional conflicts have caused setbacks for social integration in many countries;
Þ Global inequality has further increased, both within and between countries;
Þ Inequality in the world has increased in terms of income, employment, access to social services and participation in public and civil organisations;
Þ In contradiction with the Copenhagen commitments to make resources available for social development through the United Nations system, resources allocated for this purpose have further declined;
Þ Recognition of the unsustainable debt of the poorest countries has led to strengthened policy for reducing their debt. At the same time, however, the burden of debt has grown markedly, further squeezing resources for development;
Þ The liberalisation of capital flows has made the world vulnerable to sudden financial shocks with severe social and economic consequences. Furthermore the real victims of such shocks are increasingly powerless to rectify their social situation.
The lack of progress in the implementation of the Copenhagen Declaration and Platform of Action calls for Heads of State to debate the shameful and shocking catalogue of failures in implementing commitments made at the international level. It also demonstrates that more specific, time bound commitments must be set to define the implementation process of the Summit between 2000 and 2015. Targets agreed in other relevant processes - the UN Conferences, the review processes and the World Education Forum that will take place in Dakar in April 2000, must be taken into account.
The role of
the World Bank and the IMF in social development
Apart from governments, the World Bank and the IMF have also responded to pressures to put Social Development on the agenda. Structural Adjustment is now only mentioned together with strategies for poverty reduction. On 20 and 21 December 1999 the Boards of the World Bank and the IMF adopted a paper on "Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: Operational Issues". The paper discusses how the work of the two institutions will change with the introduction of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) prepared by national countries.
Within the context of the PRSP, a
new framework for action has been developed to enhance the
poverty impact of country actions and development
assistance. This approach centres on the preparation by
countries of poverty reduction strategies, which would then be a
basis for external assistance and debt relief. Within
this global plan, the IMF changed the name of the Enhanced
Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF) into the Poverty Reduction
and Growth Facility (PRGF).
The World Bank and the IMF expect
that the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, will become a key
instrument for countries' relations with the donor community.
These plans would also provide a basis for Bank and Fund
concessional lending to support the country as well as debt
relief under the HIPC Initiative.
The PRSP emphasises - correctly - that national governments are responsible for social development. However, the policies of the Bretton Woods institutions developed to reduce poverty have not resolved the fundamental contradiction between Structural Adjustment Policies prescribed by the Washington policy-makers to national governments with Social Development.
Whilst the PRSP is an attempt to foster social development, macro-economic conditions by the IFIs for loans and debt relief have not changed. These conditions - which include administrative and fiscal reform in the context of austerity programmes as well as measures for further liberalisation of trade and finance, have destroyed local productive capacity, increased unemployment and degraded the quality of public social services. Structural Adjustment Programmes are simply not compatible with Social Development.
Within the PRSP there is no offer to respond to the adverse effects of Structural Adjustment nor are there any arrangements for adequate and additional means for investment in social sectors. The danger is that the PRSP is an opportunity for additional conditionality by donors on national governments. This will make national governments responsible for social development without being in control of the means or resources to implement policies that foster Social Development.
The
importance of Geneva 2000
The failure of
the OECD negotiations on a Multilateral Agreement on Investment
(MAI), which would have further disempowered governments vis à
vis the drive of big global companies to enter countries on their
own terms, is an indication that governments are becoming more
aware of the dangers posed by uncontrolled liberalisation.
Equally, the collapse of the WTO Conference in Seattle
demonstrates that it is urgent and timely to re-examine the
approach to creating an enabling environment for Social
Development.
Geneva 2000 is the first opportunity to have a comprehensive re-examination at the level of Heads of State of how globalisation can be made conducive to national priorities in social policies. It is an occasion where the paradoxical effects of unfettered liberalisation and their contradictory effects on different parts of government administration can be thoroughly re-examined. Geneva 2000 can firmly conclude that the global free-market is not benefiting countries and people equally. Heads of government need to identify why some (or many) of their people lose from liberalisation, and how the causes of the problems they face can be addressed.
Assessing the results of the implementation of the Copenhagen plan needs to be a constant process and there need to be regular checks as to whether the targets set out are being achieved. The international community has reached the limit in the search for sectoral solutions to integrated problems. Sectoral efforts to design a new international financial architecture, the comprehensive development framework, the consequences of the collapse of the new round of trade negotiations, the outcome of UNCTAD-X, and the follow-up processes to the UN Conferences, urgently require an overall examination at the level of Heads of State. This is necessary because:
"[t]he sum of these activities do not produce a whole. We need an integrated analytical framework, based on decisions reached at large UN Conferences......and expand the notion of productivity beyond economics."[2]
The mechanism to re-examine the different parts of the social consequences of economic processes in a comprehensive way at summit level should be developed as a regular instrument until the Copenhagen targets have been achieved by 2015.
Further
Initiatives
1.
Anti-poverty Convention
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) sets out that
"Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration can be fully realised." (article 28).
Poverty, as defined by the Commission on Social Development is defined as a violation of the social, economic and cultural rights of the individuals living in affected communities. It is an essential conception of humanity that a life without poverty is seen as a fundamental right of people. It is essential for our understanding of justice without inequality between people and with recognition of the dignity of every individual person.
A rights-based approach to poverty eradication needs to be based on a comprehensive understanding of the complex nature of the causes of poverty - resulting from an interaction of domestic and international conditions. Recognising that poverty is a violation of human rights and that its persistence in a world that has the resources to provide for the basic needs for all is a threat to international peace and security, the Geneva Summit should:
2.
Targets and examination of implementation
Many countries have not met the targets set for implementation by the year 2000. Geneva 2000 must strongly reconfirm the goals and targets set in Copenhagen.
(a) reduce infant mortality by two-thirds of 1990 values by 2015 (and by no less than one-third by 2010);
(b) reduce by three-quarters the 1990 maternal mortality rates by 2015 (and by no less than one-half by 2010);
(c) universal access to health, safe water and sanitation by 2015.
3. Debt
Geneva 2000 takes place in the middle of the Millennium celebrations. It mustrecognise the widespread acknowledgement that the present system of lending and borrowing is profoundly unjust and that it is dominated almost entirely by creditors. The Cologne initiative of the June 1999 G7 meeting promised $100 billion in debt cancellation. Creditors reached agreement at the World Bank and IMF annual meetings in September 1999 on how to finance the initiative, but funding gaps have continued to cause delay in implementation. In particular the US, France and Italy have failed to commit money to the trust fund to provide multilateral debt cancellation.
In Geneva governments should acknowledge that Social Development is not possible unless there is a comprehensive and thorough solution to the debt problem. More precisely they should commit themselves to:
4. Financial Regulation
In the aftermath of the global financial crises it needs to be recognised that financial liberalisation, when done inappropriately, can cause major economic crises. The governments should commit themselves to:
o Monitor and control of international capital flows, particularly of speculative capital, through agreed international mechanisms or national measures, as for instance the Tobin Tax.
o “Neutralising” or closing down 'tax paradises' and off shore centres by introducing effective regulations, disclosure requirements and capital control mechanisms.
o Increased obligations by private investors in financial crises to avoid using public monies to bail out private investors.
o The improved control on trade in derivatives and the prohibition of high-speculative hedge funds.
o The selective use of control on capital transactions as legitimate instruments of national policies to avoid financial crisis.
o Giving the United Nations a clear mandate to propose policy initiatives to the UN Conference on Finance for Development which respond to problems that are identified.
5. Trade
The failure of Seattle provides an opportunity to re-examine multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. The central problem of trade liberalisation, as it is currently being pursued, relates to the balance between imports and exports. Trade liberalisation has contributed to a widening of trade deficits in developing countries in general. Geneva 2000 offers an important opportunity to reformulate an appropriate approach for a trade policy that fosters social development. The governments should commit themselves to:
o A fundamental institutional reform of the WTO, including its integration into the United Nations to ensure the equal participation of countries from the South;
o Carry out a survey of the social impacts of the Uruguay Round after verification that the WTO has not complied with the request made by heads of State and governments in Copenhagen. This request should be entrusted to UNCTAD.
o The implementation of social impact assessments of multilateral and bilateral trade and investment agreements, with the participation of relevant UN organisations as well as of Non Governmental Organisations;
o A consequent application of the principle of Special and Differential Treatment of developing countries in all agreements on Trade and Investment. A reform of the GATT article XXIV is needed to enable regional non-reciprocal trade agreements between structurally and economically unequal groups of countries.
o The objectives of Social Development should be included as legally binding obligations in all bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.
o Subsidies of exports to Least Developed Countries should be abolished.
o Full market access for developing countries, in particular LDC's, to industrialised countries without exceptions of sensitive products.
6. Trans
National Corporations
The Copenhagen Declaration and Platform of Action pointed strongly to the responsibility of the private sector in Social Development. Voluntary Codes of Conduct for Transnational Corporations (TNCs) have so far demonstrated neither satisfactory nor adequate results in social development. On the contrary, the accelerating competition to attract private investment is consistently undermining existing standards of social and economic rights. Governments should start a new initiative in Geneva for TNCs to foster their contribution to social development, possibly based on Kofi Anan's initiative for a Global Compact with the private sector. A binding regulation for TNCs within the context of the United Nations should encompass:
o Unified standards for environment and social protection at a high level;
o Worldwide acknowledged liability rules.
o An obligation to make information public in extensive fields.
o An international competition law so that monopolistic market structures and cartels can be avoided.
o The establishment of an international centre for monitoring, including a complaints procedure for those who believe that their rights have been violated by TNCs.
o The establishment of an effective system of incentives and sanctions that will help guarantee that TNCs will respect human rights and adhere to regulations that have been agreed.
7. Structural
Adjustment
The World Bank established the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Initiative (SAPRI) after the Copenhagen Summit. It is an initiative of the Bank, governments and civil society to jointly examine the Structural Adjustment Policies. The review process shows that policies have not been modified, and that their impacts on various sectors and population groups have been severe. The Special Session should therefore clearly acknowledge that Structural Adjustment in its traditional form is not compatible with social development.
8. Women
The eradication of poverty can only be achieved if men and women are seen as equal and if women are empowered to take their full role in social life. If women are excluded from social life their children - and particularly the girls among them, become more vulnerable to poverty and social exclusion. Unfortunately there are still many countries that have not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The Special Session should:
9. Financing
Social Development
Developed countries have not taken their commitment seriously to contribute to social development with Official Development Assistance (ODA). ODA as percentage of GDP declined further, notwithstanding commitments to gradually increase ODA to 0.7% of GDP. In qualitative terms industrialised countries have not honoured their commitments with little progress being made in establishing 20:20 compacts for social development. Even more dramatic is the decline in contributions for social development through the United Nations system.
There is no justification for governments of industrialised countries not to comply with their commitments, particularly since during the last five years developed countries’ economies have grown steadily. Governments in the developed countries need to realise that Social Development cannot be achieved without costs. A transfer of financial resources from governments of industrialised countries to developing countries is required to finance measures directed at the eradication of poverty.
1 April 2000
[1] Report of the Secretary-General, Comprehensive Report on the implementation of the Outcome of the World Summit for Social Development. General Assembly Economic and Social council, UN Doc. E/CN.5/2000/2, 14 December 2000.
[2] Juan Somavía reported in SUNS, TWN, Geneva, July 5 1999.
Updated on 11 April 2000
Please address comments to [email protected]
Developer's Note: These pages were developed for use on the
Netscape browser.