Definitive Time for Global Leaders to Recognise Development Challenges, Act

The high echelons of the Ethiopian power circle are very busy these days. As they ensured their stay on the throne for the next five years, although many formalities relating to election results remain, they have directed their focus to what could be considered to be one of the most important global events of the year. Hopes are high within the global policy circles that the ruling Revolutionary Democrats will be hosting the Finance for Development Conference, considered pivotal to essential agreements on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and climate change in New York and Paris, respectively.

The movers and shakers of global development policy, including leaders of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank Group (WBG), and multinational development banks (MDBs), will come to the bustling capital of Ethiopia between July 13 and 16, 2015, to craft the best ways to finance development in the next 15 years. They will be accompanied by heads of state, high flying global philanthropists, vocal development activists, community leaders and acclaimed journalists. This, of course, is not to mention executives of multinational corporations, banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, private equities, and pension funds. It is, after all, in the deep pockets of the latter group of people where the money is.

In light of local politics, the event will be a huge morale booster to the Revolutionary Democrats for it will open up to them a rare opportunity to showcase their developmental achievements to the world. Not only will this be an opportunity to thank their proponents, but it will also be a rare event to look their opponents, called neo-liberals, in the parlance of the EPRDFites, in the eye. If they are to use it effectively, then, it is obvious that the event will bring huge political opportunity.

Yet, the event is not a localised one. It instead is a very ambitious global conference targeted at bridging the gap, in both ideas and practices, between the global north and south. The core agenda is crafting a wholesome blueprint for financing development in the next 15 years. In a way, then, it will be a platform where policymakers and practitioners will be discussing the preeminent development challenges facing the world, and the best ways to materialise solutions.

Often, such platforms are nothing but talk shops. If any better, they will be occasions of gushing out animosity and politicised disagreements between the developed West and the emerging East. Africa, usually sidelined and considered powerless, often plays the role of a balancing power. Partly, this has to do with the fragmented way it goes to these discussions, and partly it relates to the weight of the cards it owns.

Things have started to change lately with Africa going to these discussions as one. Evidence of this could be seen at the last three Conferences of the Parties (COP), the supreme decision making structure in global climate change negotiations, wherein Africans managed to reach consensus on their priorities well before the meetings. It is for such an approach, stirred and promoted by the late Meles Zenawi, that Africa could attribute the benefits it managed to gain from the last three climate negotiations. Matters seem headed in the same direction for the upcoming conference.

In policy terms, the stakes of the latest conference hinge on two pillars. On the one hand, there is a concerted effort to bring about equivalently popular replacements of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Four years of policy craftsmanship, community discussion and political compromise have seen a relative narrowing of interests to a list of goals, now dubbed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Yet, there remains so much prioritisation that needs to be done before reaching these ambitious but achievable global development goals for the next 15 years.

On the other hand, the issue of climate change, more dividing than the first agenda, is foreseen as a battleground of disagreements. This is because the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, mainly relating to carbon dioxide, has a direct implication on the economy and involves multiple interest groups. Starting from climate change sceptics to lobbyists of the petroleum and coal industries, the debate over reducing emissions has multiple rivers of money and information flowing against it.

Different countries have varying limits of willingness on emission reduction. Hence, they often debate so that they could not lose ground. But so much compromise has been made over the past years. Only few, and relatively essential parts of the climate negotiation effort remain. With the latest conference, therefore, one of the key elements – financing the adaptation and mitigation efforts of countries – will be up for discussion.

Crucial challenges remain on both fronts, though. And it is only if policymakers and negotiators can dwarf these challenges that the upcoming conference and its followers, in New York and Paris, can be successful.

The MDGs have done a great job in terms of initiating the world, and especially governments of poor countries, to become committed to development. They were definitive in shifting the whole issue from cementing alliances, meant to reduce critics in the global arena, towards leveraging deliverables. In a way, then, they have made states responsible for and accountable to their own citizens.

Nonetheless, the whole focus has been on what could be measured. Subjective and sometimes slippery concepts, such as quality of basic service provision, were given less attention in the preparation process. As the whole focus was on hanging the fruit as high as possible, partly aimed at pushing governments to be ambitious, there was little analysis of achievability. And beyond all, there was no accountability system established to check governments.

These gaps meant that governments spent much time beating drums about their achievements, while avoiding accountability for their failures. It also means that numbers were regarded as crucial measures of achievement, even when they stood for dismal service quality. The whole process has also made citizens passive beneficiaries of development, rather than involved actors and decisive players.

The sphere is as noisy, if not noisier, with climate change. The whole debate has been about how much others should give in, instead of how much each country is ready to do. The mentality has been that of collective sinking instead of collective swimming. Countries have been debating superficial issues, hiding their positions on substantial issues in their respective drawers. Each time consensus seemed within reach, a surprise spoiler would emerge. Science has been trampled by politics, lobbyism, and unpredictably changing allegiances.

Africa, including Ethiopia under the leadership of the Revolutionary Democrats, has been living in the swamps of these shortfalls. As a region with the largest absolute poor population, the continent is the hotspot when it comes to the issue of replacing the MDGs.

Now that the time for the crucial meetings on both issues is getting closer, the world seems to have only one choice – standing taller than the challenges, The leaders must demand nothing less than comprehensive development goals. This entails crafting measurable and achievable development targets. Equally important will be creating rigorous systems of accountability, at national, regional as well as global levels.

On the issues of climate change, giving science its due place would be important. Limiting the spoiler effect of politics and focusing on the most probable state of the global climate situation will also be vital. And the talks have to be on the substantial issues, instead of the superficial.

For the EPRDFites, the stake at hand will be identifying their stance, in light of the needs of the public, and playing their cards wisely. No doubt that it would be better to play their cards with Africa.


Posted

in

by

Tags: