By Eveline Herfkens
ROME, Jun 22 2007 (IPS)

While Kofi Annan was the United Nations’ secretary-general, he handpicked Eveline Herfkens to be the executive coordinator of the Millennium Campaign, a body which mobilises support for the achievement of the U.N. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Herfkens had previously worked as the Dutch minister of international development and as an executive director at the World Bank.

Eveline Herfkens, executive coordinator of the Millennium Campaign Credit: Sabina Zaccaro

IPS: What is your diagnosis of the progress so far towards reaching the 2015 deadline for the MDGs?

Eveline Herfkens (EH): Well, there is a lot of progress, actually, but it is too slow and too patchy. Some regions are doing great; other regions are lagging, and the biggest concern is the poorest region – sub-Saharan Africa.

But even in sub-Saharan Africa you see that some of the poorest countries are on track to achieve some of the goals. Mozambique will achieve the poverty goal (MDG one) and the child mortality goal (MDG four). There are at least 12 countries that are on track to achieve the education goal (MDG two). The countries that will achieve the goals live up to their promises – (those) that have the right priorities, that fight corruption, improve the health and education systems, they are on track. And it is those countries that also benefit from the fact that some donors are living up to their promises.

Generally, the countries that are successful are the ones that got generous debt relief…like in Tanzania, a million extra kids are going to school because of the fact that they don’t have to repay us – they can put that money in the education budget. And these countries benefit from generous aid but, more importantly, aid that enables these countries to take responsibility.

So, (what is necessary is) not little projects (that are) fragmented, but donors working together to back up improved policies on the recipient’s side. And that shows that if you can do it in the poorest countries the goals are still achievable. But everybody (has to) live up to their promises.

IPS: What are the reasons for sub-Saharan Africa, and especially Southern Africa, lagging behind? Many of the goals will still be missed…

EH: You can go back centuries for the reasons but let me just focus on the last few decades. There has not always been perfect governance in sub-Saharan Africa. Trade laws internationally have not been particularly beneficial for countries in Africa. They are particularly the victims of the (European Union and U.S’s) agricultural subsidy policies.

And then the way aid has been delivered in the past has not been very helpful for improving governments’ accountability to their own people. There are too few governments in Africa which have taken responsibility for themselves, for their future. The way that donors have operated was undermining whatever accountability and responsibility there was, making African countries look more at what their donors want than what their own people want.

So there is a lot that needs to be changed – but I am positive, because you are seeing an increasing number of countries where governments are taking responsibility and there is some improvement on the side of donor behaviour. What is not going well is the trade issue.

IPS: At the same time we are seeing a pattern of commitments being made but not kept. The Gleneagles Group of Eight meeting has come and gone. There seems to be a lack of political will to level the playing field between the North and the South – we are talking about global power relations…

EH: But this is about ignorance, partly. It is very difficult to expect politicians in Japan, in the U.S. or in Canada to really do something about these issues if their own electorates don’t see these connections. As I don’t like talking about averages in sub-Saharan Africa, I don’t like to talk about averages in the G8 either. Because let’s be honest, the French, the British and the Germans kept their commitments on aid volumes. In the G8 Russia is not a player in the whole development field, so we’re actually talking about Italy, Japan, Canada and the U.S.

But even in the U.S. there has indeed been more than a doubling of aid to Africa…Of course it came from a very low level, but things are moving. The (U.S.) president has come with pledges and offers and the U.S. congress has become more generous. Here in Italy we still see little, but there is a debt problem here. Nevertheless, there is a move on the aid agenda, things like untying aid – things that don’t really cost money but that are important too.

IPS: I would like to talk about policies imposed on sub-Saharan Africa. A lot of people would say that this is really at the heart of the problem – that policies have been imposed on governments, that national agendas have been set by foreigners, and that this is why these states are unable to achieve the MDGs.

EH: There are some nuances to this story. There have been African governments that are blaming the outside world for all kinds of things that they are themselves responsible for. Secondly, I would agree that there are too few African governments that have had the guts to say “no” to their donors if things were not helpful. It was a tremendous breakthrough when Tanzania told donors five years ago, “Listen guys, you are driving us crazy with all your missions and your separate reports. We’re going to have three months mission-free – you are not welcome. We really have to focus on running our own budget and getting our own act together.” Partly there has been a lack of outspokenness on the African side, saying “no” to things that are not helpful.

The point you make has been made too often by African governments that don’t have that much credibility themselves, saying that because they did so little themselves for the poor. Not all of the imposed policies stink. If you as a donor say “I really want you to draft your poverty reduction strategy or Millennium Development Goals plan together with civil society and the parliament,” – that is a basically good idea. But it should not be imposed. These governments should have done it themselves, I think. Some of the issues that donors raise are not total nonsense.

IPS: The problem, some would say, is that a cookie cutter approach has been followed. The World Bank has been trying to be more responsive to national interests, but even with this they haven’t gone far enough – and I think it is because there is an agenda of rearranging policies to benefit the North. As long as that is the case, you won’t have states that can take control of their own matters and put in place policies that will serve their populations.

EH: Well, again, the nuance is that some people in the North are trying to be helpful. One of the things that I find frustrating from my side is that there are people in the North that have been trying to create space for Africans to speak out… for instance, the campaign against the (E.U’s proposed) economic partnership agreements. Then they end up in an international meeting and none of the African governments raise any problems with the EPAs. That doesn’t really help, so the Africans have not really used the forums available to actually come up with their issues.

Also, if you look at the broader group of developing countries, they have often been dominated by the interests of large Asian and Latin American countries, and Africans have not made the effort to say, “Come on guys, this is not relevant to us.” Or: “Can you please take care of our concerns here?” I’m not saying the North is perfect, but if you write for the South I would really want the other side of the story too.

I make speeches in the North non-stop about the fact that we in the North impose policies, that our trade policies hurt people, that our aid policies are stingy and not effective. I make these points all the time. But I’d like to hear a little bit more in the South about your own responsibility. There is no reason for even the poorest country in the world not to have free primary education for all – I’m sorry, there is not. It’s a question of priorities. So there are no excuses…there are spaces that have not been used domestically or regionally.

It’s all very persuasive to discuss endlessly the lack of access to Northern markets. I have spent most of my life fighting for more market access for African products; but then there has been very little serious effort up to now to open markets among yourselves in Africa.

Excerpt:

By Eveline Herfkens and - -
NEW YORK, Sep 9 2005 (IPS)

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), writes Eveline Herfkens, Secretary General\’s Executive Coordinator for the Millennium Development Goals Campaign. The first five years since the adoption of the Goals show why we cannot rest on our laurels. While there has some progress, it is limited and patchy and it has been 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. Perhaps most crucially and this is an area where quite frankly there has been very little progress 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.

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.

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% 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. The bottom line, after all, is that the Goals will only be met through concrete action. 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% of GNI by 2010 at the latest. They also need to improve the effectiveness of aid: donors need to harmonize 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% of the official debt of all low-income countries, allowing resources to be released to finance development.

Perhaps most crucially and this is an area where quite frankly there has been very little progress 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. Particularly important is transparency and accountability on both policy and budgetary commitments.

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 some progress, it is limited and patchy and it has been 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. Today’s world leaders should refuse to be remembered for failing to seize this unique opportunity. 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.(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Eveline Herfkens and - -
ROME, Jun 28 2005 (IPS)

In September the heads of state will return to the UN in New York to evaluate their progress on the UN Millennium goal of ending poverty by 2015. Before that, G-8 leaders will meet in Scotland, and for the first time their agenda will focus on Africa and poverty. In December in Hong Kong trade ministers will meet in an effort to restart the talks that were begun at Cancun and which are absolutely central to development. In response to these three fundamental meetings, a global movement was created to exert pressure to bring about an end to poverty, write Eveline Herfkens, representative of the UN Secretary General for the Millennium Development Goals, and Walter Veltroni, mayor of Rome. The authors write in this article that the Global Call to Action Against Poverty is a movement comprised of more than 1000 international networks. Three dates for mobilisations in more than seventy countries have been set before the three major meetings. The symbol that will unite all of these events will be a white band, a sign of commitment, which will encircle not only wrists but also important buildings, for example, Rome\’s Trevi Fountain (a band of light in this case) and the Colosseum (an 80 metre band). Wearing the white band serves as a reminder to the powers of this earth that eradicating poverty is a duty, and that the path to the future passes through every part of the earth, not only the developed world.

The Millennial Declaration included eight objectives which together constitute a path towards a safer, more just, and more sustainable world by 2015.

The first seven consist of responsibilities primarily (though not entirely) of poor countries: sending children to school, guaranteeing basic health care, safe drinking water, greater investment in health services and agriculture.

The eighth objective, which sets out the responsibilities and goals for the rich countries, are concentrated in three areas: cooperation on development, foreign debt, and international trade. 2005 is an important year. In September the heads of state will return to New York to evaluate what has been accomplished thus far and what remains to be done. Each leader will give a reckoning of his or her country’s performance.

Before this meeting, in a few days, the G-8 leaders will meet in Scotland, and for the first time their agenda will focus on Africa and poverty. Finally in December in Hong Kong trade ministers will meet in an effort to restart the talks that were begun at Cancun and which are absolutely central to development. It is essential that the rich countries be ready to undertake reforms necessary to balance the asymmetries in current trade relations.

In the light of these three fundamental meetings, a global movement was created to exert pressure to bring about an end to poverty. Launched in Porto Alegre last January in the presence of Brazilian president Lula da Siva, the Global Call to Action Against Poverty is a movement comprised of more than 1000 international networks. Three dates for mobilisations in more than seventy countries have been set preceding, respectively, the G-8, the September summit, and the December conference. The symbol that will unite all of these events will be a white band, a sign of commitment.

These bands will encircle not only wrists but also important buildings, for example, Italian monuments like the Trevi Fountain (a band of light in this case) and the Colosseum (an 80 metre band). The goal is to show support for more efficient measures by our governments to defeat poverty.

More than 30 years have passed since rich countries committed to raising foreign aid to 0.7 percent of GNP. Many of them remain far from reaching this level. But EU member countries committed at the Barcelona Summit to reach at least an average foreign aid level of 0.39 percent by 2006.

After the Monterrey Conference, many countries took this commitment seriously and set dates for reaching the 0.7 percent aid level (Ireland in 2007, Belgium and Finland in 2010, France, Great Britain, and Spain in 2012). Italy remains stuck at 0.15 percent.

It is our duty to raise our voices to say that poverty is a common challenge, that we recognise ourselves as global citizens in an interdependent world in which it is no longer possible to limit your view to only that which is within your borders.

Wearing the white band thus serves as a reminder to the powers of this earth that eradicating poverty is a duty, and that the path to the future passes through every part of the earth, not only the developed world. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Eveline Herfkens and - -
NEW YORK, Oct 1 2004 (IPS)

In September 2000, 189 world leaders signed the Millennium Declaration, a global deal committing themselves to \’\’free our fellow men, women, and children from the abject and dehumanising conditions of extreme poverty\’\’ by 2015 by achieving the 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDG), writes Eveline Herfkens, Secretary-General\’s Executive Coordinator for the MDG and Netherlands Minister for Development Cooperation from 1998 to 2002. But there are real concerns about the rate and breadth of progress, which has been inadequate in still too many poor countries. . The goals are achievable: the world has the resources, and we know what to do. Even in Sub-Saharan Africa and the least-developed countries success is possible: Malawi, Rwanda and Tanzania will achieve goal 2 on basic education; Tanzania is also on track to achieving the water goal; Uganda and Senegal have reversed the AIDS pandemic; and Mozambique\’s child mortality goal might be in reach. In these countries the \’global deal\’ is in place: they have reasonably good policies, while the donor community has been relatively generous with aid and debt relief. If some of the poorest countries in Sub-Saharan Africa can achieve some of the goals, why would they not they be achievable everywhere? The real problem is that many government leaders come to the United Nations make beautiful speeches and promises and fly back to resume business as usual.

In September 2000, 189 world leaders signed the Millennium Declaration, a global deal committing themselves to ”free our fellow men, women, and children from the abject and dehumanising conditions of extreme poverty” by 2015 by achieving the 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDG), ranging from the promotion of education, maternal health and gender equality to slashing poverty and child mortality and eradicating HIV/aids and other deseases. Since then much progress has been made and some developing countries are reaching some of the eight goals ahead of schedule.

However, as the UN Secretary-General’s recently-released annual report on the implementation of the Millennium Declaration states, there are real concerns about the rate and breadth of progress, which has been inadequate in still too many poor countries. What has been lacking until now is the political will of many world leaders to deliver on their Millennium pledges to achieve the millennium development goals. With 10 more years to go the world needs a breakthrough.

The ‘global deal’ explicitly recognises in Goal 8, that eradicating poverty worldwide can only be achieved through a global effort. It is the primary responsibility of poor countries to work towards achieving the first seven goals. However, for poor countries to achieve the first seven goals, developed countries must deliver on their end of the bargain, through providing more and more effective aid, more sustainable debt relief, and fairer trade rules, well in advance of 2015.

Spending on the fight against global poverty declined dramatically in most rich countries in the 1990s, but was revived at the 2002 Monterrey Conference when these countries agreed to increase such spending. If their promises are fulfilled, Official Development Assistance (ODA) should rise substantially by 2006, though it would still fall well short of the additional aid needed to achieve the goals.

Five European countries (Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, and Luxembourg) already surpassed the goal of ODA at the level of 0.7 percent of their GNP. Five countries committed to achieve that level by a concrete date (Ireland by 2007, Belgium by 2010, France, and Spain by 2012, and the UK by 2013), while the other EU members committed to achieve at least 0.33 percent in 2006 as a first step towards the goal. However, according to the same figures, by 2006 Canada will reach only 0.3 percent, Japan 0.22 percent, and the US 0.17 percent.

But delivering high-quality and more effective aid is as important as volume. Too much bilateral aid has been driven by strategic geo-political objectives to countries that do not need external concessional assistance. Moreover, often, aid is provided in ways that benefit the donor’s exporters and visibility and did not contribute to reducing poverty. Linking aid flows to achievements of the goals, strenghtens the pro-aid constituency by changing the image of ODA from giveaways that support corrupt regimes to concrete programs that can reduce child mortality or provide primary education. To increase aid effectiveness, donors should target poor countries, encourage increased ownership, harmonize their procedures, untie aid and make the goals the organizing focus of all aid.

International trade has a tremendous potential to reduce poverty worldwide and drive economic growth. World Bank estimates reveal that the repeal of rich-country trade barriers and subsidies in agriculture would improve global welfare by about $120 billion, and that a 1 percent increase in the developing countries’ share of world exports would lift 128 million people out of poverty. But present trade policies discriminate against developing countries and hinder poor-country participation in the global economy.

Three-quarters of the world’s 900 million poor live in rural areas and depend on agriculture or related activities. Rich countries provide massive support to their domestic agricultural producers — $300 billion annually — which in turn leads to worldwide overproduction, which depresses world prices, floods poor-country markets, and undermines incentives and earning opportunities for farmers in developing communities. Harmful import barriers and export subsidies have to be eliminated for the goals to be reached.

But even while rich countries fail to live up to their commitments there is no excuse for developing countries not to do a better job. For instance primary education is not expensive, even the poorest countries should be able to mobilise and prioritise domestic resources to get all their children to school. The goals needed to be integrated into all national plans, sectorial policies, and budgets at all levels.

The goals are achievable: the world has the resources, and we know what to do. Even in Sub-Saharan Africa and the least-developed countries success is possible: Malawi, Rwanda and Tanzania will achieve goal 2 on basic education; Tanzania is also on track to achieving the water goal; Uganda and Senegal have reversed the AIDS pandemic; and Mozambique’s child mortality goal might be in reach. In these countries the ‘global deal’ is in place: they have reasonably good policies, while the donor community has been relatively generous with aid and debt relief. If some of the poorest countries in Sub-Saharan Africa can achieve some of the goals, why would they not they be achievable everywhere?

The real problem is that many government leaders come to the United Nations make beautiful speeches and promises and fly back to resume business as usual. This was the case with the 0.7 percent promise 30 years ago and it is the case now with Millennium Declaration. It is the people in these countries who can hold their governments to account. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: