1. The Post-2015 Development Agenda and Global Public Goods The Post-2015 Development Agenda and Global Public Goods By Inge Kaul* First International Symposium on Development Policies in a Global World 29 and 30 October 2013 Madrid, Spain * Contact: contact@ingekaul.netcontact@ingekaul.net

2. Structure of the Presentation 1Defining the key concepts 2Linking development and global public goods in the Post- 2015 Agenda 3Filling in the ‚missing middle part‘ of the Agenda Conclusion: Why we may need a ‚Monterrey Plus‘ 2

3. „ Recognizing the intrinsic interlinkage between poverty eradication and the promotion of sustainable development, we underline the need for a coherent approach that integrates in a balanced manner the three dimensions of sustainable development.“ „This involves working towards a single framework and set of goals, universal in nature and applicable to all countries, while taking account of differing national circumstances and respecting national policies and priorities.“ Source: Paragraph 19 of the draft UNGA resolution A/68/L.4 of 1 October 2013, entitled „Outcome document of the special event to follow up efforts made towards achieving the MDGs“ 3

4. 1Defining the key concepts (slide 1 of 5) For the purposes of this presentation, it is useful to clarify the following five concepts: development, development cooperation, global public goods (GPGs), GPG provisioning, and international cooperation.  Development – is defined here as the process through which countries move in order to establish the requisite national capacity that empowers them to manage their own, national affairs in an effective manner. In today‘s interdependent world this may entail creating national capacity for international cooperation on transnational,regional and global policy challenges.  Development cooperation – refers to the part of international cooperation (IC) that is geared towards assisting countries in their national development endeavors, notably in establishing a basic national development floor for further growth and development. 4

5. 1Defining the key concepts (slide 2 of 5)  Public goods – are things (conditions, products or services) whose benefits and/or costs are nonrival, non-excludable or both;  Global public goods (GPGs) – are public goods whose benefits, costs or both are transnational, i.e. cutting across national and regional boundaries. Examples are climate change mitigation, global financial stability, communicable disease control, efficient global knowledge management, peace and security. 5

6. 1Defining the key concepts (slide 3 of 5)  Policy-relevant aspects of the provisioning of (G)PGs:  Publicness is, in most cases, a policy choice– meaning that (G)PGs can be taken out or placed/left in the public domain as things available for all.  National/regional preferences vary -- The choice aspect of publicness is important, because in a world of vast disparities and differences such as ours, preferences for public goods of vary.  Publicness in consumption ought to be matched with publicness in decision-making – Given varying policy priorities, reaching global agreements on GPG provisioning will require deliberate ‚incentive structuring‘, notably participatory decision-making on which GPGs to address, how much of each to provide, how to provide the goods, and at what costs and benefits to whom.  Fair negotiations and firm agreements are critical, because many GPGs entail publicness in provisioning – this means, their adequate provisioning requires corrective steps by state and nonstate actors in all countries, complemented by various collective, multilateral actions at regional and/or worldwide.  Publicness tempts actors into free-riding, which may have to be countered by firm commitments, well-defined target-setting and mutual accountability procedures and, especially, by getting the incentives to cooperate right – by fairness. For more details on the definition of public goods and GPGs, see also ANNEX I. 6

7. 1 Defining the key concepts (4 of 5)  International cooperation (IC) – refers to the political, as well as operational, side of both cooperation in support of GPG provisioning and in support of development. These two main strands of IC differ from each other in important aspects, as shown below, but are also closely intertwined, as argued in the next slide. 7

8. 1Defining the key concepts (slide 5 of 5)  Under conditions of economic openness, development cannot succeed without an adequate provisioning of GPGs; and GPG provisioning cannot succeed without development. To illustrate:  climate change could – through storms and floods – undermine past development, rendering states vulnerable and pushing people back under the poverty line;  over-protection of clean energy technologies could impede progress in terms of education, health, investment and growth, as well as climate change mitigation and adaptation;  lacking TRIPS flexibility or not utilizing fully existing flexibilities could impede global health;  volatility in financial and commodity markets could threaten development, including hunger and poverty reduction.  Similarly, international cooperation with failed and failing states or with states seeking to recover from natural diasasters could impede the provisioning of GPGs like global health or peace and security and generate cross-border spillovers like international refugee streams. 8

9. To conclude Point 1 The main conclusion emerging from the foregoing discussion is: International development cooperation that aims at promoting sustainable development in economic, environmental and social terms – as postulated in the aforementioned outcome document of the UNGA debates of 25/9/2013 – would, under the current policymaking realities, need to pursue a two-pronged strategy:  First, it ought to aim at assisting developing countries in taking the domestic measures, which are required in order to create a resilient and durable national development floor; and  Second, it ought to aim at ‚development-proofing‘ GPG provisioning, i.e. promote an adequate, fair and development-compatible provisioning of GPGs – lest the ‚GPG hand‘ takes what the ‚foreign-aid hand‘ tries to give. 9

10. 2 Linking development cooperation and GPG provisioning in the Post-2015 Agenda (1 of 2) Assuming that the international community were to agree on the definition of development and development cooperation proposed before, notably the conceptualization of development cooperation as a two-pronged strategy, what implications would that have for ist design? Clearly, the Agenda would need to address both prongs of development cooperation: 1 Development cooperation in support of the domestic public policy measures required for establsihing the basic development floor; and 2 Development cooperation aimed at development proofing GPG provisioning In respect to 1, the domestic development measures,the Agenda could establish goals and targets for meeting existing ODA commitments and how to allocate them to different groups of countries. It could also mention graduation points and urge countries to strive toward meeting goals such as the MDGs. But, given the topic of this presentation, let‘s focus on Prong 2. 10

11. 2 Linking development cooperation and GPG provisioning in the Post-2015 Agenda (2 of 2) In respect to the 2nd prong of development cooperation, i.e. the development- proofing of GPGs, the Agenda could, among other things, stipulate the following:  To ensure that all development-relevant GPGs are on the international agenda, including x, y, z and ……..(e.g. energy, food and water security);  To review the current provision status and shape of the key GPGs from the viewpoint of how they could be made more development-compatible. For example, what could be done to foster a faster transfer and deployment of clean energy and health technologies?  To reconfirm existing agreements on compensating countries for the adaptation measures they may need to put in place due to the overuse of certain GPGs (e.g. the atmosphere). Should this also entail creating global facilities for natural-disaster risk financing?  To add proposals for any further compensatory arrangements  To aim at a better management by all countries, with capacity to do so, of cross-border externalities resulting from their national policies 11

12. 3 Focusing on the,missing middle part‘ 3 Focusing on the,missing middle part‘ (1 of 2) Why the phrase ‚the missing middle part‘? The reason is that, at present, the main focus in the preparatory debates is on two issues: The final goals to be achieved (e.g. to reduce poverty and hunger); and The indicators of success, i.e. of achieving the stated goals. Very little, if anything is usually being said about the inputs that would be required in order to realize the goals: the concrete cooperation commitments – Who is to input what by when? Yet, as especially the discussion on linking has shown, many concrete reform steps would need to be taken – by developed and developing countries. It would be useful to set clear implementation targets for those. Moreover, approaching development on a goal-by-goal basis may be inefficient. More effective could be to identify a number of key entry points and to focus on achieving them on a priority basis. An example of such a key entry point is ‚energy security for all‘. Its attainment could help achieve several final goals. 12

13. 3 Focusing on the,missing middle part‘ 3 Focusing on the,missing middle part‘ (2 of 2) Accordingly, the Agenda could:  State as ist main goals development cooperation deliverables, indicating who should by when deliver which inputs,  Request that all concerned parties report on the progress they made/are making in meeting their commitments  Indicate the development improvements to be achieved by these inputs in different issue areas and suggest that the emergence of the ‚ripple effects‘ also be monitored.  Propose that a high-level independent body be entrusted with the review of the monitoring reports. This body could function as Trustees of Inclusive and Sustainable Global Growth and Development, assessing development progress, and hence progress in the implementation of the Post-2015 Agenda, as well as progress in fostering an adequate overll provisioning of GPGs. 13

14. Conclusion: Do we need a Monterrey Plus? But why is the Agenda‘s ‚middle part‘ missing now? Many factors come into play, among them: The sovereignty paradox‘: States are holding on to a conventional notion of sovereignty that makes them shy away from international cooperation even in GPG-type areas in which policy interdependence exists. Power shifts: among states and between state and nonstate actors Ressource constraints New policy challenges requiring new institutional responses Financial innovation that has not yet entered the mainstream of policymaking Outdated and lacking concepts 14

15. Conclusion: Do we need a Monterrey Plus? (2 of 2) So in order to facilitate the Agenda process in devising its now still missing middle part, it appears desirable to convene a Monterrey Plus conference as soon as possible. The purpose of this conference could be to formulate a holistic, integrated vision of the ressourcing of international cooperation, including development cooperation and cooperation in support of GPG provisioning. Public financing would be just one aspect of the ressourcing of international cooperation. Other aspects would be measures that could, for example, help reduce the costs of IC (e.g. enhanced TRIPs flexibility and natural- disaster insurance ) or help leverage private finance. 15

16. References References: This presentation draws on: Kaul, I. et al., eds. 2003. Providing Global Public Goods; Managing Globalization. New York: Oxford University Press. Kaul, I. 2013.a. Meeting Global Challenges: Assessing Governance Readiness. In Hertie School of Governance. Governance Report 2013. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 33-58. ____. 2013.b. Global Public Goods: A concept for framing the Post-2015 Agenda? DIE Discussion Paper 2/2013. Bonn: German Development Institute. 16