My input to the discussion addresses the role of ICTs in building institutional capacity.

The use of ICT in public administration can seem a dry topic compared to such marquee questions as participation, democracy, human rights, integrity and rule of law, but it is essential to talk about it in the context of development priorities for some obvious and not-so-obvious reasons.

First among them naturally is the fact that ICT in the public sector, thoughtfully applied, can bring about orders of magnitude improvements in efficiency that are immediately noted and appreciated by individuals and business interests. The marginal cost of common transactions – such as information retrieval, social benefits payments, application for personal documents and tax filing – is indeed very low once the requisite infrastructure is in place, especially where people are squeezed tightly together.

With more than half the world’s population now living in urban areas and some two-thirds projected to be city dwellers by 2050, economies of scale strongly favour the benefit side of the equation in all regions. The implication of this is that judicious management of public sector ICT investment can enable forward-looking governments to redirect significant resources to ensuring the most basic needs of citizens.

Even in high-income countries that are well-advanced in technology, administrative efficiency remains an important concern and compelling argument in financial deliberations. Technology also has a clear multiplier effect both in the overall economy and in the public sector. Government as a platform, for example, with the inherent potential of open data and crowd sourcing, can facilitate innovation and enable co-production of public services at almost no cost once the necessary procedures, safeguards and methods are in place.

But this is only part of the story. Improvements in effectiveness are where the real developmental gains from building ICT capacity in government are to be found. The bottom line is important but it is not a development outcome in the sense of improving quality of life and opportunities available to people and societies. Rather, ICT is an effective tool because it helps government become a better listener and more agile partner in the sustainable development effort. Techniques such as participatory budgeting, mobile voting, data mining and interaction on social media allow the public manager and policy-maker to take the pulse of a constituency and at least try to shape public services that more closely address the needs and aspirations of people.

ICT is also necessary for dealing with increasing complexity, managing engagement and transforming production methods. The quality of health care systems is a case in point. The progressive roll-out of technology – from rural clinics accessing health information to near real-time epidemiological tracking with mobile devices to computer-assisted diagnostics and remote consultation – builds institutional capacity in a way that transforms lives and makes public health noticeably more effective with every step. The same can be said of educational quality, environmental management, transport, water and energy management and a range of other sectors.

One of the less obvious reasons that building institutional capacity through ICT plays a central role in development is that technological advantage concentrates wealth. It is well-known that firms that invest in technology have a competitive advantage over firms that do not. The same is true of governments and countries, with the result that post-2015 efforts to address inequalities between and within countries risk unravelling if technological diffusion is itself uneven. The digital divide refers not only to questions of Internet access and diversity but also to the use of that capacity and knowledge to keep up with the neighbours.

By extension, if people are to interact on an equal footing, their public institutions must also operate on an equal footing with counterparts in other countries. This concern is an ongoing concern in important areas of international public policy-making including, for example in the area of Internet governance, finance and investment, security and trade. Governments that do not have the capacity, enabled by technology, to cooperate and compete as equals undermine prospects for their citizens and put whole societies at a material disadvantage to others.

The corollary of wealth concentration is concentration of influence and the propagation or reinforcement of social divides. Within countries, this can manifest itself in dominance of private over public interests. Across countries this comes out in the transfer of executive functions to high-income areas with the most advanced technology, and a tendency to locate low-return extraction and manufacturing functions in low-technology areas – further weakening the position of the public sector vis-à-vis the private sector due to relatively limited access to ICT investment, infrastructure and skills.

To be sure, traditional forms of engagement are quite possible without ICTs, for example by means of parliamentary representation and elections. Yet, these traditional forms, while valuable for public policy-making, remain at a distance from communities and people. Alone, they are out-of-step with the Information Society, including in countries dependent on low bandwidth mobile networks and other emergent ICT capacity. Technological diffusion, like efficiency, is not a goal in and of itself but an indication of a country’s capacity for social equity generally as well as the ability to deliver on development goals, i.e. to engage and govern effectively in an interconnected world.

Finally, one should recall that that ICT can have a powerful transformative effect on public perceptions of transparency and accountability. Everywhere the call is for honest government and integrity in the public sector as a fundamental characteristic of social well-being. Excuses for excluding citizens from government, from keeping information hidden, ring false in the Internet age where citizens expect to be treated as partners with government just as long-standing social contracts grounded in constitutional law would suggest.

Thus, with so much political uncertainty associated with democratic reform, one should not lose track of the transformative potential of ICTs in the public sector. One of the most important lessons of the information age is that steady march of technology in government will bring us to sustainable development goals more quickly and possibly more effectively than many other governance reforms.

For all these reasons, UNDESA, through DPADM, has been tracking public sector ICT take-up by means of its e-government development index for the past ten years. As a key enabler of governance and pillar of institutional capacity development, diffusion of ICT in government needs to become an integral part of the monitoring framework of a post-2015 development agenda. Without it, we will not be able to deliver on sustainable development goals.

Patrick Spearing, Senior Governance and Public Administration Officer, UNDESA

UN Women understands democratic governance as the process by which citizens interact with governments. From a gender and human rights perspective, good governance should be measured by how it achieves gender equality and women’s empowerment and advances human rights. Gender-responsive and human rights based governance systems are central for enabling the realization of women’s rights and implementation of gender equality goals including women’s economic empowerment, women’s access to health and education, elimination of violence against women and all other forms of inequality and discrimination experienced by women.

However, most definitions of good governance in the academic and institutional literature do not make explicit reference to gender equality and the assumption is made that governance systems are gender neutral. However citizen interaction with the state is not gender neutral. Governance systems frame the relationship between state and citizens and as such reflect the power dynamics in society. Governance systems often present obstacles to the fulfillment of women’s rights and the achievement of gender equality and women’s empowerment.

These obstacles include:

Content of public policy is often not coherent with human rights standards and gender equality goals and does not address structural gender inequality: National development strategies are important policy documents that set out development priorities and identify implementation and financing arrangements as well as performance indicators that constitute the accountability frameworks for government actions. However, public policy as articulated in NDSs, sector and local plans and strategies often do not include a gender analysis of development gaps. Even where such an analysis is incorporated, gender equality priorities are often not taken into account at later stages of policy formulation and implementation. Despite numerous efforts to formulate national action plans for gender equality, and sector gender strategies, these are rarely integrated in national or sector and local plans. And often when they are, they do not factor in priorities and needs of women in all their diversities and contexts.

Implementation of existing policies is ineffective in achieving gender equality outcomes: Persisting gender gaps point to the inadequacy of interventions that address barriers to women’s access and benefit from public services. The UN Report on the MDGs for 2010 and the following two years, showed insufficient progress on gender equality targets (MDG3) and maternal mortality (MDG5) as well as in addressing the issues of equity to achieve the rest of the MDGs. Around 64% of the MDG targets for service-related goals (2, 3, 6 and 7) are ‘off track’. Gender analysis of this underperformance points to women’s lack of resources and freedom to access services, their dual roles as income earners and care-givers, and lack of voice to influence policy making on service delivery and broader development and aid policies (ODI 2010). Responding to those barriers requires responsive institutional systems and capacity, with strong political will to support action and investment, and effective accountability mechanisms that put gender equality at the heart of the aspired goals.

For example, the growing trend in budget reforms that introduces systems for results-based budgeting and facilitates monitoring of the impact of public investments on achievement of results, highlights the critical need for gender analysis and data. The inadequate capacity and unavailability of gender analysis and limited scope of gender related data result in the inability to measure progress towards gender results.

On the other hand, efforts in mainstreaming gender in public administration and international development organizations (including the United Nations) have shown limited impact on transforming organizational mandates, priorities, investments, and performance accountability frameworks. Weak institutional capacity to formulate gender-responsive plans and budgets and to deliver quality services is further exacerbated by the weak positioning and resourcing of institutional units dealing with gender equality. Due to their limited authority and capacity, these units are left out of strategic stages of policy making. What is required is strengthened capacity of national partners on gender analysis, data, and gender responsive planning and budgeting and ensuring that institutional systems and accountability mechanisms are gender-responsive.

Financial resources allocated towards gender equality are inadequate. Public investments in services that contribute to achieving gender equality are considerably low. In addition, public services that target women respond to a limited scope of women’s rights (with primary focus on women’s reproductive health or girls’ education and limited focus on women’s economic rights, security and empowerment - investments that address women’s strategic needs and strengthen demands for accountability). Further public services that address women’s rights are often of poor quality, insufficient and not well targeted at leaving groups of women excluded (e.g. rural women, indigenous women, women living with  HIV, . etc.). Ability of governments or institutions to monitor adequacy of public spending in relation to gender equality remains elusive. Financing for gender equality is not transparent and is difficult to measure. A number of countries and institutions have developed systems or gender markers to track “financing for gender equality”. However, further efforts are needed to ensure an integrated approach for tracking financing for gender equality using a harmonized definition that distinguishes between various types of investments and ensures a substantive contribution towards gender equality goals. Effective financing for gender equality needs to demonstrate evidence of impact of investment in addressing structural barriers to gender equality, and to respond to strategic priorities contributing to gender equality and women’s empowerment.

Low levels of participation by women and gender equality advocates (within and outside government) in processes shaping public policy. The legitimacy of any governance system is often determined by the level of engagement with citizens. Structures of governance enhance, or limit, participation and accountability and this is having an impact on effectiveness of interventions to respond to inequalities. Women’s role in political processes – as part of government or civil society – as well as in the private sector- is critical to their ability to fully exercise their rights as active citizens and to contribute to the well-being of society. For women, meaningful engagement requires adequate capacity, inclusive spaces for policy dialogue, transparent and accessible information, and recourse mechanisms. Women’s engagement needs to be opened at all stages of processes of decision-making, from the local level to the national level and in formal and informal spaces. In the context of political processes, this includes participation in civil society processes, access to vote, ability to run for office and institutional support for elected leaders to act effectively.

These conditions are also necessary for the effective engagement of gender advocates in the various policy formulation and implementation stages. Regarding delivery of services, for example, the participation of women, gender equality advocates and women’s organizations in policy analysis and development and in the design of public administration reform processes would ensure that they are more demand driven and more effectively targeted and financed. It is also a critical element of ensuring legitimacy and effectiveness of governance systems.

The paradigm by which we address participation of women in decision-making processes must shift to reflect true gender balance, which is inherent in the concepts of good governance and democracy. This new model also needs to address deeper structural issues that are transversal to all obstacles to gender equality, ranging from the comparison of skills and perspectives correlated to male-dominated leadership models to issues of financing and access to information that hinder the way women can effectively participate. In terms of numbers based on national level participation (national parliaments), the data points out that that we are far from meeting parity. The goal of gender balance in political participation is consistent with the concept of representative democracies and the goals laid out in the 1990s by the ECOSOC resolution (E/RES/1990/15) and the Beijing Platform. These agreements were the basis for the also-elusive target of 30% representation of women in leadership positions, set as a general target for 1995 – more than a decade ago. The Beijing Platform’s interpretation of the ECOSOC resolution was actually a dilution of the original call to action which put the target to “at least 30% by 1995, with a view to achieving equal representation between women and men by the year 2000”. This current model by which we measure women’s participation needs to be reformulated to encompass not only equality in numbers but also the underlying structural and societal barriers to recognizing women as equal to men in decision-making spaces. No development agenda that is forward-thinking can fail to address women’s participation nor can it rely on outdated standards and goals.

The momentum around the review of implementation of the MDGs by 2015 and the development of a new development agenda for post 2015 as well as the follow-up to the Rio+20 conference and its mandate to develop sustainable development goals (SDGs) provides a critical opportunity to demonstrate the relevance of gender responsive and human rights based governance in order to eliminate discrimination and deprivation and increase the role of women in decision-making to achieve sustainable and inclusive human  development .  While it is essential to make clear policy arguments about the centrality of governance related concerns to development, and, within that context, to underline the essential need to combat gender-based discrimination in governance, arguments about policy priorities alone will not be sufficient. The post-2015 framework is likely to reproduce the governance deficit of the MDGs unless compelling and concrete goals, indicators and targets are also proposed.

Key questions UN Women is considering

What aspects of gender responsive governance are most critical to include in the post 2015 framework?

How would gender responsive governance be best reflected at the goal level? Should gender equality advocates, for example, be supporting the creation of a “good governance” goal in addition to a “gender” goal?

How would we measure success in these areas and ensure human rights standards and principles including equality and non-discrimination, participation, accountability, empowerment. .

How can we promote a more forward-thinking paradigm of women and gender advocates’ political participation and engagement in decision-making processes that addresses the ‘quantitative’ (number of women participating) while promoting true gender balance as well as societal support to enable the ‘qualitative’ dimension of citizen participation?

What viable targets and indicators might be proposed for these critical areas?

The quest for effective governance

There seems to be a general agreement on the difference between a governance and an effective governance. What appears to be needed is a consensus on what may constitute an effective governance, and the form it may take in order to render it holistic and inclusive.

I would like to begin by suggesting that it would be justifiable to change the current meaning of the term 'development' to stand for something individual, i. e., define it as an endeavour to enable every person to be capable of using his or her potential abilities in order to achieve contentment and well being.

One's sense of contentment and well being  depends on the values laid down by the culture to which one subscribes.

However, in view of the current state of our environment, it is imperative that its preservation and regeneration is given a universal value. Many of the so-called indigenous cultures have always done so, while in industrialised ones, it has been depreciated.

Meanwhile, it is generally agreed that a society has a right to its own culture. It is important that governance regardless of its range and scope, should actively uphold this right.

Meanwhile, unlike other living things, the possibility of our living like human beings, depends on our acquiring the ability to do so. Part of this ability represents education, be it informal or formal. The other part involves the possibility of procuring the material tools needed to exercise our abilities. Such tools may range from simple agricultural tools to most sophisticated electronic gear.

Justice at this point involves making available to people education relevant to one's abilities, and access to the requisite tools. It is crucial that this is done with reference to the specific cultural framework involved. Otherwise, it would be an imposition from without.

But other things being equal, learning and application of one's abilities would be possible, if and only if one is healthy, adequately nourished, and secure from other threats to life.

If this view is accepted, the purpose of a government is to ensure that the governed are able to develop their potential abilities with reference to their culture, to maintain their health, to meet their nutritional needs, and to be secure in a manner that does not degrade or destroy the environment.

As cultural value sets are local, a governance should have a local component. Regional similarities among cultures makes it possible for one to develop  a regional governance that would enable a number of governments to cooperate in a manner that would increase their efficiency in providing the services noted above.

Finally, a global governance  would describe what means are to be used to achieve what may be decided on as global objectives by consensus. But, it is crucial that these goals will in no way constitute impositions on a local culture, nor yet be determined by vested interests, be they the local elite or opportunists from without.

Consequences of such a tiered or a hierarchical governance are that the local people will have a greater say in the way they lead their lives, an aim democracy professes to uphold and lessening the 'international pressure' that has often disrupted the lives of many a small communirty.

LM.

1. I believe that multiple dimensions of governance can be brought into the same framework through the formation of a democratically elected World Parliament. The political systems of most of the world's ostensibly democratic countries have come under the control of business interests that are contrary to interests of their general public, and many are downright hostile to many of the Mellenium Development goals.  
2. Because of that situation, inequality of every kind is destined to grow, the extremes of economic inequality are growing in every part of the world. Because of this, efforts to reduce the various gender and racial inequalities are met with a certain hostility by working class people of the 'dominant' culture who are still poor, who feel they are being penalized for sharing a skin color with the wealthy elite whose policies have created most of the economic crisis to begin with. In my own country, it seems like every level of government from municipal to provincial to federal is completely indifferent to the average person's standard of living, which is increasingly going down. It used to be one person with a full time job could support a family, now we require 2 people working plus various subsidies in order to get by at near poverty and still be going into debt. I know it's worse in other countries, but when we see empty houses that nobody can afford to buy while people are crowded into apartments there is obviously something seriously wrong with our economic system, especially when we're told that these problems are all considered positive economic signifiers. 
3. Feasibility of goals: While I think it might be desirable, I don't believe it will be feasible to propose governance goals and targets in specific areas with the current political systems being what they are in almost every part of the world. I believe the best alternative approach would be a World Parliament that could operate above the global economy and above existing national governments in order to ensure that the market system serves broader human interests. If the election system for the World Parliament could be insulated from the kind of campaign-funding related backdoor deals that have come to dominate existing election systems, it could become the ultimate vehicle to bring about mass civic participation in international political affairs. Measures could be taken to encourage participation in the system by indigenous peoples, minorities, youth, persons with disabilities, older persons, migrants (legal or otherwise), as well as the poor and working class who are currently relegated to spectator status by the various national political systems. 
4. Information and communications technologies would be the backbone of the World Parliament system, especially during elections and plebescites. With the right approach, using the internet to it's fullest, every individual in the world would empowered and encouraged to participate.

I would say transparency,equality,democracy and accountability are the means through which good governance can be achieved. So all resources should be channelled to holding service providers accountable and ending all abuse,misuse and corruption.

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Coalition (CSRC) was convened by Aviva Investors in September 2011.

The CSRC represents investors with assets under management of approximately US$2 trillion, as well as financial institutions, professional bodies, NGOs and other relevant stakeholders.

It includes organisations as diverse as the ACCA, Global Reporting Initiative, and the Carbon Disclosure Project which acts on behalf of 551 institutional investors, holding US$71 trillion in AUM.

Last year the coalition accompanied the UK Government’s delegation to the Rio+20 conference to advocate a convention on corporate sustainability reporting, encouraging governments to adopt policies that would require large companies to integrate sustainability issues within their annual reports on a report or explain basis.

The outcome of the conference ratified the importance of corporate sustainability reporting; and encouraged governments, industry and other relevant stakeholders to develop models of best practice.

pursue a transformational agenda that aims to integrate economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection. Furthermore, we welcome the High Level Panel’s commitment to a vision that fosters sustainable growth with equity, the sustainable and transparent management of natural resources; and the cooperation between governments, private sector and civil society behind a common agenda that addresses local, national and global development challenges.

In this regard, we believe that corporate transparency and accountability should be one of the building blocks underpinning this vision.  The role of the private sector has been recognised as pivotal to achieving the current Millennium Development Goals. Furthermore, there is increasing recognition that businesses’ potential contribution to poverty eradication can be significantly higher than that of international aid.[1] The Post-2015 development agenda should be a catalyst for the realization of this potential and for providing the contours for an enabling environment that fosters sustainable and inclusive business practices and sustainable capital markets that contribute to poverty eradication, green growth and sustainable economies.

Transparency and accountability as a building block for this vision can be delivered through corporate sustainability reporting (the disclosure of a company’s governance, environmental and social performance and impacts). Leading companies around the world already publish sustainability reports on an annual basis  Meanwhile, governments and stock exchanges in both developed and developing countries are designing mandatory policies and incentives to expand the measurement and disclosure of corporate sustainability information. Accordingly, the 2011 UN High-Level Global Sustainability Panel recommended that governments consider making sustainability reporting a compulsory requirements for companies with a market capitalisation of over USD100 million.[2]

By measuring and disclosing governance, environmental and social information, companies can better understand, evaluate and eventually manage their risks- a necessary step towards building sustainable business models around the concept of ‘shared value’. Furthermore, investors are able to allocate capital in a more sustainable way, civil society can engage in constructive dialogue and effective partnership with the private sector, and governments can enable a better level of national sustainable development policy making and programme delivery based on actual information of corporate practices and aspirations on the key dimensions of sustainable development.

We therefore call on the High Level Panel to include corporate transparency and accountability as one of the building blocks underpinning a vision for a Post-2015 development agenda that will respond to the challenges of the 21^st Century. We believe that corporate transparency through sustainability reporting and disclosure will enhance the effectiveness of a Post-2015 Development Framework and strengthen the Global Partnerships and coordination between private sector, governments and other development actors including civil society.

• Bali 2 pager.docx

Job sharing MPs campaign

Disability Politics UK is campaigning to introduce new laws that would allow two people from the same political party to stand together for election to represent a parliamentary consitutency.

We believe that this would open parliament up to disabled people who might not be able to work full-time for impairment related reasons.This would also help carers - mainly women - get access to politics.

We think this should be adopted by the Unite Nations as a worldwide goal, to enable more disabled people to get access to politics.

For more information see www.disabilitypolitics.org.uk

Dear Colleagues, 

Please forgive my late addition to this forum.

I've attached a delayed but brief position paper from Global Witness on how transparency and accountability can be built into the post-2015 development agenda, whether under a Governance, Inequality, or Conflict goal.

Don't hesitate to get in touch with any questions or comments!

Best,

Dana

• Global Witness Position Paper_ Transparency in the Post-2015 Development Framework.pdf

Key considerations of governance in sustainable development include capacilities, accountability, efficiency, and citizen participation. Many of the members commenting here seem to agree that civic participation is critical for good governance, but that can't be limited to national elections and lobbying. very few communities and citizen groups can effectively participate in national-level politics, and national elections are only one mechanism of democratic governance. More frequent and intensive participation in government decisionmaking is necessary to ecnourage governance that is responsive to the distinct needs of communities and marginilized groups, as the United Nations has reecognized time and time again [see Participatory Governance and the Millennium Development Goals].

In order to really achieve this kind of participation, we need look explicitly at local governance. Local participation in political decisionmaking (when the governing body has the discretion and capacity to manage local resources) has been causally linked to a wide array of development goals including improved access to affordable education, increased spending in maternal and child health, improved management of common resources, pro-poor budgeting, etc.

Obviously this requires local government structures to have the authority to make decisions about resource allocation and planning. Political decentralization is fundamental to this process - specifically, devolution of public services, budgeting and political processes to local levels.

I am part of a growing community of practitioners, academics and government leaders focused on this issue. We are developing an index to measure the state of participatory democracy through regional consultations in India, Mexico, Bangladesh, South Africa, etc. The Index is currently based on 5 primary components:

• Active Citizenry
• Political Decentralization
• Administrative Decentralization
• Fiscal Decentralization; and
• Planning Capacity

If you are interested in learning more about the Index and the Community of Practice (or joining in on the conversation) I encourage your to visit Community's webpage at http://localdemocracy.net/the-scorecard/

ICTs are ubiquitous in people's lives. If we want an inclusive, participative and just world we should make use of ICTs in a smart way

Dear Roshni and colleagues

please find an input to this extremely intersting and important discussion from the Governance and Public Sector Management of the World Bank.

Looking forward to your thoughts, comments and feedback

Francesca Recanatini

Senior Economist, The World Bank

• Post 2015 MDGs governance input final feb 28 2013.pdf

Promoting Child Participation and bringing them together to develop their capacities to develop critical understanding of grassroots democracy is an important building block of good governance. Here are perspectives from children's councils (shishu Panchayats) in India.  - Vedabhyas

• Shishu Panchayats perspectives.doc

Promoting Child Participation and bringing them together to develop their capacities to develop critical understanding of grassroots democracy is an important building block of good governance. Here are perspectives from children's councils (shishu Panchayats) in India.  - Vedabhyas

• Shishu Panchayats perspectives.doc

Communication literacy which entails critical understanding of various tools of available communication modes and the ability to use these has to be an important feature of today’s knowledge society. At a time when different communication channels are ubiquitous and the increasingly convergent nature of the communication architecture makes an important case in point for the citizenry to be communication literate. A communication literate citizenry only can make optimal use of the available knowledge for sustainable development. In this context, communicaton literacy and a communication literate citizenry are an integral part and building block of good governance. 

Communication literacy which entails critical understanding of various tools of available communication modes and the ability to use these has to be an important feature of today’s knowledge society. At a time when different communication channels are ubiquitous and the increasingly convergent nature of the communication architecture makes an important case in point for the citizenry to be communication literate. A communication literate citizenry only can make optimal use of the available knowledge for sustainable development. In this context, communicaton literacy and a communication literate citizenry are an integral part and building block of good governance. 

Elizabeth, Lima-Perú

Hola estimado foro! mi opinión al tema en discusión para comenzar.

 ¿Cuáles deberían ser los elementos básicos de gobernabilidad para una agenda post-2015?

• Las dimensiones de gobernabilidad:  ¿Cómo las múltiples dimensiones de la gobernabilidad se incluirán en un marco de desarrollo global? ¿En qué medida el gobierno ha reflejado en los ODM actuales? ¿Cómo ha cambiado el contexto del gobierno-incluyendo las oportunidades y los retos del Cambio desde que los ODM fueron concebidos? ¿Cómo gobernabilidad y (des) igualdad, incluyendo la desigualdad de género, afectan unos a otros? ¿Qué lecciones han surgido con respecto a la importancia de los componentes específicos de gobernanza para el logro y la sostenibilidad de los ODM y otros ODAI?
  
  ¿Por qué es la gobernanza relevantes para el logro y la sostenibilidad de las prioridades de desarrollo?


• • Porque se requiere de un órgano que preserve y promueva el equilibrio entre el estado, la sociedad civil y la empresa, actuando de manera comprometida y velando por el bienestar de la comunidad.

       ¿Cuáles son las experiencias a nivel sub-nacional, nacional, regional y mundial a este respecto

Según la región, será el nivel cultural que permita "entendimiento" y mayor participacipación, este es un aspecto importante, si no se comprende lo que se hace o el mensaje, entonces la participación y voluntad de involucrados disminuye.

• • Debe existir un concenso llevado a políticas públicas universales que se unifiquen en programas.
  
  
  • Fortalecimiento de capacidades locales para mejor gestión en países sub desarrollados.
  
  
  • No hay continuidad mayormente entre un cambio de gestión y otro.
• Viabilidad de los objetivos:  ¿Sería deseable o factible proponer objetivos y metas de gobierno en áreas específicas? ¿Cuáles son los enfoques alternativos?

Las metas son una manera de medir no sólo resultados,si no también los avances que son indicadores importantes y muestran otras variables no previstas que se prensenten, entonces:

• Las metas a corto y largo plazo deben ser cualitativas para evitar el cumplimiento aparente que suele ocurrir.


• Un concenso llevado a políticas públicas universales que se unifiquen en programas con etapas, previa capacitación de articuladores y actores. 
  
  • Educación: la comunicación y comprensión son fundamentales, la comprensión es un problema que está aquejando a muchas personas desde el colegio y , si no comprenden lo que escuchan o leen, no podrán tomar buenas decisiones.
  
  
  • Fortalecimiento en instituciones: no es visible en muchos lugares, pero la falta de talento en los gestores de alto mando es creciente,se ha perdido la sensibilidad, acrecentado la falta de sentido común y comprensión, esto lleva cualquier proyecto a declive y perdida de talentos del entorno.
  
  
  • Salud pública: gestionar todos los temas concernientes a la salud, el entorno influye en la salud mental, un alivio es promomover una comunicación más positiva, empoderante y alegre, que la gente logre ver sus problemas como retos. En un estado emocional más positivo, las personas reflexionen sobre las necesidades que existen a su alrrededor y se integren a la búsqueda de una su solución.
  
  
  • Saneamiento: si las personas son más sensibles a las necesidades, tendrán un mayor compromiso y manejaran mejor los recursos, esto debe estar de la mano de la opción creativa y generosa de los científicos que permitan ver soluciones alternas, nuevas formas de conseguir las necesidades básicas y a partir de estas ideas comenzar, porque estirar lo existente no es una solución.


• Algunas  áreas del examen  puede incluir:
  
  • La participación ciudadana, que incluye los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, las minorías, los jóvenes, las personas con discapacidad, los ancianos, los inmigrantes (legales o no), entre otros;
  
  
  • Las capacidades de las instituciones públicas (en particular para la administración de justicia, la participación democrática y la seguridad personal) a nivel nacional o sub-nacional;
  
  
  • La gobernanza mundial (instituciones globales, mecanismos e instrumentos); asociaciones mundiales y la coherencia de políticas a todos los niveles (es decir, en áreas como el comercio, el medio ambiente, la justicia, etc)


• El papel de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC) en la gestión:  ¿Cuál podría ser el papel de las TIC en la construcción de capacidad institucional? En la movilización de la participación cívica y el empoderamiento de las personas y grupos de todo el mundo?

• • La divulgación es muy importante, porque llega a muchas personas que tienen necesidad de información, las sensibiliza sobre la necesidad o función de algo. Si bien el acceso a las tics es mayor pero no llega a zonas marginales, ni de extrema pobreza con gran cantidad de población.
  
  
  • Las TIC Mueven el mundo y ellas deben usarse y manipularse de manera más responsable, evitando la contaminación e influencia mediática, es decir todo tipo de violencia ya que se convierte en una herramienta que llega a exacerbar bajos instintos, lejos de modificarlos o tratarlos.
  
  
  • Las TIC son una responsabilidad por lo cual dentro de las políticas públicas puede concensuarse, para que los medios de comunicación tomen una mayor responsabilidad de lo que deberían informar, revalorizando lo importante sobre lo negativo cotidiano que si bien es nuestra realidad, debe "informarse" de su existencia y  "formar" de otras que también existen pero ayudan a promover lo positivo y sacar lo mejor de las personas. Su gestión tiene gran influencia en la decisión y cambios de conducta de muchas personas.
  
  
  • Las Instituciones tendrán una mejor ventana para llegar a las personas que tienen acceso a las TIC, pero deberán gestionar mejor cómo llegar a aquellos no lo tienen aún y lo necesitan como un medio de formación.
  
  
  • Las TIC, son una forma de vida pero no debemos depender de ellas, que mentes creativas generen siempre alternativas ante una eventual caída de las redes, no es deseable pero es previsible.
  
  
  • Las TIC son una herramienta valiosa que supera las creencias, religiones manejadas responsablemente, un buen mensaje puede llegar y entenderse de la misma forma por todos, hay que saber hacer el mensaje, y hay que preparar a las personas para entenderlo.

Ten regional finalists, Mums, babies and guests had been invited to attend the award ceremony where the mother who has nominated the Midwife of the Year will receive £1000 and a further £1000 top up for their child’s trust fund generously donated by the Royal Bank of Scotland. The Midwife of the Year will also receive £1000 for herself and a further £1000 for her Midwifery Unit. This year witnessed celebrity sports star and England Rugby ace Ben Cohen give up his position at the World Cup to stay at home for the recent arrival of his twin daughters and to honour not only his own midwife Julia Bennett but to also award the trophy to the finalist of the 2007 awards. The host for the event was regional TV and radio presenter and president of the Leeds NSPCC, Jon Hammond. Jon had the unexpected honour of receiving a charity cheque donation for £6,000.00 for the NSPCC from Mamas & Papas as part of the brand’s charity commitment through the profits made from the sale of the retail catalogue. The winner of this year’s award demonstrated exception qualities as a midwife not just this year but for many years previous where she has been nominated as a regional finalist. Midwife Sandra Bosman from The Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle is a highly skilled midwife for the regional who specialises in multiple births. Her nominating mother for whom she helped delivery quadruplets said,“We will tell our children as they grow not only how she made a positive impact on our lives but how she will no doubt have a positive impact on others in the future. “Lorna Bird, 2006’s Midwife of the Year winner from Southampton and who was central to the judging process said,“This midwife is truly inspirational, her devotion and commitment to her multiple birth families is outstanding. Every day she goes the extra mile without a second thought and her charity work is just a further sign of her dedication.“A surprised but delighted winner, Sandra Bosman commented on receiving the award what it being a midwife means to her,“As I deal with a lot of women who require IVF treatment, childbirth is a long hard journey and I am blessed to be able to help them. I love the women I care for and birth is a wonderful gift. “
If you are looking to find a car then you might want to consider these 10 important tips before running off and signing that check. With the recession affecting more dealers, they are looking to squeeze every penny possible out of their buyers but you as the buyer should learn to get the most value out of your money as well. Your vehicle whether new or used is an important investment. You want it to become an asset and not a liability, but if you aren’t careful then it might become a burden. The following tips can help you when you go to get your dream car. Take them into consideration when you enter that dealership lot and you might spare yourself the pitfalls of a failed purchase. 1.Choose the right time. Usually the best time to purchase a new car is when the new models are out. These are usually between August and November. When you shop during these times you will get to see the latest models that are available or get a discount out of the older models since the new ones are already out. 2.Do not let the salesman pressure you into a decision. More often than not, sales agents will try to convince you to purchase at that instant. Don’t let them pressure you this way. Let them do their sales pitch but in the end, it will be you who will decide when to buy, not them. 3.Ask for any promotions or unadvertised sales that might be going on. This can provide you with a great discount.4.Search the internet. These days, there are a great many offers over the internet and you might find yourself with one. This removes the burden of going to a dealership and even dealing with pushy car sales agents. 5.Don’t be afraid to negotiate, prices are oftentimes negotiable so do not hesitate to bargain for a price that is right for you. 6.Don’t go on weekends. Generally this is when there are a lot of people buying, if there are plenty of people around you will not get good deals. Try to go mid-week because this is the time when most sales agent are eager to make a sale and offer great deals. 7.Also, go to the dealers during the month’s end or towards the month’s end. This is when agents are rearing to meet their quotas and you might have a bigger chance in landing a greater deal as they are eager to make a sale.8.If you’re not well versed with cars, bring along someone who has knowledge of cars.9.Don’t be hasty. Remember buying a car is a major purchase and something that needs thorough evaluation and consideration before jumping into.10.Enjoy. Purchasing a new vehicle need not be a hassle, remember these 10 tips when purchasing your new car and get your hard earned money’s worth with a great deal for your new vehicle.http://colombianitos.org/index.php?option=com_blog&view=comments&pid=530906&Itemid=0〈=es
http://www.jaheng.com/home/space.php?uid=302553&do=blog&id=611509410 Unique Christmas Gifts for Unique Fathers
How To Beat The Coming Flu & Cold Season, Naturallyhttp://tfa-club.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=597371
http://www.netshirking.org/node/565754#comment-176651. You'll brand your web site, business and yourself by submitting articles to e-zines. You could include your name, business name, your credentials, web site address and e-mail address in your resource box.2. You will become known as an expert on the topics you write about. This will give you and your business extra credibility which will help you compete against your competition.3. Your article might also be placed on the publisher's home page. If they publish each issue on their home page this will give you some extra exposure.4. You might get extra exposure if the e-zine publisher archives their e-zine on their site. People might want to read the back issues before they make the decision to subscribe.5. You will get free advertising. This will allow you to spend your profits on other forms of advertising. You could buy advertisements in other e-zines that don't publish your articles.6. You might get extra income from people wanting to hire you to write other articles, books, or even ask to speak at seminars. This is a great way to multiply your income.7. You could allow e-zine publishers to publish your articles in their free e-books. Since people give them away, your advertising could multiply all over the internet.8. You will get your article published all over the web when you submit it to an e-zine publisher that has a free content directory on their web site. They'll allow their visitors to republish your article.9. You'll gain people's trust. If they read your article and like it, they won't be as hesitant to buy your product or service. You will then be able to increase your profits.10. You could get your article guaranteed to run in an e-zine. You could agree to run one of their articles in your e-zine if, in exchange, they run yours in their e-zine. It's a win/win situationFor more tips & tricks to benefits of submitting articles to e-zinesvisit our Work From Home Business website today!
10 Ways To Make Traffic Exchanges Work For Youhttp://www.etit.ly/site/index.php/component/blog/comments.html?pid=144988
http://oralhistoryarchive.org/archives/members/kgbranfuc

Building blocks for good governance should be (1)democratic, plain, effective and efficient laws that are result of constructive consultation and participation of those governed '(2) responsive and delivering institutions, (3) narrowing implementation gap, (4) continuously assessing relevance , impact and efficiency of laws and institutions,(5) putting in place laws and institutions for market economy.

The majority of our country want religious justification of all question and every religion promotes human values so for the betterment of good governess it is essential to make this majority to assure that every matter must be thought on the basis of human dignity and respect of others opinion.

thank you 

Allah Dad Khan 

Advocate ,Multan,Pakistan

00923007341723

Find attached a think piece from UNESCO, highlighting what we see as the role of free, independent and pluralistic media in supporting democracy and development, key pillars of governance. Fackson Banda, UNESCO, Paris.

• Global Thematic Consultation on Governance - UNESCO CI-FEM-Final (2).pdf

[url=http://www.generalpharmacyonline.com/finpecia_generic.html][img]http://generalpharmacyonline.com/promo/generic_finpecia.png[/img][/url] [url=http://www.generalpharmacyonline.com/finpecia_generic.html]hair loss cure news[/url] Finpecia (Commonly used Propecia 1mg) may be a solution men. It could grow hair regrowth saving further more baldness. The particular active ingredient finasteride, prevents the development connected with Dihydrotestosterone, and provide the head of hair hair follicles a chance to get back and also raise. It might maximize regrowth which will help prevent additionally male pattern hair loss (androgenetic alopecia). Finasteride is a manufactured antiandrogen which will acts by way of curbing kind II 5-alpha reductase, your molecule which changes male growth hormone in order to di-hydrotestosterone (DHT). Inside scientific tests, Popular Propecia ended up being consideration to develop the two crown spot plus the hairline, nevertheless will be best inside title space.

Perfect governance What is good governance? Perfect governance includes the concept of governance practices affecting the decision-making and implementation, both from inside and outside the body of formal governance system. While intended to good governance level of interaction between all the components of NGO's , government sector, civil society organizations , and the private sector as transparent and effective and caring needs and interests of people and that it is subject to accountability and includes all of human existence and cares opinion minorities and needs of vulnerable groups. Good governance depends on the following principles: • Transparency and accountability. • Human rights and gender equality. • conflict management and communication. Perfect governance is mainly able to :- • Enhancing the efficiency and capacity of partners in good governance. • Involving government agencies and non-governmental organizations design and implement projects contribute to achieving reforms, good governance and shared responsibility in the field as:- - Transparency and accountability. - Human rights and gender equality. - Conflict management and communication. • Urging both the public sector, private sector and civil society organizations to care and share in a joint venture, to ensure procedures and processes and sharing designs and choices targeted results. Some selected criteria 1. To contribute to the planned task in achieving reforms in the area of one or more of the areas of perfect governance like: • Accountability and transparency. • Gender and Human Rights • Communicate and managing differences 2. There is a logical relationship and clear between the aimed goals' activities and the type of support required and so on. 3. Providers are eligible to build a strategic planning for perfect governance if they are to have, at a minimum, the following: • A clear organizational structure. • Having adequate human capacity to achieve their goals to their target. 4. The working parties should have to develop the desire and interest in networking and cooperation with a partner.

We have discussed this question (What should be the governance building blocks for a post-2015 agenda?mong colleagues in the UNCITRAL secretariat and not surprisingly being lawyers we formulated something in the legal field: societies that cannot respect and enforce legal relationships cannot develop.  Enabling environment (laws, institutions, skills (education and training) and practice) is necessary.  

This sounded to us like an obvious governance building block (be it for past, present or for a post-2015 agenda), without which, to put it quite simply as an example, no finance for sustained development can be mobilized.  MDGs do not touch this area, Target 8.A is oly remotely relevant.  Would be interesting to hear the reaction to this suggestion.

L bonne gouvernance relève d'un état de droit qui respecte les avis des hommes et des femmes pour décider de leur avenir  de la gestion de leurs ressources et de leurs bonnes répartitions

Avoir accès aux médias pour faire connaitre ses opinions avoir accès à l'information scientifique pour gérer et manager les ressources 

One might think that the governance reflects MDG’s but If you go into the depth to study the content of the curriculum in the educational system, one can see that it is not the case. This can go under the category of   "Face Validity".

• The curriculum objectives state to what extent governance is approaching the MDG's. Any educational system is set up on a certain number of goals and objectives. To change any educational system or amend it in order to meet certain criteria, the goals and objectives should be changed.
• The approaches (methods) of education play a big role in stretched learning which is a major factor for the sustainability of the MDG's that goes beyond knowledge and require the level of Skills and Values.
• A “Monitoring and Evaluation" system can assure the efficiency of education to reach the Intended learning outcomes. An objective and functional structure should be established for quality assurance.
• Non formal education can be a separate approach or combined with the scientific technical education.
• The educational system should focus more on teaching skills and values rather than only knowledge.
• The budget spent on the ES should be transparent and equal division among schools should be done.
• Trainings on methods of education and managing behavioral issues in constructive approaches should be conducted.
• Hidden curriculums should be included in the monitoring and evaluation process to ensure
• A global networking to exchange skills and experiences can enhance the quality of education and decrease any unexpected learning outcomes (indoctrination) .

Dear Friends & colleagues!

I would like to share following event information .

Warm regards.

Cordially,

Dr. Anil Pratap Singh,

Secretary & CEO,

Global Science Academy (GSA),

Basti-272 001 India.

Telephone Nos. +91-5542-247186, 287060

Mobile No. 9336785696,

Email: globalaps@rediffmail.com 

gsaforpost2015@yahoo.in

National Civil-Society Deliberation cum Seminar on “Perspectives of CSOs on New Framework for Development Post-2015”

With the history of nearly two decades of our dedicated service to the science, environment, society and humanity, the Global Science Academy (GSA) – as a potential CSO stakeholder, is organizing the National Civil-Society Deliberation cum Seminar on “Perspectives of CSOs on New Framework for Development Post-2015” at Basti, Uttar Pradesh (India) on 28^th January 2013. This is the event which incorporates the context of international campaign for The World We Want Beyond 2015. GSA has also created certain platforms for Online-discussions on issues pertaining “Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Beyond “

CSO, ‘Global Science Academy’ (GSA) having nearly two decades of its experience on spectrum of topics pertaining to health as well as topics covered through Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Further, the representation of the United Nations (UN) in India not only supported the Global Science Academy (GSA) towards its attendance at regional (Asia-Pacific) and international High-level Meetings (HLMs) on the Millennium Development Goals topic but also financially sponsored its event. As pioneers in the field, the agency- Global Science Academy (GSA) has also organized several such events (It is recommended to logon to our website: www.gsaindia.org.in and also search through Google to read the mention of our dedicated in context of health as well as Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  Global Science Academy (GSA) is voracious organizer of events like conferences, consultations, seminars, symposia, workshops, rallies etc. GSA has been actively engaged in follow-up activities pertaining implementation of regional framework for action in Asia-Pacific region and identified shortfalls in the mechanisms in setting out global goals and explored synergies of efforts between professionals at organizational as well as individual levels that could better be intensified in context of MDGs.

The purpose of the consultation is to bring together participation from a wide variety of interests to capture voices from civil societies and conscious citizen in the international campaign on Post-2015.

Topics proposed to be discussed in technical sessions include:

1. Civil-Society Perspectives on New Framework for Development Post-2015


2. Role of CSOs in Improving  the Living Standard for the Poor


3. CSOs’  Environmental Sustainability  Agenda under Post-2015 Development Goals in India


4. Issues & Concerns of CSOs  in Making Societies Healthier  Beyond 2015


5. CSOs Role in Reducing Violence and Protecting Human Rights after 2015


6. Agenda on Gender Equality Beyond 2015

We have the great pleasure in extending a cordial invitation to you to attend and actively contribute in this National Civil-Society Deliberation cum Seminar on “Perspectives of CSOs on New Framework for Development Post-2015” at Basti, Uttar Pradesh (India) on 28^th January 2013.

Participation:

This national event is open for Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)  but policy makers, donors, banks, industry associations, academicians, consultants in debating issues, corporate, social scientists as well as medical professionals, laboratories, scientists and research scholars, government, colleges/ universities, research and development organizations, public sector undertakings, journalists, drug manufacturing companies, lawyers, social-workers etc. can also participate and contribute.

Submission of Abstract:

GSA intended to publish abstract compendium of ideas, facts and figures which will be received through this call for contribution and required to be submitted latest by 22^nd January 2013. You can submit your abstracts (not more than two) by email attachment to: globalaps@rediffmail.com. Please mention “Perspectives of CSOs Post-2015” in the space provided for Subject while submitting the abstract(s). While submitting your abstract, please adhere to following:

a)       Individual author can submit a maximum of two abstracts only,

b)       Abstract should not exceed one page in length. Use font size 12 in Times New Roman,

c)       Use single spacing throughout not exceeding 300 words including title, name(s) of author(s) and affiliation(s). Make title as concise as possible,

d)       Indicate by (*) presenting author(s),

e)        Indicate four keywords describing key advances identified,

f)         Abstracts should be sent along with registration fee and contact details.

Deadlines:

a)       Registration: 24^th  January 2013

 (N.B.: There will be limited number of spot registrations with additional charges)

b)       Abstract Submission: 22^nd  January 2013

c)       Notification of Acceptance: 24^th January 2013

Registration Fee:

a)       GSA Members: Rs. 800/- (or US $ 20)

b)       Non-Members:: Rs. 1000/- (or US $ 25)

Registration will include refreshment & working Lunch in addition to Conference Kit.

(N.B.: Non-attending individuals can also send their Contributions for getting it published in Abstract Compendium by paying a nominal charge of Rs. 200/- (or US $ 10) and are requested to send their Contributions latest by 22^nd January 2013). All the contributions are intended to be widely circulated and to be aired through websites of GSA and others.

Accommodation:

Accommodation can be arranged for the participants in three Hotels in the city. One can contact these hotels directly at following contact Nos.:

Organizing Committee can also help in getting hotel reservations for participants in above hotels.

Donations & Sponsorships:

Support is solicited in the form of raising financial contributions i.e. donations and sponsorships as well as advertising in printed version of “Abstract Compendium”.

Donors, sponsors and advertisers will have their mention not only in printed version of “Abstract Compendium” but also the same will be aired to our organizational website too. Since the GSA website has its internet mediated communication (IMC) -Forum as well as Blog where our financial contributors will definitely be highlighted with due emphasis of their support.

Advertising tariffs:

a)       Quarter Page: Rs. 800/- (or US $ 20)

b)       Half Page: Rs. 1500/- (or US $ 40)

c)       Full Page: Rs.  2000/- (or US $ 50)

d)       Inside Cover(s): Rs. 2500/- (or US $ 60)

e)       Back Cover(1): Rs. 5000/- (or US $ 100)

Mode of Payment:

Registration Fees/Donations/Sponsorships/Advertisement tariffs could be submitted through Demand Draft (in Indian Rupees or US Dollars) in the name of GLOBAL SCIENCE ACADEMY payable at Basti or pay through Bank Transfer. The details for Bank Transfers are as follows:

Name of Bank: BANK OF BARODA

Address: Basti Branch, Purani Basti, Basti-272 002 (UP) India

IFSC Code: BAR B0 BASTI X

Beneficiary: GLOBAL SCIENCE ACADEMY

Account No.: 12080100001714

Place & Climate:                                                

Basti is well connected by Rail and Road transport networks. The nearest air-port is Gorakhpur being at 70 kilometers from Basti while Lucknow Air-port is approximately 200 kilometers. During January, the climate will be cold.

For further information contact:

Dr. Anil Pratap Singh,

Organizing Chairman &

Secretary & CEO,  

Global Science Academy (GSA),

Basti-272 001 India.

Tele-fax No. +91-5542-247186

Mobile Nos. 9336785696

Email: globalaps@rediffmail.com

           gsaforpost2015@yahoo.in

Website: www.gsaindia.org.in 

Dear Colleagues,

As this consultation has emphasized, inclusion and equity considerations are pivotal dimensions of good governance – one that addresses specifically the human rights of the most marginalized.  An equitable and sustainable post-2015 development agenda focused on governance needs to recognize that children are key stakeholders, in both the immediate and long term, and take into account the multiple layers of discrimination children can experience in governance processes – based on age, gender, disability, ethnic or indigenous origin among others. Taking governance lens on the rights of children shows that governments’ action – or failure to act –decides whether a child can go to school, drink and use clean water, and grow up protected from exploitation and from risks brought by climate change. Yet, child rights are rarely placed in the broader context of governance, and conversely, governance rarely looks specifically at children as stakeholders.

Incorporating children’s rights in the thinking on governance post-2015 would be a step towards recognizing that whatever positive changes are made to governance contexts, they will not automatically trickle down to children.

With this in mind, UNICEF Office of Research Innocenti has been developing a body of knowledge on children’s rights and governance, in order to advance the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and foster fully inclusive governance approaches. While this research initiative is in progress, we would like to share some preliminary conclusions that emerged from initial work and could inform discussions.

In light of the guiding questions, we are posting this contribution to Phase I of the discussion – but the last section is more focused on accountability considerations.

 1)       Children’s rights and good governance are closely interrelated.

(Reference: UNICEF, Save the Children, OECD, Child Rights and Governance Roundtable – Report and conclusions, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2011, http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/674)

The principles on which good governance rests underpin the linkages between governance and child rights.

- Responsiveness and transparency: All policy issues defined through governance affect children. Children are affected by any action (and inaction) of the State. Issues as diverse as taxation, corruption, privatization, and business practices are all core elements of governance with major consequences for the realization of children’s rights.

- Responsibility: Governance embraces the multiplicity of duty-bearers and the importance of systems. Similarly, the realization of children’s rights implies a holistic approach to policy-making and relies on multiple duty-bearers.

- Accountability: Governance is a promising avenue to address the implementation challenge of the CRC. While significant progress has been made in the adoption of laws and policies for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), these are poorly enforced due to the lack of effective institutions, services and adequate resources, combined with an absence of political will and efficient leadership.

 - Efficiency and effectiveness: Children’s rights give a raison d’être to governance. The centrality of children in society should constitute a major objective for governance efforts. Therefore, children’s rights represent a standard against which the quality of governance can be assessed.

- Equity: Children’s rights ensure that governance is comprehensive. Good governance will remain incomplete if it bypasses children, who usually represent a third to a half of developing countries’ population. Attention to children’s rights helps governance efforts focus on the most marginalized and excluded as well as identify and address the root causes of discrimination for equitable and inclusive outcomes. It also sheds light on children’s specific experiences and issues.

- Inclusion and participation: Children’s rights guide governance processes. The demand-side of governance implies empowering rights’ holders to claim their rights and hold the government accountable for its actions. A child rights approach to governance therefore offers guidance to recognize, nurture and build on children’s capacities as social agents whose voices can inform governance processes.

 2)      For the public sector, there are specific challenges in good governance for children’s rights

(Reference: B. Guy Peters, Governance and the Rights of Children – Policy, implementation and monitoring, Office of Research Working Paper, UNICEF Office of Research and Programme Division, 2012 http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/665 )

Taking a governance lens to the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child enables to highlight a number of specific challenges, which include:

 - Children as a relatively powerless group in the political process.  Politicians may want to consider the rights of children but are also aware that they do not vote, whereas other groups with claims to specific rights do. Children are often considered as lacking experience and expertise and can easily be dismissed as active participants. Developing specialized institutions is one important way to deal with children’s rights.

 - Coordinating all the various dimensions of a complex set of issues. The breadth of the CRC means that a wide range of policy areas need to be integrated and coordinated to implement the treaty as a whole. To fulfil all the goals of the Convention requires a wide range of government departments and programmes and these must be made to work together. Even if there is an organization responsible for this coordination the integration of services remains a formidable task. Without creating coherence among programmes there is little if any hope of providing what children require.

 - With policies with the greatest relevance to children’s rights administered by sub-national governments, vertical coordination, among various levels of governments is critical to successfully implementing the CRC.

 - Implementing programmes for children’s rights requires the involvement of civil society organizations. One challenge is ensuring that their goals and perspectives and those of governments are somewhat harmonized. Families, along with the entire environment of the child, also have a role to play.

 - Finding the organizational conditions that can be most conducive to ensuring the rights of children. Government machinery can be complex and seemingly may matter little for the implementation of programmes. However, structure does matter. If nothing else structures can express the priorities of a political system. Creating an organization dedicated to a specific purpose, such as the protection of the rights of children, is a strong signal to society of the importance of this activity. Further, a dedicated organization is more likely to focus its attention on that policy area alone, and to work assiduously to pursue those goals.

 - Finally, there is the challenge of independent evaluation and assessment of the performance of governments in protecting the rights of children. Monitoring rights-based policies is perhaps more demanding than is monitoring more tangible services. Definition of policy goals and criteria for rights implementation need to be understood within specific contexts.   The implementation process is important but it is also crucial to evaluate the performance of programmes and their effects on the lives of children. This may be done within government itself and perhaps even by the organizations who were themselves responsible for the implementation. Independent monitoring mechanisms, such as ombudspersons, commissioners and national human rights institutions are also essential (see UNICEF Office of Research, Championing Children's Rights: A global study of independent human rights institutions for children, 2012 http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/669)

 As the research on public sector reform for children progresses through field work in various countries, we hope to build further evidence on how to address some of these challenges.

 3)      Exploring ways to building child-responsive accountability

(Reference: Lene Thu Phuong Nguyen, Child-Responsive Accountability: Lessons from social accountability, Office of Research Working Paper, UNICEF Office of Research, 2013 forthcoming)

With the recognition that accountability provides the critical link between good governance and human rights, UNICEF Office of Research has sought to link accountability lessons to the case of children.

Doing so has raised questions of how to overcome the challenges manifested in various experiences of social accountability work – which are compounded by children’s political and social status – and thus their limited ability to participate in public and political processes. Some key initial conclusions are:

-          Child participation needs to go hand in hand with their representation by adults. Empowering children as rights-holders and creating opportunities for their participation in governance processes is essential and in itself a realization of their rights. Children can meaningfully contribute to their communities, including through initiatives for disaster risk management. At the same time, the reality and scope of most government processes and policy-making precludes children’s direct participation. In this context, children necessarily depend on adults to exact and enforce accountability for child rights. The emphasis is therefore on ensuring that that representation is informed by consultations with children.

 -          Enforcing accountability requires taking steps beyond monitoring and building evidence. Much of social accountability work focuses on generating evidence through engaging communities in monitoring. But citizens’ strengthened demand and their feedback is oftentimes only one among other factors that influence the power-holders’ decisions and actions. In this sense, more evidence does not by itself lead to greater accountability. Equally important is bridging the distance created by administrative and political processes between those who seek accountability, in this case children’s representatives, and those from whom it is sought.

 -          Any accountability work has to be mindful of the existing informal sources of accountability, and social dynamics. Against the conventional definitions of accountability used by international development practitioners, there are local understandings of what makes local leaders accountable. These are in turn shaped by informal institutions, including social norms and traditions that create alternative sources of power and legitimacy. Service-providers and local state officials are themselves members of the community - as are children and their representatives. Formal accountability mechanisms should be introduced cautiously not to disrupt the social fabric.

 -          Problems that manifest themselves at the local level can’t always be solved or attributed to local government. Social accountability as well as child rights work focus on the local government as the locus of service provision. Therefore, while policies that impact on child rights are executed by the local government, the national political context better explains the workings of local accountability. Though children and their rights are rarely thought of in political terms, child rights practitioners and advocates who seek to promote child-responsive accountability need to be able to discern the political context.

The post-2015 agenda with respect to governance needs to recognize that:

- Children are full citizens yet the ways in which they can engage in governance processes are different from other marginalized groups due to their political status as “minors”. Governance processes therefore need to be adapted to allow for participation of children and due consideration of child rights issues.

- The public sector has a specific responsibility to make children’s rights, including the rights of the most marginalized children, a priority on the policy agenda, and translate that priority into concrete implementation strategies and structures with relevant leverage and political clout.

- Governance indicators should include child specific indicators that enable to assess the quality and effectiveness of governance processes for children.

- Accountability mechanisms need to both involve children and be fully responsive to children’s rights.

 Vanessa Sedletzki
Child Rights Specialist, UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti

In Uganda development is severely affected by poor governance and accountability. The resources allocated do not reach the people intended. Accountability is also the only way to fight corruption and increase transparency in civil society and non state actors. The courts of law for example have to play their role in dealing with corrupt officials who feed themselves on millions of donor funds meant for malaria in Uganda while 400 children continue to die a day. The legislature needs to play its role.

If governance and accountability are in place citizens would have access to good quality basic services like education and hospitals which foster development because the funds may be available but are mismanaged. Also priorities of the people would be meant because there would be a bottom up approach. It is also the role of the government to ensure that resources have been well utilized and hold the ministries or providers accountable.

In the context of local government, accountability becomes critical since local authorities are closer to the citizens and the central governments channels services to the citizens through them. Their performance or lack of it therefore impacts directly. Many services such as education, health and social services are delivered at the local level and affect the poor hence stronger accountability and increased oversight provides a better institutional framework for effective delivery of such public services aiming at reducing poverty and promoting shared growth

Governance and accountability will best be integrated at all levels with equal and fair representation of all people. Elected local councillors should represent the interests of the local citizens so that citizen preferences are ultimately reflected in the policies made.

Decentralization is the best approach to service delivery. Decentralization is often recommended as a means of enacting and deepening democratic governance for the reason that it can improve participation; as government is closer to the people hence the citizens are more likely, able and empowered to participate  and government is therefore held to better account.

Building blocks should include

Corruption at all levels should be eliminated by a transparent judicial system.

Decentralization is the best approach to service delivery.

Gender equality should be at the fore front of good governance. Also other vulnerable groups like the gays, poor and disabled should be given fair representation.

Free and fair elections.

There should be a way to check that citizens receiving good quality services and resources are well utilized

pricilla

Huairou Commission 

Good governance entails inclusive principles and mechanisms of participation that are able to bring women, especially grassroots women, into decision-making structures. Governments cannot assume that participatory mechanisms are inclusive and able to grasp the needs and ideas of grassroots women. 

 The building blocks for a post-2015 agenda should comprise initiatives to guarantee the full participation and leadership of women. Women’s organizations and social justice groups working for gender equality, human rights and women’s empowerment should be fully supported to meaningfully engage at all levels of consultation. Grassroots women leaders from community-based organizations are key stakeholders in the elaboration of a Post 2015 Development Agenda and should be enabled to negotiate for their own development priorities throughout the process. Their perspectives and experience of the MDGs as well as the developing post 2015 agenda are crucial in the creation of a holistic and relevant agenda for grassroots communities and women.

 It is also important to include indicators of perception to measure the participation of grassroots women in decision-making processes.  For instance: Grassroots women leaders from networks across the world – e.g. Huairou Commission, GROOTS International, Via Campesina etc.- actively participate in online, national, and international consultations, and agree that their points of view have been articulated in high level reports and conclusions.

Regarding the governance building blocks for the post-2015 agenda – and building on the posting by my colleague Vivek Srivastava from the World Bank -- we need to make sure that we take into account relevant evidence and research on governance that has accumulated over the past ten to fifteen years. This evidence matters for two crucial causal linkages: evidence on how the quality of governance affects development outcomes such as inequality, service delivery, growth, and environmental sustainability, and the evidence on 'what works' with regards to efforts at improving governance, and specific aspects of it. Both of these linkages have proven to pose greater challenges than when the governance agenda first emerged.

There is a broad consensus among practitioners and those analyzing available evidence that improvements in governance contribute to better development outcomes (see for example the evidence revisited by Bluhm and Szirmai (2012); as well as the sweeping historical reviews by Acemoglu and Robinson, and earlier by North, Wallis, and Weingast). However, there are also two fundamental challenges. One is that not all aspects of governance – a broad umbrella term – are equally important for achieving development outcomes. Some research (e.g. by Mustaq Khan; Ha Joon Chang, David Booth et al.) suggests that asking countries to focus on an overly broad agenda of improving governance can do some harm rather than good. Some institutional models developed in countries that are already wealthy may not deliver solutions in environments with very low incomes and resources.

Moreover, there is a real challenge in understanding better how improvements in governance can be achieved. For example, there is a growing body of evidence that supporting countries to develop anti-corruption agencies has not been effective at reducing corruption in many environments (http://www.u4.no/publications/mapping-evidence-gaps-in-anti-corruption-assessing-the-state-of-the-operationally-relevant-evidence-on-donors-actions-and-approaches-to-reducing-corruption/).

Including governance more centrally in the post-2015 framework is crucially important; while this should happen in a way that is cognizant of, and seeks to address these current limitations in the evidence on ‘what matters’ and ‘what works’. As raised by our colleague Vivek Srivastava (see December 18, 2012), greater investments in collecting indicators on governance and public sector performance will be essential to address gaps in knowledge that are fundamental for better guiding development policy and practice.

Clearly, governance matters not only because it contributes to other outcomes, but also because citizens ask to live in societies with fair rules as well as those that are able to solve collective action problems and to provide some protection against shocks. Again, we need to understand better what citizens expect of governments at national and local levels, as well as what they are willing and able to contribute to making better governance happen.

Four suggestions for governance building blocks for the post-2015 agenda flow from these considerations:

(i)            Increasing the transparency of what governments spend public funds on, and what is achieved with those funds in specific sectors such as health, education, transport or energy. This can contribute to greater accountability, combined with a focus on results; while the international community can help governments with the investments needed to track spending and related outcomes.

(ii)           Where MDGs and future development goals are falling short, national governments, development partners and other stakeholders should commit to tracking governance challenges that contribute to these results and to building a compact for addressing these challenges.

(iii)          Development partners should commit to significantly scale up their monitoring of and reporting on what support to institutional building and improving governance is being provided, and to evaluating the outcomes and impacts of these interventions.

(iv)         As part of the post-2015 agenda, a regular global forum should be established that facilitates aggregating and disseminating emerging evidence and results, and that enables discussions. Existing fora are largely focused on anti-corruption. This needs to be broadened to provide a more comprehensive understanding of governance for development.  

This is a very interesting and wide ranging discussion and apologies for joining it late. Based on work we currently doing the World Bank, I will focus my comments on the metrics for measuring the quality and strength of public institutions. The institutional arrangements for managing staff and resources within the public sector, and the broader governance environment within which the public sector operates, matter fundamentally for development outcomes. Measuring and tracking the quality and strength of these institutions can enable governments and donors to target reforms and a broader group of stakeholders to monitor their impact. Thus, this discussion has focused mostly on the issue of what to measure and track.  However, designing effective interventions (which is what governments will need to do to achieve their governance goals) requires actionable indicators of the strength of public management systems and of the quality of the governance environment.  If they are to be policy-relevant, the indicators must point to some concrete actions that can be taken.

The “New Consensus on More Effective Institutions for Development” following from the Busan discussions confirms that progress in measuring these public sector and governance institutions is widely recognized as a key development challenge.  Consensus on what indicators should be included and how they should be measured and collected will be key if these are to be included in the psot-2015 framework.

What are public management systems?

“Public management systems” are, in essence, the key management and oversight responsibilities of the core (“upstream”) ministries and agencies at the center of government which have functions that cut across sectors and are broadly seen to matter for “downstream” public sector results and development outcomes. Most would agree that these functions include budgetary and financial management systems, procurement and revenue mobilization systems, and public administration, but whether this is exhaustive and the exact dimensions of these functions could be open to considerable debate.The idea behind defining these upstream management and oversight arrangements as “public management systems” is to create a comprehensive map of the center of government operations that are broadly seen to matter for public sector results and development outcomes. The term “public management system” is meant to provide a common frame of reference that governments, donors and researchers can use both in analytic work and country dialogue.

Broadly, two inter-related sets of actionable indicators can be distinguished – with some inevitable overlap.

• Indicators of the Strength of Public Management Systems (ISPMS) measure the performance of PSM systems that matter for development outcomes - the “missing middle” of the public sector results chain. The focus is on the executive. [The Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability indicators are an example.]


• Indicators of the Governance Environment for the Public Sector, or Actionable Governance Indicators (AGI) measure the way in which the public sector is held to account through political institutions and directly by the public.  [Examples are the Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI), the Global Integrity Indicators and the Public Accountability Mechanisms (PAM) Indicators.]

The Bank has recently initiated and effort (along with other bilateral partners) to develop a set of Indicators of the Strength of Public Management Systems (ISPMS) and Actionable Governance Indicators (AGIs) from existing sources to be supplemented with new indicators where such indicators are not available. ISPMS measures the strength of public sector management systems by capturing the intermediate results in the middle of the public sector results. AGIs capture actual improvements in the strength of non-executive institutions of accountability (the “governance environment”). Most of the discussion in this forum has focused on the latter.

The threshold for inclusion in ISPMS and AGI datasets is that the indicator captures changes in the performance of the system or in the behavior of the public agents working within it.  Indicators are tested against “utility” criteria (see Table).

The utility criteria for ISPMS and AGIs differ significantly in relation to “action-worthiness”: the potential link with development outcomes.  AGIs may identify important areas for work, transparency for example, where there is a wide agreement that it has an intrinsic value (many of the contributions to this forum confirm this view) and so its utility outweighs any limitations to the evidence available concerning its instrumental value.  For ISPMS indicators, the assumed link to development outcome is always critical.

In addition to the “utility” criteria, it will be important that indicators can be collected at regular intervals. Thus an important consideration for any new indicators would the cost and feasibility of regular data collection.

Current status:

ISPMS: The World Bank has recently initiated work on developing ISPMS. The PEFA indicators are among the few ISPMS datasets currently available for a large number of countries – over 130 as of July 2012. But no ISPMS measures with similarly wide coverage exist for other PSM systems, such as for example tax administration, public administration and procurement. These gaps persist because past efforts to fill them have confronted two key problems – the cost of data collection and lack of agreement on what matters for development outcomes and should thus be measured.

AGIs: Over the past decade, significant progress has been made in measuring the governance environment for public accountability.  Datasets such as the BTI track changes in a large number of countries over time. However, similar to ISPMS, there is a persistent lack of actionable indicators that measure the performance of institutions such as the judiciary, legislatures, anticorruption agencies, ombudsman, supreme audit bureaus and other accountability institutions.  The Bank has been working to fill this gap and make publicly available to policy makers and researchers broad Actionable Governance Indicators, as well as creating and launching the AGI Portal and the PAM web.    

Vivek Srivastava

Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network

World Bank

Some very  important issues have been raised in this discussion.  But what is missing are suggestions for action to ensure that governments are held accountable for ensuring that future development plans are fully inclusive of groups such as disabled people who were not mentioned in MDGs or monitoring criteria or even in UN reports on Education for All, despite the fact that one third of the 61 million children not able to go to school are children with disabilities.  

Mechanisms need to be created from the outset to ensure that governments are held accountable    for ensuring that the next phase of development is based on human rights and on inclusive social development. This means that governments need to be set targets for the inclusion of marginalised minorities and submit regular reports on progress to the UN.  

The UN already has a highly developed mechanism for the monitoring of Conventions but this is hardly mentioned in current discussions on post 2015 developments.   For example, the 126 countries that have so far ratified the 2008 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are now submitting reports to the Disabled Persons Committee of the UN High Commission on Human Rights on actions they have taken to implement each Article of the Convention.   Disabled Persons’ Organisations can submit their own reports which will be taken into account in the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations.  All this is in the public domain so that NGOs can use these UN reports in advocacy for their human rights in their own countries in respect all Conventions (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/CRPDIndex.aspx).    

Posted by: Alison Holder, Head of Governance & Rights, Save the Children UK on behalf of Save the Children

Save the Children has considered a number of the questions posed as part of Phase I of the Governance e-Discussion.

Dimensions of governance:

• To what extent has governance been reflected in the current MDGs? How has the context of governance—including opportunities and challenges—changed since the MDGs were conceived?

Governance in the current MDGs

The MDGs have been successful, lifting 600 million people out of poverty and reducing the number of daily child deaths by 14,000, to give just two examples. We have come a very long way - but there is also far to go. We should build on the strengths of the MDGs: the new framework should remain firmly focussed on human development, it should highlight areas where an international agreement can make a difference, and it should retain a limited number of measureable goals. But to finish the job that was started - to fulfil a promise to eradicate poverty – we need to address some of the challenges we can now perceive from the MDG period. 

In particular, Save the Children believes that the post 2015 framework needs to better confront inequality; include a robust, effective accountability mechanism; be structured in a way that better addresses synergies and systems; be reactive to emerging issues; and focus on improving the long-term sustainability of the natural resource base, upon which human health and prosperity is dependent.

With regards to Governance in particuarl, the United Nations Millennium Declaration explicitly linked the need to strengthen internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms with good governance.  The Declaration recognised that “Success in meeting [the objectives of development and poverty eradication] depends, inter alia, on good governance within each country. It also depends on good governance at the international level and on transparency in the financial, monetary and trading systems.”[1]  It also recognised that “men and women have the right to live their lives and raise their children in dignity, free from hunger and from the fear of violence, oppression or injustice. Democratic and participatory governance based on the will of the people best assures these rights.”[2]

When the Declaration was translated into the Millennium Development Goals, however, these explicit commitments to human rights and good governance were somewhat lost.  The MDGs do not explicitly refer to existing international human rights norms and standards, despite that fact that 193 Member states of the United Nations are bound by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and all UN Members are bound by at least one human rights treaty.  As a result, the MDGs have been criticised for having lowered the standard of what States are obliged to deliver on under human rights law.

For example, in taking measures to achieve MDG 2, many Governments have not set targets on other aspects of the right to education, notably that primary education should be free, compulsory and of a certain quality.[3]  And some Governments have interpreted the MDGs in a manner that violates their human rights obligations: In South Africa, for example, the Government interpreted MDG 7; target 7D, relating to the improvement of the lives of slum dwellers, by passing laws allowing forced evictions and slum clearances.[4] 

The issue of inequality - closely related to and dependent upon governance - was also not well-reflected in the current MDGs.  We know that the MDG targets did not require disaggregated data by gender, region or other dimension of inequality, and that this has masked huge disparities between and within countries, as we have shown in a number of recent policy research reports.[5]  This also goes against existing non-discrimination commitments many governments have made, including as signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The income poverty target under MDG 1 is a case in point. Although the number of people living in extreme poverty decreased in all world regions, China alone accounted for 649 million of the 662 million people lifted out of poverty between 1990 and 2008.  When national averages on poverty reduction, hunger, child mortality or education are disaggregated according to income and wealth, we see that in many countries the poorest groups are lagging a long way behind.[6] 

In the 2010 report A Fair Chance At Life Save the Children examined the disparities that lie behind the headline figures on child mortality.  It found that rates of progress differed dramatically according to the wealth quintile of the household in which a child was born. Sadly, unequal progress is the story of many other aspects of child well-being – from nutrition to education – undermining children’s chances to fulfil their potential.[7] 

Changing context of governance

Conflict-affected and fragile states present perhaps the most challenging conditions for open, accountable and inclusive governance – and for the realisation of development goals more broadly. Fragile states account for only one-fifth of the population of developing countries, but they contain a third of those living in extreme poverty, half of children who are not in primary school, and half of children who die before their fifth birthday.[8] Fragile and conflict-affected countries are also those that have made least progress towards the MDGs.[9]

While there is nothing new about the existence of fragile and conflict-affected countries, we arguably now better understand the role that governance plays in development.  For example the Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals (PSGs) that came out of the 2011 High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness identified the foundations needed to make the MDGs achievable in fragile and conflict-affected countries.  These Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals (PSGs) are

• Legitimate politics – a state for all


• Security - safety for all


• Justice - equity for all


• Economic Foundations - jobs for all


• Resources and revenue management - services for all

The identification and prioritisation of these PSGs could change the quality of aid effectiveness in fragile and conflict-affected states. 

The Post 2015 framework needs to consider different governance contexts and make a commitment to the progressive realisation of development goals, even in the most difficult and testing situations.  At the same time, the mix of the goals selected for the post-2015 framework can have an important impact on preventing and reducing conflict and fragility. Of the seven priority issues identified by Saferworld as being important for the reduction of conflict and fragility, four are directly related to more open, accountable and inclusive governance.[10]  The four are:

• All states are able to manage revenues and perform core functions effectively and accountably.


• All social groups can participate in the decisions that affect society.


• All social groups have equal access to justice.


• All social groups have access to fair, accountable social service delivery. 

All countries – from the most fragile and conflict-affected to those with the most long-standing traditions of democracy – can make improvements in measures of transparency, participation and accountability. To recognise the importance of open government in and of itself and also for sustainable reductions in absolute poverty, several facets of open, accountable and inclusive governance should be included in the MDG successor framework.

• How do governance and (in)equality, including gender inequality, affect one another?

As recognised by UNESCO’s 2009 report – Overcoming inequality: why governance matters - inequality is linked to wider disparities in the distribution of power, wealth and opportunity: “It is perpetuated by policies that either tolerate or actively exacerbate an unfair distribution of life chances – policies that fuel the transmission of poverty across generations.”[11]

As Save the Children’s recent report on inequality and post 2015[12] demonstrates, strong policy frameworks that uphold the rights of various groups are essential if inequality is to be reduced in a sustainable way.  A related challenge is to ensure that data are collected on a sufficiently disaggregated basis so that inequalities are not hidden and can be addressed.  More specifically, across the eight countries (Brazil, Canada, China, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Nigeria and the UK) we studied, we found that transparency and accountability are essential in the implementation of policies to reduce inequality. 

In Ghana, for instance, the failure of past initiatives (for example, the Heavily-Indebted Poor Countries initiative) to improve development in the country’s north (which suffers from vast inequality of outcomes and opportunities when compared with the country’s south) were blamed in part on lack of transparency and accountability in allocating funds.[13]  And the Nigeria case study – a country with very high levels of inequality on a number of dimensions - highlighted the negative impact of corruption on development and points to the vital importance of transparency and accountability in the use of public funds, backed up by strengthened anti-corruption laws, mechanisms and institutions.[14] In China, the case study identified the need to get the balance of incentives right for public sector service-providers and to promote transparency in public sector recruitment as a way to help bring equal access to sought-after jobs.[15]

• What lessons have emerged regarding the importance of specific components of governance for the achievement and sustainability of the MDGs and other IADGs?

From a children’s rights perspective, it is important for this new framework to be guided by and reaffirm international human rights norms and standards, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to provide a platform for people to use and claim these rights.  A post-2015 framework should refer to international human rights treaties and use a rights-based approach to development. This includes the UNCRC and its four guiding principles: non-discrimination (Article 2, UNCRC), the best interests of the child (Article 3, UNCRC), the right to life, survival and development (Article 6, UNCRC) and the child’s right to be heard (Article 12, UNCRC). It should also uphold the obligation that States have to take “measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international cooperation” (Article 4, UNCRC).   

Moreover, the new framework should adequately address the principles of universality, interdependence and indivisibility of human rights. It should also uphold the principles of equality and non-discrimination that are human rights obligations binding on States, under the UNCRC and other international human rights treaties. This goes beyond the concept of “equity” that is used in health and development contexts. In practical terms, this requires that each goal in the post-2015 framework should be applicable to the entire population, including non-citizens, and be measured using disaggregated data. Monitoring of the goals should involve reference groups from target populations, including vulnerable groups and children themselves.  SCI’s forthcoming report on inequality will address these issues in detail.           

In addition to monitoring outputs, the new framework should include an element of monitoring policy effort and resource allocation, as well as a formal accountability and reporting mechanism that invites input on progress from States as well as from other stakeholders, including the private sector and civil society.

The General Measures of Implementation of the UNCRC provide a good starting point for identifying some of the specific components of governance that are important for the achievement and sustainability of the MDGs, especially those pertaining to children.  These measures are the toolbox for promising efforts to make substantive rights a reality for children and lessons from these can be applied to the post 2015 framework more broadly:[16] 

• examine and amend laws


• allocate resources


• coordinate measures


• raise awareness and build capacity


• systematically collect data and carefully monitor the implementation process and


• arrange for an independent assessment of progress made

• Why is governance relevant for the achievement and sustainability of development priorities?

“We have been equipped with leadership qualities that we need in the future, and we have been moulded into responsible citizens. I learnt to be positive in whatever I want to achieve in my life. There exist no more limits. Children are now being engaged in issues to do with the development of our town.”

Donovan, a youth delegate involved in the Zimbabwe Child and Youth Budget Network

According to Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, “as the systems of democracy, transparency and accountability are strengthened, as their capacity improves, African nations will increasingly acquire the technical skills to take ownership of their development policies.”[17]  Likewise, British Prime Minister David Cameron has emphasised the “golden thread” of conditions that enable open economies and open societies to thrive, including the rule of law, the absence of conflict and corruption, and the presence of property rights and strong institutions. These issues were notable in their absence from the MDGs.

A system of governance that is transparent, encourages participation, and delivers public goods and services effectively is critical to achievement of the MDGs.  Under-provision of essential public goods, for example, has been cited as a factor in making development in Africa slower and more inequitable than it needs to be.[18]  And a World Bank study, for example, pointed out the importance of good governance in helping to deliver a reduction in child mortality (MDG 4):  a 1% increase in spending on health lowers under-five mortality rates by 32% in countries with good governance but has no impact in countries with weak governance.[19] 

• Feasibility of goals: Would it be desirable or feasible to propose governance goals and targets in specific areas? What are alternative approaches?

More open, accountable and inclusive governance entails at least three things. First, transparency; information about policy-making and budgeting must be available to the public in an accessible format. Second, participation; the public (including marginalised and excluded groups) must have the information, freedom and power to engage in policy-making and budgeting processes. Third, accountability; the government ensures the effective and equitable provision of public goods and the public are able to hold governments and other actors to account. 

We think that it is both desirable and feasible to have governance goals and targets in specific areas, though of course many elements of the governance agenda will also need to mainstreamed through the entire framework (for e.g., health-related goals will need to have elements of “system strengthening” and public goods provision, which will depend on governance).  Save the Children specifically proposes that the post 2015 framework should include a goal of more open, inclusive and accountable governance. In particular, this goal should be underpinned by the following global targets:

1. Ensure all countries have transparent governance, with open budgeting, freedom of information and comprehensive corporate reporting


2. Ensure all countries have participatory governance, with greater freedom of speech, press and political choice


3. Ensure all countries have accountable governance, with commitment to the rule of law, more equitable and effective public services, and reduced corruption

By 2030 governance will be more open, accountable and inclusive

Human Rights, Business and Sustainable Development Post-2015

---

The role of business is a cross-cutting theme relevant to all the nine key issues identified by the Post-2015 task team and to the issues included in the Rio+20 outcome documentThe Future We Want. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, endorsed by the Human Rights Council in June 2011 and constituting an authoritative global standard for states and business on how to manage business impacts on human rights, are particularly instructive when it comes to the issue of governance, which is the subject of this e-discussion.  

Former Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on business and human rights, Professor John Ruggie, referred to an existing "governance gaps" in the business and human rights arena, allowing corporate-related human rights abuses to occur. In his report to the Human Rights Council in 2008, John Ruggie stated that "the root cause of the business and human rights predicament today lies in the governance gaps created by globalization - between the scope and impact of economic forces and actors, and the capacity of societies to manage their adverse consequences. These governance gaps provide the permissive environment for wrongful acts by companies of all kinds without adequate sanctioning or reparation. How to narrow and ultimately bridge the gaps in relation to human rights is our fundamental challenge" (Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie, Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, A/HRC/8/5, para. 3)

The UN Guiding Principles provide an internationally endorsed response to bridging such governance gaps. They contain detailed guidance for both states and business enterprises on how to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts, as well as stipulating necessary measures to ensure accountability and redress for business related human rights impacts. Given their comprehensive scope and global support including from the business community itself, they should be a core element in global strategies involving or directed at business to achieve sustainable development objectives rooted in good governance. They should be incorporated as appropriate across all the issue areas identified both in The Future We Want and by the Post-2015 Task Team, including in relation to Governance.

The Working Group on human rights and transnational corporations, which has been mandated by the Human Rights Council to support efforts both globally, regionally and nationally of dissemination and implementation of the UN Guiding Principles. The Working Group considers the embedding of the UN Guiding Principles into global governance frameworks a key strategic objective of its mandate and as a means to achieving implementation of the Principles at the requisite scale. The Post-2015 agenda will in time constitute the most comprehensive global governance framework which is why it is of particular concern to the Working Group that the UN Guiding Principles be adequately reflected, including in relation to governance.

All Post-2015/SDG recommendations addressing the role of business should, at a minimum, be aligned with the Guiding Principles. This implies requiring business to ensure respect for human rights in any efforts relating to sustainable development.

--

Puvan J Selvanathan, Chair, UN Working Group on the issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Businesses

Governance
in the Post-2015 Development Framework

By Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevoelkerung

An effective human-right based approach (HRBA) at the heart of the new framework

The current MDG framework has helped increase donor funding and opened up opportunities for advocacy notably on basic social sectors and Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights through the Millennium Development Goals 5 and 6 (MDGs). However, the framework has some drawbacks: on the one hand, the lack of a human rights approach and on the other hand, the lack of all development actors’ involvement and the absence of accountability mechanisms. The MDGs are not unreachable but fell short because of unmet commitments, inadequate resources and a lack of focus and accountability. These shortfalls need to be addressed in the next global framework.

Guiding principles:

As DSW, we believe that any future framework should have the broad goal of poverty eradication and reducing inequalities with a human rights-based approach at its heart. To avoid the current gaps, the next framework should be coupled with three general guiding principles: human rights, transparency & accountability, and sustainability.

A human rights approach should encompass gender equality, equity, transparency and non-discrimination of all individuals (children and adolescents, women, sex workers, sexual minorities, drug users, people living with HIV, people living in rural areas, people with disabilities, etc.) in their aspirations to all freedoms. The new framework must take into consideration the needs of these groups.

It must allow the marginalised groups to take part in the development of the new goals, targets and implementation strategy, together with other stakeholders such as civil society and parliamentarians. In addition, accessible and equitable social services and good governance must be at the heart of the framework. This will ensure a larger degree of accountability and ownership – leading to increased sustainability of the framework.

How to ensure accountability of the HRBA:

1. Human right based approach. The new framework should address poverty eradication not as a mere economic matter but as a holistic deprivation based on a lack of progress in human rights, including Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR).

A majority of the world’s poor are now living in middle-income countries (MICs) rather than low-income countries (LICs). This is further proof that the post-MDG framework must focus not only on economic development but look at the underlying causes for poverty and mechanisms of underdevelopment, namely the violation of key human rights principles of non-discrimination. There is a need for focusing and strengthening pro-poor and equity policies.

Therefore, emphasis needs to be shifted away from macro-economic indicators to include quality of living, respect of human rights principles, such as the right to freedom and peace but also the right to health according to WHO definition, to education or to control one’s body, including sexual and reproductive health and rights. In the social sectors, quality of services and care (delivered with respect to affordability, accessibility and equity) must furthermore be measured to ensure a rights-based approach.

Moreover, it is essential for the development agenda to be in line with existing international human rights based commitments such as the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) agreed in 1994 in Cairo. It is crucial to ensure that the new framework includes all people, also marginalized groups such as youth, disabled, women, ethnic and sexual minorities, drug users, people living with HIV, people living in rural areas, and that their rights are fulfilled.

2. Shared responsibility: It is essential for the success of the development agenda that all actors are bound to the overarching goal of poverty eradication and reducing inequalities through human rights based approach. Universal responsibility also implies the abandonment of the outdated North-South, donor-beneficiary approach. Clarity should be sought on the respective responsibilities of various stakeholders.

Developed countries must look at the situation in their own context to ensure that poverty in all countries is targeted by the new framework. International donors, financial institutions as well as national governments must fulfill commitments which are based on needs and international recommendations: for instance, the 0.7 per cent Gross National Income (GNI) for development by 2015 agreed 40 years ago at the Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development or the G8 commitments at the Gleneagles Summit in 2005 to direct 50 per cent of their ODA increases to sub-Saharan Africa.

State governments will still be the driver of implementing and delivering on development goals. They must also guarantee appropriate and equitable financing, taxation, and funds allocation according to the specific situation in their country and recommendations. For instance, the WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health recommends dedicating 0.1 per cent of GNI to health. Partner country commitments such as the 2001 Abuja Declaration where African governments committed to allocating 15 per cent of their national budgets to health shall also be fulfilled. However, the international community should still recognise that even if governments do achieve the Abuja target this will be far from enough to finance a primary health care system as defined by WHO in most countries.

Creating stronger incentives for turning agreements into results will be needed for countries and actors to commit to good governance reforms, including poverty reduction policies. For emerging donors, incentive to commit to the human rights based approach could be done through engagement in more triangular cooperation, i.e. cooperation between established donors, emerging donors and recipient countries. One of the most significant and potentially most welcome by-products of the presence of emerging powers in the development landscape is the opening up of additional policy space for developing countries.^[1] This could add to increased ownership of developing countries and provide new ideas on principles around which development cooperation should be framed. However, it is important to remember that democratic ownership is not only about governments but about ownership of all stakeholders.

Civil society and parliaments composed of CSOs, research institutes, etc. are key development actors and should be involved as experts not only in implementing but also in framing the post-MDGs.

Local for-profit private sector development should further be built up by ensuring that the new development agenda promotes projects that have the objective of strengthening and fostering the local private sector. The broader private sector and notably international companies have a role to play in respecting Human rights and improving livelihoods and living conditions in developing countries. However, it should be noted that there are boundaries to the extent to which the private sector can shoulder traditional state tasks, such as access to health and education. Private public partnership should only be focussed on building state capacities – through capacities, knowledge or technology transfer to ensure sustainability.

3. Increased democratic ownership: One way of improving enforcement is thus to support CSO in their advocacy towards country democratic accountability. CSOs can play a crucial role in calling on the decision makers to implement commitments; through shadow reports, advocacy, locally based monitoring and ownership and peer to peer pressure.

In–country democratic processes should be strengthened to ensure mechanisms for holding all development actors; governments, CSOs, private sector, development partners and other actors to account as requested most recently in the Busan Outcome Document. The role of CSOs in developed countries will be to work hand in hand with CSOs in less developed countries under mutual accountability towards the new framework, and where necessary strengthen the capacity of these CSOs to form alliances and networks for doing joint advocacy.

With decentralisation, the decisions are often made at local levels. Civic education and empowering communities and individuals to know and exert their rights are therefore crucial. With our mission of empowering people to know their rights, DSW’s Healthy Action project has been successful in strengthening accountability at district level in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, where decentralisation is increasing. Local communities have gained knowledge about their rights and responsibilities and have used this to take part in health budget processes. District leaders have admitted that they did not know about the needs of community members raised in meetings, showing that it is crucial to have this involvement.^[2]

The current framework has been led by a small group of experts and as a consequence has been perceived as donor driven.  This lack of ownership of Southern countries, civil society and other stakeholders such as young people resulted in a lack of proper knowledge and understanding of the MDGs by local people in developing countries. Therefore, the current framework failed to establish a true mutual accountability from the people and to realise a democratic ownership. In order to foster community and marginalised people ownership the framework needs to be universal and transparent. A more inclusive process will improve accountability as a range of actors (upper, middle and low income countries) will feel more ownership of the new framework. Civil society, private sector for profit, local authorities and parliamentarians – but also with representation of the poorest and most marginalised groups - must be involved in developing the framework and that they can use the post-MDGs to hold leaders – domestically, regionally and globally – to account. Accountability systems should be inter-sectoral and grounded in participatory approaches that ensure the meaningful engagement of diverse women’s, youth and other civil society organizations in policy-making and monitoring processes It is not enough to have civil society or parliamentarian participation, but this must be meaningful influence policy outcomes.

 4. Clear and internationally agreed indicators: Measures and mechanisms should be established to track political, programmatic and financial accountability for commitments made and for human rights obligations, at national, regional and global levels. Although policy commitments have been made in various international and national fora, implementation did not always follow in an effective manner because of lack of ownership, political vision or financial resources. MDG5 B – universal access to reproductive health - was highly controversial and was only integrated within the MDG framework in 2007. This demonstrates the lack of priority in the global political context to these issues, although recognised as key in development. In addition, there were no binding commitments, nor follow-up mechanism to address gaps. Accordingly, this goal is now one of the goals furthest from being achieved.

Without explicitly stating that the goals refer to universal rights and equity, there is an imminent risk that vulnerable and marginalised groups will be excluded from targeted interventions. Clear commitments and a universal monitoring framework are crucial to ensure that the new framework is implemented in all countries and make it possible to measure progress and monitor policy outcomes. The Human right based approach indicators could be based on international agreements including signature, compliance and implementation of all governments, and independent evaluation by the UN (such as for instance International Conference on Population and Development on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights).

5. Tiered approach: if the new MDG framework is aiming to reach the most marginalised groups, it should be designed with their involvement to ensure targeted implementation at the regional, national and local levels. Targets and implementation at regional and national levels need to be differentiated and progressive as to establish realistic targets and timeframes that reflect individual countries’ strengths and weaknesses in any given priority area.

 6. Evaluation: particular attention should be paid to data generation, disaggregation and qualitative data.

In the current framework even in countries showing good progress on MDGs, gender, rural, age-disaggregated data when available show existing in-country discrepancies. Yet, the correlations between these factors are essential to a thorough analysis. Therefore analyses should look at inequalities and diversity among population groups, especially to ensure that the poorest and excluded sectors are accessing the policies, laws and services put in place/ Specific monitoring should be established to look at marginalised groups such as rural and slum dwellers populations, including migrant, displaced, conflict-affected, indigenous and minority populations, women, adolescents and youth, and older persons living in poverty. Evaluation of progress must focus on qualitative aspects and impact rather than quantitative measures, including on governance aspects and transparency.

7. Coherence: all actors should implement and monitor Policy Coherence for Development (PCD). For this to happen, policy making processes at all levels need to be open, interlinked and transparent, allowing policy documents, resources allocation, budget documentations and processes to be publicly available and easily monitored.

The post-MDGs links with other international fora or mechanisms must be reflected in the process, and ultimately also in the goals, targets and indicators of this framework. This is true for instance for the current processes on Human rights commitments such as the International Conference on Population and Development, other processes on development framework such as the Sustainable Development Goals (intricately linked notably on the issues of environment, population, health, poverty eradication and inclusive growth) or potential new international mechanism. Some issues have indeed broad impact such as health and SRHR and population dynamics. Health should be approached in all policies (policy or reform that aims to ensure communities are healthy, with integration of public health actions with primary care and healthy public policies in all sectors). Economic, environmental and social conditions, including the equity of these conditions have a tremendous impact on the health of a population. Hence, health can be a powerful benchmark to measure progress in all areas of sustainable development. Similarly some issues are not only one aspect, for instance the SRHR are not only a health issue but also very much link to gender equality and women and youth empowerment.

Likewise, a successful PCD approach in the post 2015 development agenda needs to recognise that population, health and environment are intricately linked as population dynamics and health needs determine – and are determined – by economic and environmental development efforts. Additionally, aspects such as youth and gender should be mainstreamed to guarantee policy coherence to these two key drivers of sustainable development.

One of the main shortcomings of the MDGs, particularly MDG 8: “Building a global partnership for development”, was the failure to hold donor countries accountable for their actions on aid as well as in a host of other crucial areas of the global economic architecture, such as with sovereign debt, tax, trade and financial regulation. The MDGs to date have done nothing to address the serious accountability deficits in the international economic governance system and how these issues can negatively impact national development efforts in poor countries. But rather than waiting for the donor countries to act, my article highlights how today many social movements and civic efforts around the world which are linking people, organizations and networks in order to mobilize and engage with states and demand actions be taken to provide greater social accountability on all of these macro-level global economic issues. To have any relevance or credibility, those working to build a post-2015 global development framework must acknowledge such trends in civic activism and incorporate this new political reality into any new agreements and goals.

“Social accountability efforts seek better national and global economic governance” by Rick Rowden

http://cesr.org/article.php?id=1398&preview=1&cache=0

Key elements of governance in post-2015 development framework according to ACT Alliance:

ACT Alliance believes governance should embrace inclusive participation and state accountability.  It is about responsive leadership that embraces the values of participation, accountability, equality and respect for the dignity and human rights of all. It is about transparent institutions; equal access to information and remedies; and the rule of law, including an independent judiciary. It is about ensuring democratic ownership of national and global policies and securing that citizens and civil society enjoy their right not only to elect their representatives, but also to participate in the development and monitoring of policies, programmes, services and resources that can impact and change their lives. This cannot be achieved without freedom to express oneself, to associate and to assemble, irrespective of one´s identity and status.

Governance must be based on respect for human rights in general, particularly minority rights and women´s rights. With the increasing role of the private sector in development, governance is also about states ensuring that these private actors comply with human rights standards and facilitate the active participation of communities in decisions affecting their own development. But governance is often colored by unequal relations of power i.e. between state and impoverished/discriminated groups within their territory or control; between the state and the large multi-national companies; and between national states and the international community. In this web of power relationships, referring to and abiding by international standards, particularly human rights standards, is key to holding all actors accountable.

Key elements in the post-2015 development framework for ACT Alliance are:

- Right to participation/to be heard

- Enabling environment for participation

- Accountability, including

                             -Human rights accountability

                             - Rule of law

                             - Accountability of private actors

                             - Democratic ownership

Based on the above, the ACT Alliance calls on governments to:

• Ensure that explicit reference is made to the particular human right standard and other compliant international standards under each goal/paradigm in the post-2015 development framework. Goal formulation and targets must be in keeping with the content of the particular right. This will facilitate increased accountability and limit the number of competing frameworks against which governments need to report

• Ensure that inequality and discrimination, including gender inequalities and discrimination, is addressed, as an intrinsic aspect of good governance for poverty eradication. The post-2015 framework must be monitored against disaggregated data and based on context-specific analyses of the groups most excluded

• Ensure that civil and political rights are also included in the post-2015 framework with concrete targets/indicators. Of particular importance are the right to participate and other related participation rights, access to justice and personal security.  There should be a commitment to monitor the enabling environment for citizen and civil society participation. Reporting on this enabling environment should form part of all future national reports under the new framework. In particular, reports should assess: a) degree to which legislation, including NGO legislation, respects the right to association and assembly; b) degree to which state practice is in keeping with the right to association and assembly; c) degree to which there is an institutionalised and systematic process for seeking input from civil society organisations and citizens in the formulation and monitoring of development policies, programmes and budgetary allocations

• Ensure that there are measurable targets for monitoring the transparency and accountability of all development donors and actors, including government and private actors. Accountability should be clearly defined to include accountability to human rights standards, including access to effective justice and remedies, complaint mechanisms and information

• Further implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.  In this regard, the post-2015 framework should monitor the duties of all states to develop strategies, introduce appropriate policies and laws, and ensure redress and compensation for human rights abuses linked to business.  In addition, the new framework should also underscore corporate responsibility to respect human rights and to carry out human rights due diligence and impact assessments on planned and ongoing activities, consulting potentially affected communities as an integral part of these assessments

• Ensure that policy coherence is secured by increased monitoring and compliance with international human rights standards by all development actors

• Ensure that democratic ownership of a new global framework is facilitated through the formulation of compliant targets and indicators at the national level.  These national level processes should be carried out with effective and meaningful participation of national parliaments, citizens, civil society organisations and other key stakeholders. Transparency and accountability assessments should be participatory and go beyond issues of capacity, assessing the political dynamics of governance in a particular country

This e-discussion helpfully kicked off by BDP is an important moment to contribute thinking – in this instance thinking about crisis and how it should impact the MDGs.   This contribution answers the question about building blocks first by examining some of the gaps in the MDGs and then by arguing that the social contract between people and the state needs to be a key focus for the next stage of governance work.  Finally it makes a suggestion about what and how we should measure.

Governance, whilst it appears several times, in the principles which underpinned the MDGs, did not appear as a specific MDG target.  This brief contribution therefore poses some questions about what we have learnt about governance and whether this translates into “targets”, or something different.

Current discussions about governance reference deals regularly.  There is talk of “deals” “new deals” “political settlements” “elite bargains”, “grand bargains” and “social contracts” amongst others.   Mick Moore’s[1] recent critique – of the term “political settlement”  - argues that it has no common meaning and can be brought to bear to mean ideas as divergent as the “overall balance of power in society”, and “a common understanding between elites about how power should be organized and exercised”.  This critique probably applies to all of the phrases above.  Nevertheless the prevalence of words which describe a fluid, interactive, somewhat slippery centre of gravity which has to be negotiated is to be welcomed.  Welcomed because it signals the discussions about governance have moved from technical “one size fits all” responses to an understanding that governance – and therefore  - the question of how public goods such as health and education are distributed and MDG targets met – is a political question.   Welcomed  - because as soon as there are negotiations - there is power, power brokers and some groups who find it more difficult to engage in negotiations than others.  Negotiations with deals to be struck are clearly political and where previously the international community may have been able to describe itself as a neutral, with aid a “technical input” this same group is now a political actor.  And an actor which can do harm by – for example – worsening horizontal inequality .  And it is a political question in which we as the donor community is involved.  Very crudely, building on existing state capacity, might be the best way to hit an MDG target.  But it may sharpen inequality and potentially increase the possibility of conflict.   

Is this relevant only to countries where there is recent challenge to state authority (conflict, popular uprising al la Tunisia, Libya)?  There are two reasons why not.  Firstly the evidence that state-sponsored inequality layered over poverty drives conflict is persuasive.  Secondly, conflict and instability can wipe out MDG progress in a heartbeat.

What I will try and do in this contribution therefore is say something about how and why we use the phrase “social contract” at the centre of our work on governance in fragile and conflict states.

We think that three things matter about the social contract.  Firstly the notion of “social” – defined as “relating to human society and its members”.  The social contract is broad and inclusive.  It is important to be clear up front, that this is not necessarily citizenship based – there are many places where women still struggle to have their births registered and other places where marginalized groups do not have formal citizenship.  Practically this is likely to mean that different constituents are represented.  However difficult broad inclusion, it is difficulty that should be treated as a tough logistical problem, not a rationale for exclusion or focus on more limited groups.   Inclusiveness in turn prevents future conflict.  Secondly, and related is the notion of a contract – a “deal”.  Contracts always involve more than one party, they are vehicles for managing different interests, and are therefore negotiated and designed to protect all parties to the deal.   They act as signposts about new and different approaches.  Thirdly  they are recorded and formalised – sometimes in constitutions, sometimes in transitional arrangements.   These too act as signposts.   But commitment to enforcement of core principles matters.  And early disregard of the deal sows distrust.

And here UNDP probably departs sharply from many international actors working on governance.  We do NOT believe that lasting political settlements can be negotiated by means of an elite bargain.  Elite bargains – are by definition – insufficiently “grand”.  They may be convenient, cheapo and they are useful in stopping conflict in the short run.  But over the longer term, they inevitably fail.

We do NOT mean an elite bargain (Whaites 2008; Di John and Putzel, 2009 C/R; North 2007).  We think there is growing long and shorter term evidence (Zimbabwe, Brazil, Indonesia), to suggest that elite bargains are flawed and cannot hold over the longer term.  Bratton and Masunungure’s review of leadership in Zimbabwe comments “Our answer casts light on the limits of elite political settlements.  At critical junctures in the country’s history… political elites accepted compromise power-sharing agreements that restricted their freedom of maneuver.  … Never fully or voluntarily owned by all stakeholders these temporary agreements may have eased violence in the short term, but exacerbated conflict in the long-run. “

What does this mean in practice?

This is a discussion about MDGs so the answer needs to be measureable and doable.  I would suggest a target on the inclusiveness of the social contract through an HI proxy ( HI – horizontal inequalities across countries).  This has the major advantage of having the existing MDGs as the basic data – so these can continue to be monitored.  But the test is now on two dimensions.  Are you hitting the MDGs and are you spreading the benefits of development across contexts?  This is also then a good proxy for whether a deal has been struck, and more importantly – for whether it is being “honoured” over time and in difficult parts of the context.. 

Good governance is an aspect of community involvement especially with the high consideration of the existing relationship between the people and their government. There should be room for 100 per cent participation in ensuring accountability and also fostering transparency. It is a big sign of undemocratic practices in a government that do not allow this to happen. One thing though, in african communities, it does not even make sense in the first place for one to be pushing for accountability when in the first place in their homes there is extreme poverty. Secondly, it does not even make life so pleasing if at all most of our women folk are not literate enough to be able to participate effectively. The high level of illiteracy among women is just much to talk about. 

Good governance can only be achieved if and when most developing countries devise policies that offer women an education fitting their needs and future prospects. Unlike the forced education that subject them to formal perusal of academic content that is streamlined as a requirement for progression and for supposedly knowledge base.

I always have one thing to talk about when I talk about women and why they are better placed to participate fully in decision making. A simple survey I undertook in a low-income area of Kabwe District, Central Zambia, showed that children brought up by single/divorced/widowed mothers strive hard to get good education and 76 per cent of the males and females respondents  ascribed to this giving reasons that women are good administrators in homes unlike men. It is this administration and decision making that can work also at levels of governance. 

All these issues people have written are generally the ideal. let us discuss fully.

Dear all,

Please find below the contribution of United Cities Local Goverments representing the local and regional authorities worlwide, on the topic of governance in the framework of the Post-2015 process.

1.1.     How can multiple dimensions of governance be included in a global development framework?

The drive towards increased local democracy and decentralization has emerged as a key response to people’s demands for democracy and regional claims for greater autonomy.

The Principle of Subsidiarity can provide a strong underlying guide for decentralization and local governance. While the progress of local democracy is still in process and sometimes confronted with great difficulties, citizen demands for increasingly tailored services make the need to decentralize functions and responsibilities from the State to lower levels increasingly necessary. 

The performance of local governments as service providers and regulators of local service provision will significantly determine whether many of the MDG targets can or will be met and, indeed, whether the future development agenda can be achieved and sustained. Local governance and local development therefore constitute a nexus for responding to the challenges of poverty, inequality and sustainable environment.

 1.2     How has the context of governance—including opportunities and challenges—changed since the MDGs were conceived?

Many city governments around the world have implemented innovative forms of participatory democracy to address the inequalities in voice and influence faced by low-income groups, minorities or groups facing discrimination (for instance women and youth). This can be seen in participatory budgeting or planning, local assemblies or “dialogue days” between local elected officers and communities, quotas reserved to ensure the representation of women, traditional authorities or certain minorities and the use of social media and new technologies to encourage participation, as well as different kinds of referenda or consultations. 

Many city governments now work with the organizations and federations of ‘slum’/shack dwellers to directly address a range of inequalities that include housing tenure, infrastructure, services, rule of law and participation.

 1.3     How do governance and (in)equality, including gender inequality, affect one another? What lessons have emerged regarding the importance of specific components of governance for the achievement and sustainability of the MDGs and other IADGs? Why is governance relevant for the achievement and sustainability of development priorities?

The focus on national government attention to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and to sustainable development has obscured the increasing burden of inequalities and how much addressing these inequalities depend on local governments. Despite the recorded progress, significant deficiencies in universal access to basic local services continue to exist with regard to water and sanitation, health, education, environment protection and risk prevention. Disparities are aggravated in urban areas and their periphery with increasing slum population affecting particularly the poorest, predominantly women in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, but also in some Latin American countries.

In a world were national growth does not necessarily lead to decreasing inequalities, it is becoming more evident that poverty needs to be tackled locally both in the developed and developing world. Local government play a key role in reducing inequalities in key aspects of sustainable development – as the provider or manager of a range of basic services and the implementer of many regulations and other measures linked to health, education, economic opportunity and risk reduction.

There is strong evidence from many nations that competent, accountable local governments have had central roles in reducing inequalities, giving voice to the poor and most vulnerable. Many local governments have greatly reduced inequalities, through upgrading programmes in informal settlements, including expanding water, sewerage and drainage networks, expanding or improving provision for solid-waste collection, and influencing the prices and availabilities of housing through provision of land. In Africa and Asia, sub-national governments in many countries implemented free basic school programmes, school feeding and free transportation programmes.

The response to MDGs 4, 5 and 6 has been monumental, in part due to the role played by sub-national governments in providing and managing public health facilities in their respective jurisdictions. Sub-national governments were the focus for mobilizing community groups, and resources, and for using local systems for campaigns on immunization, maternal care, HIV-AIDs, and distribution of mosquito nets.

1.4 What are experiences at the sub-national, national, regional and global level in this regard?

Good urban management needs decisions taken by local governments to be well articulated, to work in closer partnership with other levels of government and to count on clear proceedings of communication and participation of local actors, including the private sector. Considering the diversity of the territories, urban governance needs an integrated approach for large urban areas, and a targeted national and regional policy for intermediary size cities, that require a context of connectivity and articulation.

The consolidation of such a multi-level governance framework and the promotion of a more encompassing global partnership necessitate acknowledging the fact that local authorities, as key institutional vehicles of cities, have transcended narrow local political confines to become prominent players exerting regional and global influence.

Nevertheless, in many developing countries, local governments cannot fully assume their powers and responsibilities as a result of incomplete or ill-defined processes of decentralisation, inadequate resources and/or local capacities, but also due to sector-specific policies of the central government.

The post 2015 agenda needs to promote stronger support to effective decentralization to strengthen city management and a new urban partnership to develop a multilevel governance framework, based on national urban policies.

2. Feasibility of goals: Would it be desirable or feasible to propose governance goals and targets in specific areas? What are alternative approaches?

Governance should be recognized as a transversal theme of all MDGs framework

The imperative of greater decentralization to local governments must be recognized. The basic guiding principle of subsidiarity must be promoted as a vehicle to strengthen democracy and service provision, and ensure an “enabling environment” for local authorities to take on their responsibilities.

It should further promote a high degree of policy coherence at the global, national but also sub-national levels. It should define shared responsibilities and a more balanced approach among all levels of government and development partners.

Local governments have had central roles in most of the countries that have performed well in regard to the MDGs. Indeed, the achievement of many of the MDGs’ goals and targets depends on local governments and the support they receive from higher levels of government and international agencies

3. Some areas of examination could include:

• Civic participation that includes the rights of indigenous peoples, minorities, youth, persons with disabilities, older persons, migrants (legal or otherwise), amongst others;
• Capacities of public institutions (including for the administration of justice, democratic participation, and personal security) at national or sub-national level;
• Global governance (global institutions, mechanisms and instruments); global partnerships and policy coherence at all levels (i.e. in areas such as trade, the environment, justice, etc.)

Taking Rapid Urbanization into Consideration

The world is currently facing rapid urbanization, with the increase of one million plus cities and medium-sized towns, and to varying degrees depending on the regions, with the impoverishment of its suburbs, insufficiency of infrastructure and difficulty in delivery of basic urban services. The importance of rural-urban migration, urbanization of poverty and the impact of new environmental challenges (climate change adaptation, disaster risk prevention) have deep implications for local governance and are not well captured in the MDGs.

Increasing urbanization also creates a need for innovative mechanisms to govern and serve metropolitan areas that are growing in size, complexity and number. Developing solid intergovernmental relations and appropriate governance in metropolitan areas represents a daunting challenge because many different actors are typically involved in service provision. Local governments are key players in the building of this urban governance and megacities can become real engines of growth and contribute to regional integration.

To respond to this challenge, a fresh look at financing local authorities in the face of these added challenges will be required as well as improving partnership with national governments.

For more information please consult: http://www.uclg.org/

Posted on behalf of: Lokoko Abdou

la promotion d'une bonne gouvernance, semble porteuse de tant d'espoir que l'on se sent presque coupable de s'interroger sur la réalité. Il est pourtant essentiel de s'y risquer, car le danger est que le discours sur l'approche  puisse rester incantatoire et que la banalisation du concept occulte alors la justesse de certains principes qu'il exprime et que certaines pratiques traduisent déjà. Un état démocratique doit compter sur le soutien d'une fonction publique moderne et compétent dans les pays en voie de développement aidé d'une décentralisation dont les acteurs partagent certaines valeurs fondamentales et respectent les régles d'éthique parmi lesquelles la transparence, le travail. Une bonne gouvernance locale  doit faire des collectivités  territoriales  des espaces  de démocratie à la base en s'appuyant sur une administration déconcentrée  efficace.