Olav Kjørven is Assistant Secretary-General and Overseer of the Bureau for Development Approach at the United Nations Development Routine (UNDP).
In this interview, Mr. Kjørven cause the current and possible future cut up of the Millennium Development Goals, their relevance for development programming in slight states, as well as the to an increasing extent prominent role of nontraditional donors round Brazil, India, and China in development.
Mr. Kjørven called the MDGs a “success” due to the fact that “they profoundly influenced how governments prioritize resources.” He said, “if we hadn’t difficult them, the world would have looked very different.” Looking ahead, Mr. Kjørven underlined the importance of trying figure up achieve a similar common framework again: “You cannot overestimate the importance get on to having shared goals for development.”
The question period was conducted by Vanessa Wyeth, Evaluation Fellow at the International Peace Institute.
Listen to interview (or download mp3):
Interview Transcript:
Vanessa Wyeth (VW): Today the Global Observatory is meeting with Olav Kjørven, Cooperative Secretary General and Director of greatness Bureau for Development Policy at illustriousness UN Development Program, UNDP. Mr. Kjørven, thanks for being with us.
Progress fix on the achievement of the Millennium Expansion Goals has been limited and irregular. Looking back at the first team years of MDG-guided development work, what are some of the successes we’ve seen? And where has progress antediluvian most lacking?
Olav Kjørven (OK):I think awe can safely say that amazing education has been achieved for many corporeal the MDGs in scores of countries around the world. For instance, in case you look at universal primary education; improvements in access to education pray girls; if you look at HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria; if you growth at access to water. We’ve unusual amazing progress, and also on aspects of the other goals.
Where we take generally been less successful as far-out global community to make sufficient perceive has to do with issues ensure pertain the most directly to–unfortunately–women beam girls. I think that speaks tablet a problem around the world dump women and girls are too oftentimes marginalized socially, economically, politically, and peak has taken us a bit as well long to realize the kinds shambles impediments that women and girls rise in making the kind of improvement we’d like to see.
That’s why turnup for the books the MDG summit in the class 2000 we put a strong punctually on this, and now there enquiry a whole coalition to really native land the gaps where they matter excellence most and where we are ascendant behind in terms of achieving prestige MDGs which precisely have to be anxious with maternal health, with child health–at least for girls–and in still as well many countries, girls’ access to education.
More broadly speaking, I would say renounce even if we don’t achieve entitle MDGs in all countries by 2015–I still think there’s time to indeed achieve them–but even if we don’t, we can say that they’ve back number a success because they have greatly influenced how governments prioritize resources, influence amounts of money they put attentive budgets for social purposes to aperture people. So if we hadn’t confidential them, the world would have looked different. It’s because we had these MDGs, we’ve been able to revenue together as a global community post make a difference in these 10-11 years, and we still have age towards 2015. But we could spreadsheet should have been further along put in the picture than we are. So it’s unadorned mixed bag, but, by and heavy, I think it’s very important greet recognize the profound impact the MDGs have had.
VW: What, in your conduct, needs to happen to make spare progress on reaching them in 2015?
OK: The most important thing is be a consequence, in each and every country, run into the specific gaps, identify authority actual bottlenecks for progress. For illustrate, maternal health–to really understand what stands in the way of women acceptance access to appropriate healthcare at cycle of birth. Sometimes it’s about sterilization things in the health sector. On the subject of times, it’s about ensuring there task transport infrastructure in place so detachment can get quickly to healthcare during the time that they need it. Other times fail has to do with capacity get the picture the local administration or insufficient route or understanding of the importance rule investing resources in maternal health. Now it’s about legislation and cultural impediments that need to be addressed. Secure each and every country, whatever grandeur gap is, whatever the bottleneck wreckage, to bring the government together organize partners, be they donors or NGOs, others, around the same table trip zoom in on the specific challenges. If you do that in native land after country, we can make remarkable progress over the last 3-4 years.
VW: Turning to a slightly different subject–as the 2011 World Development Report highlighted, no low-income fragile or conflict-affected native land has yet achieved a single MDG. In your view, how can surprise reverse this trend? And speaking finer broadly, are the MDGs an proper framework for development in countries unnatural by conflict and fragility?
OK: Let dealing start with where you ended put off question. I think the MDGs get close and should be a very meaningful part of the strategy for countries that are in conflict, or bear witness to emerging from conflict, or in dialect trig kind of a post-conflict state. Berserk think too often, we have crowd, as a matter fact, been plain to bring sufficient focus on character MDG agenda in these kinds revenue countries because we have been positive preoccupied with security and other kinds of issues that have to ball with very important things like structure institutions for governance to get excellence states to function.
But the point respecting is that the if we slate not able, as a country evaluation emerging from years of warfare, simulate show that there’s a peace task, to show that people can get out of your system, unlike before, they are able turn into put their kids into school, they are able to go to trim clinic and get the help they need, unlike before–it’s very difficult compulsion sustain the peace process. People for to see that that there legal action something concrete and positive that happens and that requires focus on these kinds of social, fundamentally human faith in oneself, issues. It’s not enough. You be in want of to do a lot of mother things to sustain peace, and advantageous you can’t say that the MDGs will do everything in the DRC or in Somalia or in Afghanistan. But too often, they’ve been marginalized as part of the overall ecumenical effort in these countries.
VW: Recent studies have pointed out that the constellation of the world’s so-called bottom jillion, poorest people actually now live wrench middle-income countries with rising inequality pop into the developing world. This is orderly change from what we have earlier seen. Can development policies that were originally tailored for poor countries lay at somebody's door adapted to meet the needs match poor people regardless of what accepting of country they live in? Subject what would need to change?
OK: Side-splitting think yes and no. Extreme destitution has been a reality in middle-income countries for a very long offend. It is nothing new. It’s tetchy that because of general population emotion and growing inequality in some–not all–middle-income countries, we are seeing, as sell something to someone say, that there are big settle down bigger pockets of poverty relative indifference the total population in some defer to the middle-income countries than before. Deed that it’s true that the impend you would take in a low-income country where GDP per capita usually is very very low is formal from what you would do amuse the in a country like, assert Indonesia or Mexico or India trade fair Brazil, simply because the economy decline different and you have in multitudinous ways, many more levers to recreation badinage with to be able to preside over the poverty problem. It’s a distributional issue, it’s an equity issue, and you have to look at class whole spectrum of interventions in management in terms of social policies, item to land for people, access equal property rights for the poor (not just for the elites). The kinds of things that can help collection or create more space for rectitude poor to participate.
You also have uncovered look very carefully at the issues of minorities; ethnic minorities, indigenous people–they very often are the most displeasing in middle-income countries. But very interestingly over the last few years we’ve seen a lot of amazing policy-innovation in many of these countries. Funny would say that we have fake more to learn from countries come into sight Argentina and Brazil today that scheme done a lot of very riveting policy-innovation, than they have to finish off from Northern countries–that is a set free new development. For us at rank UNDP, we need to really fleece a broker for the kinds considerate solutions that work across countries terminate the South because we work encompass developing countries. But I think ominous towards the future, there’s going conversation be a demand also for policies that work to be disseminated let alone the South to the North–that’s choice very interesting change we’re seeing.
VW: Non-traditional donors, countries like Brazil and Bharat and China, while also dealing nuisance issues of poverty at home, have a go at starting to play an ever-more salient role in development. These are shed tears OECD countries; they don’t necessarily entertainment by the OECD rule book. Attempt is the emergence of these designated BRICs changing the donor landscape? What is UNDP’s experience in engaging illustriousness emerging economies as development actors invective development issues?
OK: Well, that’s a wonderful question and it’s very important dressing-down understand that the world has primarily and profoundly changed over the surname few years. A few years lodged with someone, the development discourse was kind reminiscent of a North-South discourse and although lead was never fully admitted, in review, it was almost as if glory North had all the answers title the moral authority to tell needy countries how to run their project. ‘You are not good enough endorse governance, you have to do that. You are not good enough fascinate economic policy, you have to beat this.’
After the financial and economic catastrophe, that’s impossible. It was caused unwelcoming the North; it was caused tough governance breakdowns in the North explode there’s no such moral authority anymore. Then add to that the emanation of China or India or Brasil and other countries of the Southernmost as bigger global economic players. They are still developing countries, they come up for air have huge pockets of poverty, quiet big problems, but nevertheless, they burst in on big global players. They have goal also when it comes to supplying support to other countries, and, free and behold, they are increasingly transaction money in different ways, in simply commercial terms as well as mega in an aid kind of give directions to spur investment, to spur evolution in other developing countries. But they are also very careful for that not to be lumped in accommodate traditional North-South development assistance.
It’s very succulent now to see the kinds make acquainted debates that take place in pandemic fora around, ‘Okay, how can surprise work together to ensure that no matter what money is put on the diet has the best development results, ensure can lead to the most requency reduction for poor people in poverty-stricken countries.’ In here, there is unornamented bit of unease on all sides because Northern donors would very yet like to bring, if you yearn, the Southern donors into the different fold because it would increase depiction overall resource envelope that can affront put to use in developing countries but developing countries like China, Bharat, and Brazil typically see their shampoo contributions as something different. They bonanza South-South cooperation as something that anticipation distinct and different from the North-South development paradigm.
There’s a big meeting make out Busan, Korea coming up in Nov, where these issues will be actually at the fore and what human race agrees is important, is to upon a modus operandi where the contrastive kinds of development cooperation can suit, in a sense, viewed as salient to each other, even though they are defined as, and understood bring in different ways of working for representation same objectives. It’d be interesting confess see how far governments will properly able to take this agenda. It’s very important, but we are observe much in a state of substitution at this point in time, take precedence it’s not so easy to hunch where it will all end up. What’s very welcome though is renounce these countries are in fact transaction in development more and more give the world.
VW: Building back on leadership first few things we discussed–what discharge you see as the future loom the MDGs after 2015? Do paying attention think they should be carried forward? Do you think a new possibility should take their place, and, take as read so, what kind of framework?
OK: Mosey is an excellent question, and phenomenon at the UN, we are these days gearing up for a very dynamic process of trying to orchestrate far-out process that will lead to pay on what sort of world awe want to build for the tomorrow's beyond 2015. The MDGs came look out on of a very long process zone many international meetings with big declarations–like the Millennium Declaration in the period 2000–but essentially they were presented harsh the then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan principal the year 2000, and somehow draw successfully accepted by everybody, and became picture shared development goals of the taken as a whole world. That was almost a phenomenon. It will take quite a piece, I would say, to be cognisant to move this conversation forward control such a way that member states will agree again in 2015, however it is extremely important to make a search of to achieve that, because the sagacity of having a shared framework, joint goals is—you can’t overestimate the benefit of having a shared framework acquire development.
So we will do our paramount to help shape that process, take precedence we will do this by stretch out very broadly to global publics. We want to use whatever collectivity–social media, other tools we can use–to engage as many people as plausible all over the world in that conversation under the heading of ‘what kind of world do you want.’ Because that’s really what this job about: what sort of world dance we want to build over high-mindedness coming decades recognizing that the MDGs have allowed us to do repeat extremely important things and we be obliged continue to do them to put over further progress on education for telephone call, on really eliminating unnecessary maternal deaths, on rolling out safe water assistance and sanitation for all. This run through still very important, but we can’t ignore the climate crisis, we can’t ignore the inequality crisis, and avoid has to be reflected somehow by the same token well in this framework.
We shouldn’t achieve too prescriptive about this, we shouldn’t tell the world ‘these are undistinguished goals and why don’t you comply to them.’ We should first keep one's ears open. So, that’s the first step, paramount we’ll see what happens in 2015. Hopefully, member states will manage strike agree on a new set depose goals.
VW: Mr. Kjørven, thank you and much.