1 / 8

Post-2015: An Opportunity to Improve Children ’ s Lives?

Post-2015: An Opportunity to Improve Children ’ s Lives?. ARNEC Webinar, PPT by Jessica Espey ( j.espey@savethechildren.org.uk ). Process and Actors. UN Multi-Agency Task Team (led by UNDP and UNDESA) UNDP-led consultative process

isleen
Download Presentation

Post-2015: An Opportunity to Improve Children ’ s Lives?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Post-2015: An Opportunity to Improve Children’s Lives? ARNEC Webinar, PPT by Jessica Espey (j.espey@savethechildren.org.uk )

  2. Process and Actors • UN Multi-Agency Task Team (led by UNDP and UNDESA) • UNDP-led consultative process • Thematic consultations (12 between now and March ‘12 + technical consultations) • Country consultations • Online consultation (www.worldwewant2015.org ) • High Level Panel (+Secretariat) • http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/Press%20release_post-2015panel.pdf • Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (outcome of Rio+20) • Beyond 2015 and GCAP parallel CSO consultation process • www.beyond2015.org • (Informal Japanese Contact Group)

  3. Timeline

  4. Taking stock of the MDGs: Successes: • Simple and concise • Easy to communicate • Can be monitored • Not policy prescriptive • Have been absorbed into national strategies • Raised and channeled resources for development Failures: • Uneven progress between and within countries (inequities) • Inappropriate baselines • No consideration of different contexts (CAFs) • Quantitative targets over quality outcomes • Directed ODA flows to certain issues

  5. New challenges • Changing poverty landscape • Rapid growth of MICs • Rising inequality • Global economic crisis • Climate change • Increase in natural disasters • 2015 lacking the ‘magic’ of 2000

  6. New Priorities • Poverty reduction (narrowly defined): China + SS Africa • Jobs & inclusive growth: SS Africa • Governance and accountability: UK, Sweden, ‘blue group’ • Inequality: Norway and Indonesia • Energy for all: Norway • Conflict and Peace-building: G7+(China and Brazil are anti) • SDGs and environment: Colombia + Brazil • Disaster Risk Reduction: Japan

  7. Current proposals • Zero goals / MDGs 2.0 b) SDGs (narrowly defined/broadly defined) c) Rights based goals d) Aspirational goals and national indicators e) No goals Question 1) Which is your preference? Question 2) Which is most feasible, given the current political climate?

  8. Advocacy tactics to improve the prominence of ECCD • Reach out to High Level Panel e.g. Queen Rania who has committed to represent education • Engage in the UN thematic consultations (education, health, food, inequalities) and submit written inputs • National level advocacy - ultimately an inter-governmental process • Identify SSA champions (as keen on poverty / wellbeing approach and to keep focus on children)

More Related