CLUB OF ROME - 10 WORLD REGIONS

SYNERGIES BETWEEN THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS, THE GLOBAL MARSHALL PLAN, THE EU SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY AND THE LISBON STRATEGY

H.R.H. Prince El Hassan bin Talal
President, The Club of Rome

(1) The Millennium Development Goals

The current year, 2005, will see the first overall review of progress made towards attaining the UN-Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – the global development targets which all 191 United Nations member states pledged to meet by 2015 in the UN-Millennium Development Declaration of September 2000. The current inequitable distribution of the benefits of globalisation is not only morally and ethically unsustainable, but will lead ultimately to greater global instability or MAD – mutually assured destruction.

A new and holistic approach to global development, based on the awareness that our human interdependence is our community, is not only long overdue, but could by contrast engender positive change and promote a propensity for good or MAS – mutually assured survival. The MDG’s represent a renewed commitment to addressing some of the most enduring failures of human development. Their implementation is crucial to the attainment of sustainable development, to overcoming persistent poverty, to achieving a balance between peoples of all nations and cultures and finally, to ensuring world peace.

The European Union (EU) stands out in terms of both its commitment of resources and energy towards the achievement of the MDGs. Sadly however, to date insufficient progress has been made, bringing into doubt the feasibility of their attainment within the projected timeframe and in the context of free and open markets and the current global order. More, much more must be done, as has been emphasised repeatedly by the British Government, in its current position of holding the presidency of both the G8 and the EU, and as was stressed in the statements of the leaders of Great Britain, France and Germany at the recent meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos.

(2) The Global Marshall Plan: its complementary role

Peace cannot be achieved through economic and political development alone, but requires the commitment of individuals and communities (in addition to national governments and multinational organisations.) whose security involves such intangibles as culture, religion, honour, the ability to provide for one’s family, dignity and self-determination. Policies and action aimed at national and international peace and security are doomed unless they take these intangibles seriously. The challenge facing society is how to build peace and foster development in a rapidly changing world.

The Global Marshall Plan Initiative

born of the decade old idea of a worldwide Marshall Plan, was conceived and refined by a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), including the Club of Rome, the Eco-Social Forum Europe and the Global Contract Foundation. It has already found strong support both in Europe and the wider world amongst representatives of all societal groups, not only the political, but the civil and private sector, as well as science and the media.

The Initiative’s goals are closely linked with MDGs, the attainment of which by 2015 it sees as an important first step, rather than end goal (and it is this that distinguishes it from so many other concepts) in the achievement of its own long term objective – the realisation of a worldwide Eco-Social Market economy. The central tenets of the Initiative are inspired by the ideas that underpin the constitutions of all EU Member States, the European Constitution itself and the EU enlargement process and thus the Initiative sees the EU as a natural supporter of its concept in international politics.

In brief, the Initiative seeks an international order based on partnership and cooperation, leading to an optimal use of human and natural resources to the benefit of all. It offers a viable concept for stimulating worldwide sustainable socio-economic development aimed at eradicating poverty and provides a path of sustainability in the ecological field by promoting and rewarding resource-efficient technologies and lifestyles. The core concept of co-financing the development processes of weaker partners by the richer partners, thereby eliminating the need for poorer countries to undermine standards in order to retain a competitive edge, simultaneously offers partnership in fair development cooperation and makes possible the establishment of mutually agreed strict economic, social, cultural and ecological standards between partners, essential to sustainable development with equity.

In other words, the Global Marshall Plan Initiative will promote growth in both the richer and the poorer part of the world with naturally higher growth rates in poorer countries promoting greater equity, to the benefit of all.

As can be seen from the above, Europe is in a particularly credible position to support such an Initiative. The embedding of the attainment of the MDGs into a long-term strategy that combines global institutional design with development is a peculiarly European approach that would extend globally one of the EU’s best working principles, as successfully applied in the EU enlargement process. It would also give Europe the lead in the shaping of our common future.
The following five elements are central to the Global Marshall Plan:

(i) Implementation of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, integrated into a long-term strategy for the realisation of a worldwide Eco-Social Market Economy as described by the Initiative.

(ii) Implementation of a coherent global institutional design by linking the ILO, UNESCO and global environmental standards – plus other standards where appropriate (eg: the World Bank’s Safeguard Policies and the ISO standards) to the WTO, IMF and World Bank to form a coherent system of global governance.

One of the greatest scandals of our time is surely the fact that the current system of global economy allows for the constant sidelining, or overriding of social, cultural and environmental concerns by the WTO, IMF and World Bank, simply because they are governed by separate bodies. Granted, it is usually the poorer countries that object to the integrated approach suggested above because they cannot currently afford to meet the more stringent social, cultural and environmental standards involved. However, considerable co-financing of development for the adoption of such standards could make compromise possible.

The implementation of this integrated approach, together with the proposed new institutional design, lies at the heart of the Global Marshall Plan Initiative. It does moreover reflect the basis on which the enlargement processes of the EU are undertaken.

(iii) Additional co-financing to the sum of 100 billion dollars. Whilst poverty cannot be defined in terms of dollars alone, human dignity and all that it entails can never be achieved by the indigent. An additional 100 billion dollars has been independently identified by a range of experts and expert reports, including the UN Zedillo Report, The British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, and the George Soros Open Society Foundation, as the sum required to achieve the Millennium Goals.

100 billion dollars would both enable Official Development Aid (ODA) to reach the level of interest paid annually by the poorer to the richer nations (approximately 165 billion dollars p.a.) and bring us closer to the 0.7% GDP level of ODA promised repeatedly by donor countries over more than 30 years (cf. Rio 1992 World Conference).

(iv) New Forms of Financing. In order to raise the funds required to implement the Global Marshall Plan without imposing an increased burden on national budgets or distorting economic competition, the Plan envisages new and innovative approaches to financing using global instruments. Global instruments would have the added benefit of avoiding the current erosion of national governance, whilst simultaneously curtailing the depletion of the environment by global economic actors.

In brief, the proposed system would involve the imposition of reasonable levies on global capital transfers and global trade, both raising funds and improving the balance between local and global economic actors; special drawing rights of the IMF, a cap-and-trade regime based on equal per capita pollution rights (eg: CO2 pollutions), a reasonable insolvency scheme for states and the establishment of an International Finance Facility as proposed by Gordon Brown. It was interesting to note that European leaders at the last World Economic Forum in Davos are increasingly leaning towards the position advocated by the Global Marshal Plan Initiative.

(v) Innovative and effective modes of implementation will be required to achieve development with equity in poorer countries. A major challenge facing the Initiative will lie in avoiding the pitfall of feeding corruption by ensuring that funds are allocated appropriately. Core principles are transparency and strict control over the flow of funds, as well as a ‘bottom-up’ approach, while concrete examples of implementation are micro-financing and ‘partnership aid’ (ie. the empowerment of local intermediaries). Additionally, experience has taught us that independent, self-motivated and responsible development can be achieved through enabling the participation, education and empowerment of civil society, especially women.

The Global Marshall Plan Initiative may not offer an easy option, but it does offer an alternative to the unjust, unsustainable, unethical, largely unregulated and ultimately destabilising globalisation processes we are witnessing today. Should the EU adopt the Plan as an integral element in its own policy formation, it would gain the support of large numbers of important stakeholders from the political sector, civil society, and the business community, as well as attracting broad societal and media attention. Under strong European leadership the Plan then will have the chance of reaching fruition and Europe can offer the world a new option, a positive way forward out of the present impasse of spiralling violence, towards a better, more sustainable and peaceful future.

(3) The EU Sustainable Development Strategy and the Lisbon Strategy
I would like to emphasise here that in my personal opinion the Global Marshall Plan Initiative not only complements the Millennium Declaration and can assist in the achievement of its goals, but offers possibly the best opportunity of promoting the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, currently under review. It should additionally not only assist in focusing the orientation of the European position in the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), but encourage a greater and more positive involvement of the US in these issues.

Similarly, the Initiative can offer innovative thinking to the Lisbon Strategy, designed to create growth whilst maintaining social balance and to promote sound ecological policies (and environmental protection where required), which is currently also under review. It would seem clear that current global policies and systems do not benefit the majority of the world’s citizens. Far from making

4 ‘Globalisation Work for All’1, global change is taking place at a breakneck speed to the advantage of the few ‘globalisers’, but not necessarily to that of the many ‘globalised’. Globalisation at present is based on a free-market economy, rather than a more inclusive and ethically justifiable free-market society. As a result, in order to remain competitive in the current world economy, European countries find themselves forced, by and large, to scale down efforts to maintain social balance, while environmental concerns all too often become an outright casualty.

The Global Marshall Plan proposes to address these issues by imposing tax levies on both global resource use and global actors, thereby simultaneously offering a financial incentive to encourage sound environmental activities and increasing available funds. The channeling of these funds to increase wealth in poorer countries via co-financing for development and the implementation of standards, such as ILO standards, worldwide would go some way towards redressing current global imbalances in that it would increase the competitiveness of national economic actors (especially small and medium enterprises) allowing them to challenge purely international actors. The above proposal dovetails perfectly with the Lisbon Strategy.

Unless social issues are integrated into the global scheme, Europe will find itself unable to continue to maintain the social balance it currently enjoys and will be forced to erode further current environmental standards, resulting in the strange contradictions between the Lisbon Strategy and the EU Sustainable Development programme that currently frustrate European citizens and politicians alike. It is my firm belief that the Global Marshall Plan offers a strategy not only for the improved placing of European contributions worldwide, but can assist the EU in the attainment of the Lisbon Strategy and the Sustainable Development Programme within an integrated programme.

(4) Where to begin?

As each successive UNDP Development Report underlines, life on our planet is currently far from equitable – almost half the world’s population suffers from starvation -, far from humane for the many – who do not have access to clean water for example, let alone civil rights, and far from ecologically sustainable for any of us, or for future generations in the longer term. Action is needed to redress the imbalances that are a root cause of instability and threaten the future of the human habitat.

Efforts to bridge the gap between rich and poor, between North and South and to safeguard the environment have so far proved grossly inadequate. The Global Marshall Plan Initiative seeks an international order based on partnership and cooperation to redress the balance via linkages between environmental and social standards with co-financing in partnership for development.

In line with EU Sustainable Development Programme, The Lisbon

1 Conference on ‘Making Globalisation Work for All: The Challenge of the Monterrey Consensus’, London 16 Feb 2004. 5 Strategy and MDGs (see above) it is a strategy that could be appropriately promoted by the EU in for example the forthcoming WTO meeting in Doha.

The US has always supported the inclusion of ILO and environmental standards into the WTO trade agreements. Europe could take the lead by advocating additional co-financing for development as the corellating strategy, encouraging developing countries to step up to the template by easing the burden of the additional costs this would impose on them.

Beyond the WTO the EU could play an even greater role and maximise its position of the greatest ODA donor worldwide. Were it to concentrate additional effort on the poorest countries and focus on the UN MDGs, its leadership would be strengthened. Further, within ‘Partnerships for Development’ with the poorest countries, it could co-finance development in tandem with the progressive adoption of key social and environmental standards – as it has done so successfully within the context of EU enlargement. It could moreover consider raising additional development funds at the EU level via for example the imposition of a European levy on fuel for internal flights, whilst simultaneously meeting the C02 emission trading agreements under the Kyoto protocol. Perhaps most importantly, it could put its full weight behind Gordon Brown’s proposal for an International Finance Facility to generate more immediate development funding.

In the longer term additional development funds could be raised worldwide through environmental and resource-use levies. This is an idea which still needs to be developed and here again, the EU could take the lead.

(5) Concluding Remarks

To summarise, there are multiple positive synergies between the UN Millennium Development Goals, EU Development programmes and the vision of the Global Marshall Plan Initiative. It is within our reach to make poverty history. And as a first step attainment of the MDGs is crucial. We have the means to make this globe a better and a safer place – for all, and in particular the most vulnerable.

However we cannot focus on economic considerations alone. For if economic and political decisions are made without reference to human culture – and especially the transparent fostering of human dignity and self-worth for all human beings – then they cannot succeed in improving people’s lives and they lose credibility.

The relevant issue is to enhance the capacities of the poor to contribute to the process of growth by empowering them to participate, on more equitable terms, in the dynamics of the economy, in a bottom-up approach to improving their

6 standards of living. Development efforts will fail if not built on democratic values and ideals, and on human rights. Every region, every culture has its own specificity. A better understanding of people’s perception of their reality will facilitate the design of culturally attuned programmes.
Development programmes should accommodate religious, linguistic and historical values. They should respect diversity in all its aspects and manifestations. Imported culture cannot be imposed with imported commodities.

The challenge facing society is how to build peace and foster development in a rapidly changing world. To be sustainable, development must be founded on justice. Justice, in turn, depends on the framework of ethical references called democracy. What I am suggesting is both consensual and contractual and basically focuses on the importance of restoring justice to development. Our actions, whether in developing or developed countries, impact upon us all, and in this context, it is crucial that we recognise that our future depends not only on finding technical solutions to the problems we face, but also on reaching a consensus about the ethical basis of our response – a universal code of conduct and an ethic of human solidarity.

Much has been achieved during the last five years and the EU has been a major contributor to this progress, but it is not enough. Meeting the MDGs remains a far-off dream. The next five years will be critical. This is not the time for a piecemeal approach. We need global action, similar in size and scope to the reconstruction efforts in Europe following the second World War – the first Marshall Plan. The time has come for a Global Marshall Plan. once again, combining huge investment in development with effective insitutional design and targeted modes of implementation. The European Union, acting in partnership with the rest of the world, can be the architect and catalyst of this plan.

My colleagues in the Club of Rome and the initiators of the Global Marshall Plan Initiative call today on the EU to demonstrate its commitment to a better future for all. We would like to suggest the inclusion of a statement in the EU position paper for the forthcoming UN Millennium+5 Summit, to be held in New York from the 14-16 September 2005, to the following effect:

The EU considers the Millennium Declaration to be of unparalleled importance. It is the promise made by the wealthy nations to the less developed world. It reflects the hopes and aspirations of our peoples. This world can make poverty history. We have the means to make the globe a better and a safer place for all – particularly the most vulnerable.

7 The achievements of the last five years are impressive, but they still fall short and in many areas we have failed to meet our own commitments. More must be done. The next five years are critical. To continue on the present path will doom us to failure.

The EU is of the firm opinion that a piecemeal approach will be inadequate. We need integrated global action on a scale similar to the US Marshall Plan following World War II. We need a Global Marshall Plan and the EU is ready to engage in such an initiative. Such a plan must again combine huge investment in development with functional institutional design and a particular focus on effective modes of implementation.

The EU will cooperate with the Club of Rome and all other interested parties in establishing a Global Marshall Plan Initiativ and an International Finance Facility to develop an integrated operational framework for the urgent measure now needed. We invite the nations of the world to join with us in this ambitious undertaking.