PRESS BRIEFING BY DIRECTOR FOR SOCIAL POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT

The 10-year review of implementation of the 10 commitments agreed at the 1995 World Summit in Copenhagen had succeeded in putting poverty, employment and social inclusion –- the three core commitments of the Copenhagen Declaration -- front and centre on the development agenda, Johan Schölvinck, the Director of the Division for Social Policy and Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, told correspondents at a Headquarters press briefing today.

Reporting on the work of the Commission for Social Development, which began on 9 February and concludes tomorrow, he said the Commission, which had included the participation of some 60 high-level officials, including 30 ministers, had also been a success in that it had raised the profile of social development, which was often seen as stepchild in the United Nations development discourse.

A 46-member subsidiary body of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Commission for Social Development will recommend the Declaration for adoption by ECOSOC, which will relay it to the General Assembly’s high-level review of the Millennium Declaration in September.

On the eve of the Commission, a civil society forum entitled “Reclaiming Copenhagen” had been held, he said.  There was no talk of reclaiming Beijing, the Women’s Conference, or Rio, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.  That was because the constituents for those two conferences were women and environmentalists, who were well organized and came mostly from developed countries.   The Copenhagen constituents were the poor, unemployed and disenfranchised.  They did not walk the corridors of the United Nations.  Their plight was defended by those present in the Commission, in other words, by proxy.

The question was whether Copenhagen, with its ministerial review, three high-level round tables and the Declaration, had been reclaimed, he said.  He would answer that question with a “qualified yes”.  Most of the attention had been focused on economic development.  In that sense, bringing social development back to the centre of the development agenda was important.  While poverty had been on the top of the agenda, it was largely approached from an economic and financial point of view of income and consumption.  The other two issues were hardly treated.  Bringing them back had been a positive achievement, therefore. 

Most importantly, however, the Declaration recognized that the Copenhagen commitments and the Millennium Development Goals were mutually reinforcing, he said.  In other words, a link had been established between the Declaration adopted by the Commission and the Millennium Declaration.  While the Millennium Development Goals were profoundly social, they were only a small set of what had been agreed to at various United Nations conferences in the last 12 years.  That was not to say that the Millennium Development Goals were not important.  Indeed, they were a galvanizing force bringing governments together in the pursuit of time-bound commitments.  “Copenhagen + 10”, however, brought a broader United Nations development agenda.

It was now possible to inject into the Millennium Development Goals the issues of employment and social integration, both of which were extremely important in the discourse on poverty eradication, he continued.   The concept of poverty eradication had also been broadened, moving away from the dollar-a-day approach.  There was now a people-centred approach to development, which had been the cornerstone of Copenhagen.  Economic growth was only a means to an end and not an end in itself.

He noted that the ministers attending the 10-year review had been mostly from the areas of social affairs, family affair and employment.  They were already convinced that social development was important.  By and large, it had been a dialogue among the already convinced.  Finance ministers had been missing.  They also needed to be in the picture.  The social and economic spheres needed to be connected, as for too long, they had been kept separate.  In government hierarchies, finance ministers usually had the most powerful positions.

Another qualification, he said, was whether the Declaration, when it went to the Assembly’s high-level review in September, would have an impact.  The question was whether the Declaration would survive among all the other documents going to the September meeting.  Much would depend on the 60 high-level officials present at the Social Development Commission when they returned home.  The press could also play a role by making the point that reconfirmation of Copenhagen was important for bringing development forward.  The role of civil society would be crucial to holding the feet of governments to the fire to deliver on their commitments.

“Copenhagen was about creating a society for all, not for some”, he said.  While the Millennium Development Goals could bring the world half way there, “a reclaimed Copenhagen could complete the road we are all travelling together”, he added.

Responding to a series of questions, including on the effects of globalization, he said the countries most affected were the ones not included in globalization, but had been marginalized by it.  In the countries that were integrated in the world economy, both developed and developing alike, there were people who had been hit by job loss and other effects who were suffering from marginalization and exclusion.  Globalization was not a positive force for everybody.  Regarding differences in income in developed and developing countries, it was hard to give exact number.  Within developed countries there were huge differences of equality and equity.  Averages often hid the truth.  There was inequality both within and among countries.

On the issue of attracting high-level participation, he said it was the agenda that attracted high-level participation.  High-level participation was not always necessary, however.  Expert participation was more important.  Functional commissions of the Economic and Social Council used to be expert bodies.  They had been increasingly politicized, however, in that it was largely delegates discussing the issues, and not experts from capitals.  More experts were needed.

* *** *