December 1998, Vol. 2, No 4 by Koos N.M.Richelle         The 20/20 concept was first mentioned in a Human Development Report of the United Nations Development Programme, written under the auspices of the late Mahbub Haq. It was some years before the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995 gave some formal status to the concept. By that time the idea of a more or less binding agreement had been replaced by the concept of a voluntary undertaking between interested countries.    As Chairman of the negotiations on the Programme of Action for the Social Summit, I became heavily involved with the 20/20 concept. The discussions among UN member states gradually evolved into a confrontation between recipient and donor countries. On both sides, there was reluctance to subscribe to the original 20/20 concept. To explain that reluctance we have to realise that the discussions took place in New York within the framework of the UN, i.e. a formal discussion between sovereign states. In this context, sovereign states do not like to be bound by an international ruling on their expenditure. In my opinion, the history of the 20/20 concept is a perfect example of a situation in which content is overshadowed by formalities and procedures, however important the latter may be.     Norway and the Netherlands (inspired by the conviction that basic social services are an essential prerequisite for the eradication of poverty, for the enhancement of quality employment and for social integration) took it upon themselves to further promote the 20/20 idea, by: organising the Oslo Conference on 20/20 in April 1996; financing research and expert meetings on the development of indicators and statistics; sponsoring the regional meeting; and working together with the Vietnamese government to organise the Hanoi Meeting on 20/20 in October 1998.    First of all we came to Hanoi in larger numbers than to Oslo. The list of participants shows that there were 22 developing countries present in Oslo, and 31 in Hanoi; there were 16 donor countries in Oslo, and 19 in Hanoi; there were 6 UN agencies in Oslo, and 10 in Hanoi; both Bretton Woods Institutions were present in Oslo, and only the World Bank in Hanoi; 5 NGOs were represented in Oslo (apart from local NGOs), and 9 in Hanoi.      In Hanoi, we did not spend much time on general debate. There was no beating around the bush, we got down to business immediately. This was the result of solid preparatory work and excellent and concrete presentations.  In Hanoi, there was more equity in the discussion: both developing and donor countries spoke openly about their own efforts to fulfil their share of the 20/20 compact.     In Hanoi, we enhanced the level of expertise in the discussion, specifically by the introduction of the first statistics on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of basic social services. Although there is room for improvement in the statistical and methodological field, the intensity of the discussion is an undeniable illustration of the value of open, transparent and accurate information in monitoring both the status quo and the progress made.     We discussed the 20/20 concept not only in isolation, but also in relation to other relevant policy fields: first of all, we focused the negative effects of the present economic crisis on the availability of funds for basic social services; secondly, it was stressed that the lack of progress in debt cancellation, especially the HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Countries) initiative, of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, represents a very serious obstacle for a lot of developing countries in their efforts to provide basic social services; thirdly, it was mentioned that the 20/20 input target should be linked to the oriented development strategy described in the OECD report Shaping the 21st Century and to the outcome of the major international conferences.     Last but not least, we succeeded in agreeing on the text of the 20/20 initiative - the Hanoi consensus. It seems to me that, in Hanoi, we made a definitive move forward from theoretical consideration of the 20/20 concept to the phase of operationalising it. The mere fact some statistics are now available changes the subject of the discussions. Statistics are not just a source of information in absolute terms, they also provide the basis for comparisons between sectors and/or countries, and for political discussions about priorities, targets and goals. It goes without saying that statistics of this kind are of fundamental importance for the work of NGOs.     First of all we have to disseminate the results of the meeting: to all relevant actors and constituencies in the countries represented at the Hanoi Conference – that is a responsibility of each and every one of the participants; to all institutions that were not represented in Hanoi, but which are expected to play a role in the follow-up to this conference and in the implementation of the 20/20 initiative. This task will be performed by our host country, Vietnam, assisted if desired by Norway and the Netherlands, to other actors for whom the Hanoi consensus might be relevant. This task will also be performed by the organizers of the meeting.    We should ensure that a number of institutions incorporate the 20/20 issue into their regular agenda and reporting systems on a structural basis. The text of the Hanoi consensus contains a reference to these institutions. We should avoid new conferences specifically on the 20/20 initiative. But that will only be possible if the issue is genuinely taken up through the regular channels. We should in any case aim for special attention to be given to the 20/20 initiative at the UN Special Session to be held in 2000 in Geneva, as a follow-up to the 1995 Copenhagen Summit, and in the preparations for the Session.     Since I am also a Vice-Chair of the Preparatory Committee, I will do my utmost to ensure that adequate attention is given to 20/20 within that framework. By putting it on the agenda of “Copenhagen + 5” we can ensure the (re)mobilization of political support.     Furthermore, we should enhance our efforts to ensure the availability, quality and transparency of statistical data and definitions relevant to the 20/20 initiative.     While maintaining a focus on financial input we should also devote attention to the outcome of basic social services: quality, equity and efficiency. On the basis of existing (limited) data we can conclude that there is a great difference in the performance of different countries in this respect. We must involve the private sector and civil society in our efforts. There is of course special responsibility on the part of governments in the provision of basic social services, but in the formulation and implementation of policies, other actors can and must play an important role.     In concluding this brief outline of the Hanoi conference on 20/20, I am certain that the issue of basic social services is on the political agenda of more and more countries. The recent economic crises around the world have, ironically enough, forced governments to reconsider their priorities. It is not very surprising that, in doing so, they are devoting more attention to basic social services. After all, the figures show that, in societies which pay adequate attention to basic social services, populations are less vulnerable and more flexible in times of crises.  Koos N.M.Richelle is Director-General, International Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He is also Vice-Chair of the upcoming Preparatory Committee (May 17-28, 1999 in New York) for the Copenhagen + 5 Review. Fax: 31-70-348-4881.