 Ynweud nhw'n oedd gennym ni'n gweld o gael gweithio gydyddiannau o'r mynd i gwrthodol, gyda'n cymryd yn cynnwys y lleol y drefprwyl yn hanes Fyryd ffrwyl natrefnt, maen nhw'n ei wneud o'r oed o simbnado'r ffordd 2015. Mae'n gwybod i'n gwaith yw fod yn cael y bydd gyda'r ffordd 2015. Felly rwy'n yn ni'n gallu'n gweld ffordd 2015 i'w gweld. Wrth i yan, os mae ddechrau'r s Puerto가�u ddau, a'r ystafell yn y cyfnod yn y byddol i 1990. Rwy'n dweud yw'r ffactor o'r ddweud yma yw'r ddweud, mae'r ddweud o ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae yma yw'r ddweud yw'r ddweud, ac yw'r ddweud yw'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Felly, y ddweud yw'r ddweud yw'r ddweud, mae'r ddweud yw'r ddod. Mae'r Ues, y ddweud i'r ddweud, The Russians, the Chinese essentially worked with their ideological partners, they supported their development programmes on the basis of their ideology. So aid policy was essentially an extension of political policy. That doesn't mean at all to say that all aid projects were bad, but to the contrary, many of them were extremely good. But the basis for entering into an aid relationship was a political one. And also there were commercial objectives as well. I remember well the 1980 paper when Mrs Thatcher came into government in the UK setting out very clearly that political, trade, commercial and defence objectives were to stand up there alongside aid objectives in determining aid policy. And then the second factor of course is the decolonisation process for countries like the UK, France, Spain, Portugal who had significant colonies left particularly in Africa but also in parts of Asia, continuing their support through maintaining the infrastructure which they had largely been responsible for delivering. So aid policy was about supporting roads, about supporting hospitals, schools, developing the capacity through technical assistance of those countries to be able to continue with that themselves. This was in many ways a good thing to do as those countries gradually took on those responsibilities but was disrupted by the first factor which I mentioned before which is the Cold War. And the 70s and 80s I know people describe as the lost decades of development. That was largely true because what mattered above all was the nature of the political relationship. There is a story. I don't know whether it's true or not of the US Secretary of State taking in an African leader, let's call it Mabutu. I don't know who it was to see the president. And they had a half hour conversation and after they'd had that conversation the American president asked his secretary of state to come in and see him and he said, and forgive my American accent, gee, Mr Secretary of State, that guy was a real bastard and the secretary of state said, oh yes, sir, but he's our bastard. And I think that kind of sets the tone for what aid policy was about. It was about supporting your friends and it was about confounding your enemies. Issues like human rights, how much aid reached the poorest people, really didn't feature very large in that set of equations. Everything changed with the fall of the Berlin Wall at the end of 1989 and driven by the model of Eastern and Central European countries wanting to become parts of the European Union, different factors began to come into play. So those countries who wanted to drive their own development, they wanted better democracy, they wanted better governments, they wanted to take human rights into consideration, became factors for determining whether or not they were able to enter into the European Union. And so in that period in the early 1990s, people began to ask the question, well, if we're having these considerations taken into account in our programs towards these countries in Eastern and Central Europe, shouldn't we be thinking the same way in our aid relationships? Shouldn't we be taking issues like rights into account, democratisation, better governance, all those sort of things, more into account in our aid relationships? And I remember very well running DFID programmes in East Africa in the 1990s. When I went to our regional office in 1993, I think I had three engineers and three natural resource agricultural advisors. And by the time I left four years later in 1997, I had one of each. But I also had these strange new people called governance advisors and social development advisors. I think the only thing that remained constant through this period was the large number of economists. So people began to think about who is aid really targeting? What should aid policy be really about? Who are the people we're trying to reach here? Is it heads of government? Is it ruling elites? Is it governments? Is it the people? And gradually those ideas began to coalesce into the international development targets, which in turn transmuted into the Millennium Development Goals. This audience needs no reminding of what those are, the overall arching goal of having the proportion of people living in absolute poverty by 2015 and a number of subsidiary goals essentially around primary education and basic health. So here we are now 15 years later. The period of the Millennium Development Goals about to expire at the end of the year. Far more successful in making progress towards those goals I think than almost anybody had imagined 15 years ago. Why has that happened? Largely because of very strong economic growth in certain parts of the world, above all of course in China, but other countries in eastern Asia too in South Asia and actually in a lot of African countries as well. So that economic growth has driven progress towards the MDGs. Two or three years ago people started to think about what should come after the Millennium Development Goals and there's been a really interesting process I think, a very consultative process over the last two or three years of thinking about what should come next. And those thoughts and ideas and consultations widespread both within governments but also within civil society have led to this new set of sustainable development goals which will be formally signed off in New York next week where many people in this room will be. Now many of us will have problems reminding ourselves what those 17 goals are let alone the 169 targets that come underneath them but the document transforming our world very helpfully sets out five P's which is the way that I find it quite easy to remember what these sustainable development goals are all about. So the first P is prosperity, economic growth. The second one is planet. You mustn't have this growth whilst destroying the environment on which we all depend in the process. The third is people. We heard this morning you know this theme, this idea of leave no one behind because if you halve the proportion of world of people living in absolute poverty you still have half of those people living in absolute poverty. If you reduce the number of mothers dying in childbirth you still have too many mothers dying in childbirth. So it's about those and about thinking about who are the people who are being left behind. Who are the people who have been left out? It's possible to take a very economic approach to that but it's also possible to think maybe disabled people are the people who are being left behind of this. Maybe it's ethnic minorities. Maybe it's the people because of their sexuality. These are things that kind of go beyond economics and perhaps more intuitive. The fourth P and it's very important is peace because I think we all recognise that unless there is reasonable security and peace and reasonable governance in the country you're simply not going to make the progress that you need and then the fifth P of course is partnerships. What does all this tell us then about the exam question that we've been asked which is aid policy post 2015? I think we have to remember that the world is a very different looking place in 2015 from 2000. 2000 the paradigm was still very much about there is a group of developed countries and there is a group of developing countries. There is north and south and it is the responsibility of the north to support the countries of the south in their development programmes and essentially explain to them how they should do it. Although that notion of country ownership was becoming increasingly strong in the 1990s. I think the important thing about this is that those changes need to be reflected in that whole paradigm of aid policy in 2015. Perhaps particularly the changing world after the financial crash of 2008. What we all describe as the global financial crash which I think if I'm right the Chinese describe as the North Atlantic crisis. So the power structures in the world now look very different. The G8 simply doesn't matter as much as it once did. The G20 is much more important than it was. Many developing economies the bricks of course China perhaps above all but India as well. Brazil are developing different sorts of relationship with what we have traditionally thought of as the developing countries. How does that play into the development of aid policy? How are those countries going to feature? What are the experiences that developing countries can learn? Is aid in future all going to be about grant support or are the different mechanisms that we can look at to stimulate South South cooperation? We've always been very against the notion of aid tying for example for very good reasons because that was traditionally used to support Northern companies, Northern goods and essentially to subsidise some of their goods and products. But if China ties at aid is that really such a bad thing because it may help to increase the resources which they're prepared to make available to other countries but the difference between the price of tied aid and untied aid is much lower than it would be otherwise. So those are some of the questions that I think we need to be looking at as we move into this post 2015 agenda. How are we going to achieve this overarching objective of reaching zero absolute poverty by 2030 whatever that means and we've had some interesting discussions about that this morning. I know that some of the economists who I've been talking to are nervous about the STGs because they're not sure which of them are going to be measurable and whether we can really judge progress against all of them. There is as you know a process of defining some indicators which is not yet complete which will be complete by March 2016 some of those will be measurable some of them won't be measurable some of these targets you simply will have to take a judgment about progress but this is why it's equally important to look at the politics as the economics. At the end of this month all the countries in the world will sign up to these new sustainable development goals. These are not just goals for the south. These are universal goals. These are goals which are as binding on countries like the UK as they are on the countries of Africa. This is a compact between governments and their peoples and the fact that governments have signed up to this compact means that the peoples of those countries whether in the UK or countries in Africa have something for which they can hold their governments to account and I think that is a fantastically important development. I think I've perhaps left one or two hooks for the two Richards to hang their comments on about where this all goes in future but I hope that provides a framework within which they can make some of their remarks. Thank you.