Introduction
In last week’s column, I sought to provide some insight into elements of the general approach adopted by the intergovernmental Open Working Group (OWG), which the United Nations (UN) had created to produce a Post-2015 Development Agenda that is to be agreed upon at the upcoming UN summit, to be held later in September of this year. Several key elements of the OWG’s approach to this mammoth task were indicated. These included: 1) seeking to learn from the lessons of the previous Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) process 2000-2015, which the proposed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 2015-2030, have been designed to replace; 2) to adopt an action-orientation; 3) to use concise, easy to communicate and unambiguous language; 4) to avoid over-reliance on “development experts” and to emphasize instead, intergovernmental consultation, along with non-state actors; 5) to limit the number of SDGs to the essential minimum; and 6) to avoid the “donor-recipient” model, which was central to the MDGs.
Indeed the SDGs, unlike the MDGs, are designed to be applicable to all UN member states. They are, therefore, universal goals that are designed to be implemented at the national level. Each goal though, carries its own specified targets and indicators of compliance, which will be monitored. At the end of last week’s column I had also indicated that, the OWG has applied the notion of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR).
This concept connotes, at the very minimum, four considerations. One is that, the costs incurred in the pursuit of these goals will be fairly shared across countries, taking into account their national capabilities. Second, CBDR indicates that the SDGs will reflect the prevailing variety of national cultures, development realities, and institutions, worldwide. Third, the sharing of responsibilities for achieving each goal will also be fair, since the sharing would be based on national capacities. Indeed, pursuit of the SDGs would entail not only a fair sharing of responsibilities among countries, but also within countries.
Reservations
There are two reservations, which I believe readers should keep in mind at all times. One is that, despite the best intentions of the OWG, there is as yet no clear and definitive determination of how the harmful effects of any UN member state’s actions, which are felt outside that member state, are to be compensated for. For example, such “harmful effects” (or negative externalities), can arise from environmental pollution, and this may be generated by a non-state actor like a business corporation. The SDGs do not provide a definite mechanism for rectifying such an occurrence. Furthermore, the proposed SDGs, when adopted, do not constitute a binding and legal international treaty. Instead, the Post-2015 Development Agenda will be an internationally agreed policy framework. It will not have the force of international law, but would have, through peer pressure, the force of moral suasion.
In the remainder of this column I draw attention to statements emanating from three widely regarded social forums and development media outlets about the Post-2015 Development Agenda. I ask the question, should Guyana take cognizance of these?
Inter-Press Service (IPS)
I believe that Guyanese should draw great comfort from the IPS claim that: “The 2015-2030 Agenda is arguably the most ambitious and expansive development agenda that has ever been set in motion. It will be in effect for 15 years (2015-2030) and is to be implemented at all levels ranging from the global and multilateral level … regional … and national”. IPS has further declared that this is “the first development paradigm to be marked by universality”. In this way “it contrasts with, and advances on the donor-recipient model of the MDGs approach”.
Devex
Devex has expressed concern over what it terms as “the inherent variability of some of the goals”; for example, the imprecise definitions of sustainability and viability.
It has also referred to notable omissions in the listed goals (for example renewable energy; the role of the availability of soap and water in sanitation commitments; and weak reference to conflict zones).
Additionally, it has observed the disconnect between goals proposals and conditions on the ground. Yet despite these strong observations, Devex has applauded the SDGs as “ground-breaking,” because of their simultaneous coverage of justice, security, accountability and peace. It has declared the agenda as being “beyond aspirational!” I believe this declaration is noteworthy.
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung
(FES), Geneva
Finally, the FES has portrayed the SDGs, and indeed the entire Post-2015 Development Agenda, along the lines of Ban Ki-moon as being “people-centred and planet-sensitive development”. It has declared that every country (including Guyana), would be expected to translate the SDGs into their own national targets, and guided of course by the global level of ambition of the SDGs taking into account their national circumstances.
Conclusion: Civil Society
Organisations (CSOs)
Of note, a number of non-governmental organisations have been very active in framing the Post-2015 Development Agenda throughout the OWG process. I cannot do justice to the full range and richness of their contributions to the elaboration of the SDGs. I do wish, however, to recommend readers to the Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS) website of the UN and its Google Documents Page.
This provides access to 1) CSOs’ reactions to the overall OWG process; 2) comments on drafts of the Outcome Document when they were released along with related materials; 3) evaluations of the UN itself, as the identified “delivery mechanism” for the 2030 agenda.
However, it should be stressed that the global network of civil society organisations (CSOs), has been urging the position that the SDGs do not go far enough. They claim they lack 1) urgency and 2) “independent mechanisms for people to hold governments accountable for their implementation and follow-up”. And, consequently, they do not provide a reliable strategy for their implementation, and accountability.
Next week I take up the discussion from this observation.
