A
worldwide pandemic, increasing evidence of the effects of climate change, and,
now an unnecessary and immoral war in Ukraine, are all raising the question of
our global future. Periodically, one hears the sentiment expressed that we need
to have a global “reset”; sometimes it is said that the pandemic affords the
opportunity for such a reset. In the political sphere, this might be expressed
as the need for a new world order.
In fact, in the United Nations’
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) we already have provided a global
framework for addressing many of the problems that face the world. A number are
directed at addressing aspects of climate change, and environmental issues; but
others deal with many of our societal and humanitarian challenges, such as
poverty, gender inequality, the need for good educational and health outcomes.
I believe that attention to achieving the SDGs would also yield positive
advances in the political sphere as well, and make a tremendous contribution
towards achieving a better and more peaceful world.
Briefly, the SDGs are seventeen
global goals that are targeted and time-bound. They were agreed to in 2015 by
all 193 countries of the United Nations. They built upon and replaced the eight
Millennium Development Goals (MDGS) agreed to by 189 countries in the UN in
2000. They gather up a raft of important goals to do with eradicating extreme
poverty, providing food security, and promoting good health and wellbeing; they
seek to achieve quality education for all, and gender equality. They aim to
address issues of water quality, clean seas, affordable and clean energy,
sustainable land use, and climate change. The final two goals address the
development of strong institutions to promote peace and justice; and, perhaps
most important of all, call for a global partnership to achieve sustainable
development.
Why are the SDGs significant and
important? A major factor in their importance is that they are already in
place. The global community does not need to dream up an agenda or a programme.
It is there: and it has been agreed to by 193 countries. A remarkable
achievement. But what the global community needs to do is ensure that they are
implemented.
Furthermore, they provide civil
society, and the citizens of these nations with, as Steve Bradbury puts it, “an
exceptional set of ‘advocacy levers’”. Writing about the Millennium
Development Goals (the precursors to the SDGs), he said: “The development
community, and all who are committed to working for a more just and
compassionate world, can and must use these levers to hold our leaders to
accountable and insist that they fulfil their promises.” What makes the SDGs so
important and valuable as “advocacy levers” is that they are both time-specific
and targeted.[1]
One of the advantages of the SDGs
over the MDGs is that they strengthen the sense that, as a world community,
“we’re all in this together”, but from a point of humility. The tendency with
the MDGs was for the developed world (or the “global North”) to think that the
MDGs were applicable only to the developing world (or the “global South”).[2]
The SDGs specifically apply to every country. We need to recognise that every
country faces its own problems and issues. Adopting the SDGs acknowledges this
and shows that every nation has work to do. There are not “developed nations”
and “developing nations”; we are all developing and needing to progress towards
greater equity, greater benefits and wellbeing for all members of our
respective societies. New Zealand, for instance, has it fair share of
challenges from child poverty, homelessness, wage and income inequities,
domestic violence, and various health issues (to name only a few).
An important aspect of the SDGs is
that it is recognised that each country has its own specific challenges to
achieve sustainable development, and carries primary responsibility for its own
social and economic development. To that end the targets contained within the
SDGs are “aspirational global targets, with each Government setting its own
national targets guided by the global level of ambition, but taking into
account national circumstances”.[3]
Nevertheless, while every nation is
“developing”, historical circumstances and economic factors mean that some
countries have greater resources, and a “headstart” in the development stakes.
Thus a global partnership is required: and wealthier nations have a
responsibility to help poorer nations achieve their goals and targets.
But achieving the SDGs will require
that participation of civil society and private institutions and businesses,
not to mention ordinary citizens. For one thing, we must “hold our political
leaders’ feet to the fire” on their promises. They have signed up to these
targeted and measurable goals. And consider this, when the MDGs were first
agreed to in 2000, the Taliban were in control in Afghanistan, which means that
the Taliban-led government agreed to those goals. Imagine the difference to
that nation if the Taliban-led government now was persuaded and encouraged to
achieve the SDGs, even if it were only those that were most applicable to their
situation (for one thing, MDG #2 sought to achieve universal primary education,
and #3 to promote gender equality and empower women).
Attention to the SDGs by national
governments at the behest of their citizen will keep governments focused upon
what is important for human flourishing. Hopefully, this will also mean that
they will not engage in nonsensical and wasteful enterprises such as trade
wars, great power regional political gamesmanship, or posturing, and “cold” and
even “hot” wars: if only for lack to time to engage in such things. Imagine,
for instance, if the Putin regime in Russia was so focused on addressing the,
no doubt, myriad domestic issues and problems that President Putin did not have
the time or the freedom (because civil society kept his nose to the grindstone,
as it were) to indulge in his fantasies of returning Russia to its former
Soviet “glory”.
As the SDGs are targeting, and (theoretically[4]) time-bound goals, they represent what Mariana Mazzucato, an economist with ideas for “the radical transformation of the state and the market", would call a “mission” rather than a set of aspirational statements.[5] But the SDGs are unfortunately most probably seen as “aspirational” (and therefore, ignorable) by many politicians, and others. This is why, as I said above, we need to build commitment and attention to the SDGs by civil society, and by national citizens in sufficient numbers to persuade politicians to remain focused on the task of achieving them. This will require education of the populace, to build enthusiastic support of the SDGs, and motivation to see action on them. We need to build the kind on national and international concern and attention that is currently being directed more and more at climate change, for example; or the kind of international consensus that has built around opposition to the war in Ukraine.
If the SDGs seem too much and too unattainable,
consider this: On 25th May, 1961 President John F. Kennedy announced
to Congress that the United States should achieve a successful landing of
humans on the moon (and a safe return to earth) by the end of the decade. On
the 20th July, 1969 Neil Armstrong and “Buzz” Aldrin walked on the surface
of the moon. There was, of course, a huge incentive in trying to win “the space
race” against the Soviet Union. No doubt, lots of time, effort, and money was
thrown at the project. It was a “mission”, and it was accomplished. The will to
achieve made it possible.
There’s no doubt that many
difficulties and challenges lie in the way of achieving the SDGs. Corruption
and conflict are but two of the challenges, and they seem intractable, and,
especially corruption, almost endemic. There is also inertia. Most of us,
including myself, have our own interests, goals, hobbies, not to mention
everyday lives that we just want to get on with. That is why it’s important to
build a widespread and collective approach to achieving the SDGs: governments
must be the primary drivers of the efforts to achieve the goals. But not alone:
civil society, businesses, private institutions, individuals must play their
part.
And they are, and they will. Many of
us, perhaps, will not do much towards achieving the SDGs. But we may
rest assured that there are plenty of people with the passion and creativity to
come up with solutions, schemes and ideas that will contribute one way or
another to meeting the goals. This is already happening: many organisations and
businesses in civil society are doing things to further the SDGs. Some are
consciously addressing the goals and targets; others may be providing solutions
but not consciously attempting to address the SDGs.[6] No
matter. But to bring these efforts as much as possible under the umbrella of
the SDGs will give us a sense of a global partnership and a collective will to
build “a better world”.
The pandemic, climate change and
attendant natural disasters, and the war in Ukraine all raise the question: how
can we move towards a more sustainable, peaceful, just and liveable world? The
SDGs provide a ready-made framework and plan. Achieving them will set us well
on the road. Let’s do it.
[1] See Steve Bradbury, “The
Micah Challenge”, in TEAR TALK, Winter 2004, p 8. (See www.tearfund.org.nz)
Micah Challenge was a rallying cry by a global alliance of “more than 275
evangelical Christian relief, development and advocacy organisations” (of which
TEAR Fund was one) to call Christians and churches to lobby governments to
ensure that the MDGs were met.
[2] For the “North-South”
terminology, see North-South: A programme for survival. Report of the
Independent Commission on International Development Issues (under the
Chairmanship of Willy Brandt). (London: Pan Books, 1980), 31.
[3] See “Report of the Open
Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals”, United
Nations A/68/970 (12 August, 2014), 8, 9 (quote on p. 9).
[4] I say “theoretically”
because the MDGs missed their timetabled date of 2015 for achieving the goals.
This, I imagine, is partly why the SDGs were introduced, with a target date of
2030 (and obviously many, if not most, will probably not be met by then).
[5] Danyl McLauchlan, “Woman
on a Mission”, New Zealand Listener, February 26, 2022, 22-27. She
describes a “mission” as a specific problem that one solves. “So, you might
say, ‘There’s too much plastic in the ocean. We’re going to get it down to this
level by this date.’ That’s a mission.” (p.27).
[6] For some New Zealand
initiatives, see https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/23333New_Zealand_Voluntary_National_Review_2019_Final.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment