Carlota Terrado Herrero
A path of lights
and shadows
The
process of achieving a true international alliance and a common project in the
field of development cooperation has not been a walk in the park, nor has it achieved
the expected results. Lack of coordination, over-ambitious objectives,
unrealistic time and budget constraints, and self-interest have all too often
prevented aid from being as effective as desired[1]. The global
financial crisis has partially paralysed the achievement of these objectives,
as the developed countries, and therefore the main ones affected by the economic recession, are the
main promoters of such aid.
The
inability to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), as well as the
reformulation of new targets, offer a bleak picture of the capacity of
international organizations and different states to achieve these goals.
Is
the current strategy effective in achieving development and cooperation goals?
Is there a real will on the part of the actors involved?
As
mentioned earlier, international development aid and cooperation have undergone
different changes, according to the constantly moving world in which we live.
In the year 2000, the Millennium Summit took place, which established eight
goals to be achieved fifteen years from now: Eradicate extreme poverty and
hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and
empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat
HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability and
foster a global partnership for development[2].
These
objectives were criticised in a number of ways, including the persistence of
paternalistic aid traditions and the maintenance of the international status quo,
between "northern/developed" and "southern/underdeveloped"
countries. On the other hand, the fact that these goals were focused too much
on health and education, forgetting the causes of poverty or the importance of
tackling environmental problems was criticised.[3]
Years
later, faced with the imminent reality and impossibility of achieving the
Millennium Development Goals, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development (Rio+20) took place in June 2012 in Brazil. An agreement was
reached to implement a new set of goals, Sustainable Development Goals (SDG),
which were adjusted to global changes and corrected the deficiencies of the
MDGs[4] being these: End poverty in all its
forms and throughout the world; End hunger, achieve food security and improved
nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture; Ensure a healthy life and
promote well-being for all at all ages; Ensure inclusive and equitable quality
education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all; Achieve gender
equality and empower all women and girls; Ensure the availability and
sustainable management of water and sanitation for all; Ensure access to
affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all; Promote sustained,
inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and
decent work for all; Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and
sustainable industrialization and foster innovation; Reduce inequality within
and between countries; Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient
and sustainable; Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns; Take
urgent action to combat climate change and its effects; Conserve and
sustainably use oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development;
Protect, restore and promote the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,
sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land
degradation and halt the loss of biodiversity.[5]
The
new international agenda in development and cooperation provided a window of opportunity
for new actors to enter the arena, with the participation in the negotiation of
an intergovernmental working group made up of 70 countries.[6] This increased the level of inclusion,
characteristic of a globalized and multilateral world.
In
this way, the mistake made in the MDGs was avoided, where highly relevant
social actors, such as companies or civil society itself, were left out of
co-responsibility.[7]
It
is also significant to highlight the emergence of actors from developing
countries (New BRICS Development Bank), which took advantage of the economic
recession to intervene in the agenda setting.[8]
Like
everything in life, we can not fall into the deterministic idea that the world
is black or white. It is true that the international performance of the
different actors in matters of development and cooperation has not always been
the right one. In addition, there are factors that are difficult to solve in
the short term, such as socio-economic and socio-political variables, such as
the gap between middle- and low-income countries.[9] Another example is the failure of developed
countries to allocate 0.7% of their budget to development cooperation.[10]
The
fact is that, despite criticism of both objectives, in 2010, the GDP earmarked
for aid had risen to 0.32 per cent, which, despite being less than half of the
0.75 target set by the UN, represented a step forward.[11] All this only shows that the policy is not
infallible, that there are elements that must be modified and that awareness of
the environmental problem must be at the forefront of international policies.
States must coordinate themselves more effectively and take into account the
economic duality prevailing in the international social structure.
[1] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2019). The High Level Fora on Aid Effectiveness: A history [Online] available at: http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/thehighlevelforaonaideffectivenessahistory.htm
[2] The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(2017). What are the Millennium Development Goals? [Online] available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/es/culture/achieving-the-millennium-development-goals/mdgs/
[3] Hearn, S. and J. Strew (2015). The Post-2015 Sustainable Development
Goals: a historic opportunity. Rural 21. p.7
[4] Ibíd. p. 7
[5] United Nations Development Programme (2019). Sustainable Development
Goals. [Online] available at: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html
[6] Hearn, S. and J. Strew. Op.Cit. footnote 3. p. 7
[7] Aguilar,A. (2016) Why did the Millennium Development Goals fail? Expok
[Online] available at: https://www.expoknews.com/por-que-fracasaron-los-objetivos-del-milenio/
[8] Hearn, S. and J. Strew. Op.Cit. footnote 3. p. 7
[10] Kenny, C (2015) Have we lost our way? From the MDGs to the ODS. Estudios de Política
Exterior. nº 163. Available at: https://www.politicaexterior.com/articulos/politica-exterior/hemos-perdido-el-rumbo-de-los-odm-a-los-ods/
[11] Ibíd.
Carlota, your blog is quite sceptical but in the end you show some signs for hope. ONe affirmation that you make raised doubts in my mind. You said that the BRICs took advantage of the economic recession to intervene in the agenda setting. So, do you think that if there had not been a recession the BRICs would have been less active. Please explain your answer. Prof. C. Freres
ResponderEliminarThe recession has provided a window of opportunity for developing countries to improve their decision-making position on the international agenda setting, which does not mean that it was the only one. The countries belonging to the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), which stand out for their large reserves of natural resources, have experienced strong GDP growth and a greater presence in world trade in recent years.
ResponderEliminarWhile the vast majority of Western powers are suffering the consequences of the economic crisis, demographic ageing is taking its toll on their societies. This fact, together with the rapid economic growth of the BRICS, makes the leap to the front line of these countries more possible and feasible. Likewise, the constant call of attention of these states, in order to acquire greater responsibilities in the international agenda, leads unequivocally to a greater participation in global decisions.
Therefore, bearing in mind that we live in a constantly changing world, it would be unrealistic to think that developing countries, or practically economically developed countries such as those described above, could not have reached this situation were it not for the global economic crisis. It may take decades or perhaps a century to reach a relevant position, not only in development aid, but in any type of decision or interference at the international level, but the rise of these countries in the world political hierarchy is an undeniable fact.