Irache Ros Hueda 20/01/2019
The
future in hands of the Sustainable Development Goals
Aid
has always been important in order to provide help to poor and developing
countries. However, after the Busan summit, the spotlight changed from aid to
development. Since 2011, aid is used in order to improve development performance[1]. This
meant that instead of focusing on the instruments, it was necessary to start
thinking about what to do, the goal by itself, and thus, to focus on
development.
To
do so, multilateralism is crucial;
donor countries align behind the same objectives and targets. “Over the past
fifty years it [multilateral system] has proven to be resilient and responsive
to changing development dynamics and urgent needs, a major source of development
expertise and know-how, and a powerful channel for intermediating and
allocating resources”[2].
The
case of the United Nations and its Sustainable Development Goals as long-term
sustainable development shows this change of mentality. Why are these goals so
vital?
The
development system can achieve resources in two different ways: from rich
people (donations) and from government, both directed to poor individuals. These
resources can be managed directly by the donor, or being transferred to the
recipient country government, but also it can be channeled through other
organizations from the donor country (NGOs), from the recipient country or
international organizations[3].
The
UN is the perfect example of multilateralism and international organization
committed to development. During the UN
Sustainable Development Conference
that took place in Brazil in June 2012, countries agreed to create the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as
a replacement of the previous Millennium Declaration Goals (MDGs)[4].
The SGDs are composed by universal goals and target with the final aim of
eradicating poverty as the greatest global challenge across the whole world,
but also addressing all global challenges that affect the world nowadays.
The
SDGs is composed by 17 goals[5],
all related to thematic issues, “including water, energy, climate, oceans,
urbanization, transport, science and technology”[6]. Among
these objectives, there are ideas of universality and ambition. According to
Angel Gurría, the OECD Secretary-General from 2006, “policies ranging from
trade and investment to tax and fiscal transparency, corporate governance,
climate change, resource security, and social policy have a profound impact on
the prospects for achieving sustainable development objectives in a national
and global context”[7].
 |
| Source: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs |
“Some
key differences from the MDGs are that the SDGs build upon existing
international commitments to health and education by committing to improving
the quality, not only quantity of services”[8].
To
do so, UN countries that are participating agreed on a common agenda: 2030
Agenda[9],
targeting 169 countries. “The SDGs are expected to influence the domestic
policies of all governments up to 2030 – in high, middle and low-income
countries alike. They are to be based on the three pillars of sustainable
social, economic and environmental development; and they are intended to
achieve more inclusive and sustainable globalisation for all”[10].
The
accomplishment of these SDGs is a great example of political compromise among a
big amount of countries from different parts of the world and it can be seen as
a new global partnership among all of them. Moreover, the UN will have a key
role in order to coordinate the agenda and include all countries in it.
Nowadays,
the UN is working in 165 countries with 131 govern teams and counts on 40 UN
agencies. It is “a historic opportunity to address the world’s most pressing
development problems for all countries and all people”[11]. The
future of all depends on that.
[1] ClassReading 1: Easterly, W. &
Williamson, C.R. https://williameasterly.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/61_easterly_williamson_rhetoricvsreality_prp.pdf
[2] ClassReading 2: The Development
Assistance Committee. http://www.oecd.org/dac/aid-architecture/OverviewChapter-MEP.pdf
[3] Freres, C. Class notes session 3.
[7] ClassReading 3: Keely, B. (2012). https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/development-and-aid_9789264123571-en
[8] ClassReading 4: Hearn, S. &
Strew J. https://cic.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/publication_hearn_strew_dev_goals_april2015.pdf
[10] ClassReading 4: Hearn, S. &
Strew J. https://cic.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/publication_hearn_strew_dev_goals_april2015.pdf
[11] ClassReading 4: Hearn, S. &
Strew J. https://cic.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/publication_hearn_strew_dev_goals_april2015.pdf
Irache: this is a clear argument in favor of Agenda 2030. However, you claim that one of the key differences between the MDGs and the SDGs has to do with the stress on quality and not on quanitity of services. This may be important, but it doesn't seem to me to be the main added value of the Agenda 2030. What do you think are the 1-2 main reasons why this is a vast improvement over the MDGs? Prof. C. Freres
ResponderEliminarSDGs have provided a variety of improvements over the MDGs. Apart from focusing on quality above quantity of services, these new goals are globally collaborative, basing the action in international negotiations taking into consideration OECD countries and international donor agencies (as in MDGs) but also middle and low income countries. Thus, SDGs can also be considered more inclusive.
ResponderEliminarFurthermore, Agenda 2030 focuses the main action in people, planet and prosperity. Whereas MDGs priorities were related to social issues, SDGs combines economic, social and environmental problems to achieve sustainable development.