Olivia
Scotti
January
20, 2019
SDGs: A step in the right direction?
 |
| Source: wwf.panda.org |
The
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in September 2015, were supposed
to fix all that was wrong with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Spoiler alert: they didn’t.
The eight Millennium Development Goals
were a product of the Millennium Summit of September 2000, during which “the
largest gathering of world leaders in history” endorsed the UN Millennium
Declaration: “a new global partnership to reduce poverty, improve health, and
promote peace, human rights, gender equality, and environmental
sustainability.”[1]
Undeniably, the MDGs were a
“game-changer” [2]:
1.
They were concentrated
and achievable.
The MDGs organized development goals
into a series of priorities which were financed by ODA and the revenues of
countries of the Global South.[3] The
goals were ambitious but realistic, and since there were only eight (and 17
target indicators), communication and promotion of goals were made easier.[4]
2.
They were results-based.
The MDGs had sound target indicators
that allowed for the effective measurement of progress toward each goal and evaluation
of costs. They were “precise, measurable, and trackable”.[5]
3.
They held States
accountable.
The MDGs had specific strategies for
promoting compliance and ensuring the accountability of States for results, as
evidenced by reports produced by the UN.[6]
On the other hand, the MDGs were far
from ideal, as many critics have noted. Some
have even gone so far as to suggest that the progress often attributed to the
MDGs shouldn’t be, claiming the fall in extreme poverty rates (49% in 1990 to
14% in 2015) was part of a global pattern already in movement when the MDGs
were developed.[7]
Their inefficacy, however, is only one of the criticisms of the MDGS:
1.
They weren’t
enough.
The goals were, overall, unambitious, especially
for middle-income states. The focus of the MDGs was too narrow, concentrating
on public health and education – rather than on eliminating conflict or
strengthening national institutions – and on fixing the symptoms rather than
addressing the causes. [8]
2.
They didn’t
include everyone.
This refers both to the decision-making
process (the MDGs were created by “a small team of technical experts at UN
headquarters”[9]),
but also to the way results were reported: the MDGs were concerned with
averages, meaning “a country could still be seen as successful even if many of
its citizens remained in poverty.”[10]
3.
They were
normative.
The MDGs were based on the idea of a
“unidirectional transfer of resources” from the Global North to the Global
South[11];
they fed into paternalistic theories of development assistance in which the
West save the defenseless Rest.[12]
Fast forward to 2015 – Judgement Day.
Of the 15 measurable target indicators of the MDGs, the world met… [13]
… 5.
So, not exactly a rousing success.
In 2012, world leaders at the UN
Conference on Sustainable Development decided to swap the MDGs for the
Sustainable Development Goals, pushing the deadline back to 2030.[14] The
SDGs were designed around “the three pillars of sustainable social, economic
and environmental development”, with the objective of achieving “more inclusive
and sustainable globalisation for all”[15]. Several
major improvements were made:
1.
They were more inclusive.
The planning team for the MDGs was
limited to an elite group of experts, while the SDGs were designed by an
intergovernmental Open Working Group with members from 70 countries.[16] A
more diverse group meant more perspectives considered.[17]
Their inclusivity applied not only to the decision-makers, but also to the
goals addressed. The SDGs encompass ideals such as the promotion of peace, the reduction
of climate change, the preservation of the planet, and the minimization of
inequality.[18]
2.
They reflect a
change in the international development agenda.
Development assistance is no longer
thought about in terms of the West aiding the helpless Rest, and the SDGs
needed to reflect that: “[…] they represent a complete paradigm change […] to a
universal, ‘leave no one behind’ transformation of all countries towards
inclusive, sustainable growth.” [19]
That being said, the SDGs are, all in
all, a flop. Not only did they fail to fix all of the issues of the MDGs, but,
in some ways, they are worse:
1.
They are too broad.
The SDGs include so many perspectives
and had to satisfy so many actors that, in the end, wording is vague and noncommittal
– it is a long list (17 goals, 169 targets) with little real content.[20] The
longer the list of priorities, the less priority each item has.[21]
2.
They are overly
ambitious.
It is wonderful to aspire to lofty
ideals. “Ending poverty in all its forms and dimensions” by 2030, however, is
just not feasible.[22]
3.
They goals are
weak.
How could they not be, when, as
Easterly points out, “any leader in the world – from Vladimir Putin to Bashar
al-Assad to Kim Jong-un – could veto any action he or she didn’t like?”[23] Aside
from being weak, the goals are so numerous that there is concern regarding the
“dilution of development aid” – more objectives means a smaller amount of aid
dedicated to each, thereby decreasing efficacy.[24]
4.
They are
difficult to measure.
The SDGS are not results-oriented as
were the MDGs. The result? According to a report by the International Council
for Science and the International Social Science Council, out of the 169
targets in the SDGs, only 49 are well-developed, 91 need greater specificity.[25] States
did not agree on a set of criteria for the selection of target indicators.[26] Additionally,
the sheer number of targets makes even basic collection of data “financially
prohibitive”.[27]
5.
They lack
accountability.
No government is held individually
responsible and each is able to set their own national objectives.[28]
As Easterly astutely notes, “The one thing that all 193 leaders could agree on
was that the SDGs did not actually bind them to anything.”[29]
I think the MDGs were a great start.
I think the SDGs (in spite of their flaws) were on the right track.
But I think we have a long way to go.
[1] Class Reading 1: UN Millenium Project (2005): http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTSR/Resources/MainReportComplete-lowres%5B1%5D.pdf
[2] Class Reading 2: Hearn and Strew (2016): https://cic.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/publication_hearn_strew_dev_goals_april2015.pdf
[3] Idem.
[8] Class Reading 2: Hearn and Strew (2016): https://cic.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/publication_hearn_strew_dev_goals_april2015.pdf
[12] Class Reading 2: Hearn and Strew (2016): https://cic.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/publication_hearn_strew_dev_goals_april2015.pdf;
[14] Class Reading 2: Hearn and Strew (2016): https://cic.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/publication_hearn_strew_dev_goals_april2015.pdf
[15] Idem.
[16] Class Reading 2: Hearn and Strew (2016): https://cic.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/publication_hearn_strew_dev_goals_april2015.pdf;
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/sustainable-development-goals
[18] Class Reading 2: Hearn and Strew (2016): https://cic.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/publication_hearn_strew_dev_goals_april2015.pdf
[19] Class Reading 3: Kharas and Rogerson (2017): https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-
documents/11873.pdf
[22] Idem.
[27] Class Reading 2: Hearn and Strew (2016): https://cic.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/publication_hearn_strew_dev_goals_april2015.pdf
Olivia: this is a very thorough review of the pros and cons of MDGs and SDGs that takes a sceptical position which I share. However, I wonder if, with all of its limitations, it is too early to say that the Agenda 2030 has not succeeded. My impression is that more countries and actors seem to be taking it more seriously than the MDGs. Every year countries are reporting on progress at a high level panel. Various governments have created bodies at the highest level to coordinate and promote compliace. Finally, the private sector is much more engaged and actors that are not part of the development cooperation system also. So, does this affect your opinion? Why or why not. Prof. C. Freres
ResponderEliminarFrom Olivia:
ResponderEliminarWith over ten years left until the 2030 deadline, it is impossible to know if the 17 Goals will be achieved; however, according to data (such as this article by Devex:
https://www.devex.com/news/sdgs-show-slow-progress-not-on-track-to-reach-2030-targets-un-reports-92971) we are not on track to fully reach any of the Goals. That being said, I’m not entirely sure we would know if a Goal had, in fact, been attained: many of the 169 indicators lack quantifiability, rendering them more or less unmeasurable. What’s more, some of the indicators have yet to be agreed upon, meaning that until now, their progress has not been measured. Further complicating matters, many governments are missing the necessary infrastructure to measure some of the more specific indicators.
I think that the SDGs have been the impulse behind long-overdue progress in development cooperation; for this reason, alone, they could not be deemed a failure. I do agree that it seems that governments are taking development (specifically sustainable development) more seriously with the SDGs than they did with the MDGs. I would argue, however – and U.N. Chief António Guterres would agree – that they are not taking it seriously enough.