BRIEFING PAPER
Number 7291, 28 September 2015
The Sustainable
Development Goals and
the post-2015
development agenda
By Jon Lunn
Emma Downing
Lorna Booth
Inside:
1. Introduction
2. The goals in a nutshell
3. The road to the SDGs
4. A transformational agenda?
5. UK policy
6. Bibliography
www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary
Number 7291, 28 September 2015
Contents
Summary
3
1.
Introduction
4
2.
The goals in a nutshell
5
3.
3.1
3.2
The road to the SDGs
Preparing the ground for negotiations (2011-14)
The 2015 negotiating process
6
6
8
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
15
15
17
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
A transformational agenda?
Overview
Will there be enough money – and who should provide it?
Are the monitoring and accountability and follow-up mechanisms strong
enough?
Will there be genuine ‘ownership’?
Has climate change been effectively integrated?
Are the goals and targets the right ones?
Does a ‘goal-based approach’ work?
5.
5.1
5.2
5.3
UK policy
Statements during 2014
Statements during the 2015 negotiating process
EU dimensions
28
28
29
32
6.
Bibliography
34
20
21
22
23
25
Appendix 1
Sustainable development: history of an idea
39
Appendix 2
Achieving the MDGs: performance assessment
44
Cover page image copyright: Jon Lunn
2
3
The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
Summary
On 25 September 2015, following a negotiating process lasting four years, UN Member
States attending an extraordinary Summit of the UN General Assembly on the post-2015
development agenda agreed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – 17 goals, with
169 associated targets for human development, to be achieved by 2030. The rallying cry
throughout the negotiations was ‘leave no one behind’.
The SDGs are the successors to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – eight goals
with 18 associated targets for human development, which were agreed in 2001, most of
which were to be achieved by 2015.
These goals are contained within a final outcome document adopted at the Summit called
“Transforming our World. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”.
The intergovernmental negotiating process to agree the SDGs began in earnest at the
beginning of 2015. However, this was the culmination of three years of prior endeavour
involving a wide range of actors. including: a UN System Task Team established by the UN
Secretary-General; a High-level Panel, also established by the Secretary-General and cochaired by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron; and an Open Working Group with a
mandate from the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20).
Civil society, including the private sector, was involved in the process throughout. All in all,
the approach was much more inclusive than was the case with the MDGs.
The extraordinary Summit was the second of three major UN conferences taking place in
2015, all of which are of critical importance in agreeing the parameters of the post-2015
development agenda.
In July, an international conference on financing for development was held in Addis
Ababa. This conference was meant to lay the foundations for successfully funding the
implementation of the SDGs. Views differ markedly over how well it met this challenge.
In December, governments will meet in Paris in search of an effective global agreement to
tackle climate change for the post-2020 period at the UN. Evidence from the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows that all of the proposed SDGs could
be affected by climate change.
The SDGs can be expected to have an important role in shaping the sustainable
development policies of the UK Government (and the Devolved Administrations) over the
period to 2030. The as yet unanswerable question is how far this will extend beyond
rhetoric to substance.
During the course of the negotiations, the UK Government expressed concern that 17
goals was too many and that this could undermine effective communication and
implementation. On the face of it, these concerns do not appear to have strongly
influenced the negotiations. A relevant consideration is the fact that the EU has
competence on development issues and has negotiated on behalf of Member States,
including the UK.
Number 7291, 28 September 2015
4
1. Introduction
On 25 September 2015, following a negotiating process that lasted four
years, what was reportedly the largest gathering of world leaders in
history came together at an extraordinary Summit of the UN General
Assembly on the post-2015 development agenda and agreed the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – 17 goals, with 169 associated
targets for human development, to be achieved by 2030. 1 The rallying
cry throughout the negotiations was ‘leave no one behind’.
The SDGs are the successors to the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) – eight goals with 18 associated targets for human
development, which were agreed in 2001, most of which were to be
achieved by 2015.
These goals are contained within a final outcome document adopted at
the Summit called “Transforming our World. The 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development”. 2
As the title of the final outcome document indicates, the SDGs are
intended to be a central part of a wider post-2015 development
agenda. This agenda gives equal weight to ‘means of implementation’,
including how meeting the goals will be financed, and a revitalisation of
the ‘global partnership for development’ which was launched under the
MDGs – but which is widely accepted to have been only partially
successful.
1
2
The UK delegation at the Summit was headed by the Prime Minister, David
Cameron, and the Secretary of State for International Development, Justine
Greening.
“Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Outcome
document for the UN Summit to adopt the Post-2015 Development Agenda”,
advance unedited version
Rallying cry: Leave no
one behind
5
The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
2. The goals in a nutshell
Below is a table of the 17 SDGs that the Summit formally adopted:
Goal 1 End poverty in all its forms
everywhere
Goal 2 End hunger, achieve food
security and improved nutrition, and
promote sustainable agriculture
Goal 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote
well-being for all at all ages
Goal 4 Ensure inclusive and equitable
quality education and promote life-long
learning opportunities for all
Goal 5 Achieve gender equality and
empower all women and girls
Goal 6 Ensure availability and
sustainable management of water and
sanitation for all
Goal 7 Ensure access to affordable,
reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for
all
Goal 8 Promote sustained, inclusive
and sustainable economic growth, full
and productive employment and
decent work for all
Goal 9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote
inclusive and sustainable industrialization
and foster innovation
Goal 10 Reduce inequality within and
among countries
Goal 11 Make cities and human
settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and
sustainable
Goal 12 Ensure sustainable
consumption and production patterns
Goal 13 Take urgent action to combat
climate change and its impacts
Goal 14 Conserve and sustainably use
the oceans, seas and marine resources
for sustainable development
Goal 15 Protect, restore and promote
sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,
sustainably manage forests, combat
desertification, and halt and reverse land
degradation and halt biodiversity loss
Goal 16 Promote peaceful and
inclusive societies for sustainable
development, provide access to justice
for all and build effective, accountable
and inclusive institutions at all levels
Goal 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize
the global partnership for sustainable development
Number 7291, 28 September 2015
6
3. The road to the SDGs
The intergovernmental negotiating process to agree the SDGs began in
earnest at the beginning of 2015. However, this was the culmination of
three years of prior endeavour.
3.1 Preparing the ground for negotiations
(2011-14)
In 2001, the global community signed up to the MDGs, a set of
international goals for human development, most of which were to be
achieved by 2015. As 2015 approached, attention turned to what
should replace them.
UN Task Team and public consultations
In January 2012, a UN System Task Team on the Post-2015
development agenda was established by the UN Secretary-General. The
Team was made up of more than 60 UN agencies and international
organisations. Co-chaired by the Department of Economic and Social
Affairs and the United Nations Development Programme, the Task Team
provided analytical thinking and inputs to the post-2015 process. The
UN also conducted extensive public consultations about the post-2015
development agenda.
The High-level Panel
In July 2012, the UN Secretary-General established a High-level Panel
(HLP) to explore the post-2015 development agenda. UK Prime Minister
David Cameron co-chaired this process with President Ellen JohnsonSirleaf of Liberia, and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of
Indonesia.
The 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable
Development
Simultaneously, efforts were underway to establish a set of ‘Sustainable
Development Goals’ (SDGs).
In 1992, eight years before the MDGs were launched, the UN held a
major conference on sustainable development in Rio de Janeiro. 3 In
June 2012, on the twentieth anniversary of that conference, the UN
Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) took place. At this
conference, separately from the post-2015 process outlined above, it
was agreed to establish SDGs. The Rio+20 ‘outcome document’ stated
that an Open Working Group (OWG) would be created with a view to
drawing up these SDGs. 4 It said that the goals should be:
action-oriented, concise and easy to communicate, limited in
number, aspirational, global in nature and universally applicable to
all countries, while taking into account different national realities,
3
4
Its formal title was the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED), 1992. It is better known as the ‘Earth Summit’. For further
background, see Appendix 1, “Sustainable development: history of an idea”
“The Future We Want’, UN Resolution A/RES/66/288, 27 July 2012
Rio+20 conference
sets out what the
SDGs should embody
7
The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
capacities and levels of development and respecting national
policies and priorities. 5
Drawing the threads together: the Open Working
Group
The HLP presented its report on the nature of the post-2015
development framework in May 2013. The report recommended 12
“illustrative goals”. 6 The HLP’s report was then taken up by the OWG
established on the basis of the Rio+20 outcome document. The OWG
was formally tasked with integrating the MDG successor goals with the
process to establish the SDGs.
The Rio+20 outcome document specified that the OWG would consist
of thirty geographically representative members (nominated by UN
Member States via the five UN Regional Groups). The OWG was
established in January 2013. Each seat in the Group was shared by 1-4
Member States. These country teams were able to decide themselves
how they would be represented in the OWG meetings. The OWG was
co-chaired by Kenya (H.E. Mr. Macharia Kamau) and Hungary (H.E. Mr.
Csaba Körösi).
In 2012, the UN Secretary-General had appointed Amina Mohammed of
Nigeria as his Special Adviser on Post-2015 Development Planning. She
served as an ex-officio member of the HLP and worked closely with the
OWG.
The OWG identified 16 focus areas ranging from poverty reduction, to
health, education, gender, corruption, governance, economic issues and
issues of sustainability and climate change. 7
The OWG was mandated to report back to the UN General Assembly
during its 68th session (with a final deadline of September 2014).
September 2014: the UN General Assembly
endorses draft SDGs as the basis for negotiation
In July 2014, the OWG published proposals for a “set of goals that
consider economic, social and environmental dimensions to improve
people’s lives and protect the planet for future generations”. The
Working Group proposed 17 SDGs to be attained by 2030, each with a
number of associated targets (169 in total). For each goal, some of the
targets focused on the ‘means’ by which they were to be achieved,
others focused on the desired ‘ends’. 8 The proposals included a range of
new ‘stand-alone’ goals – for example, on achieving gender equality,
combating climate change and promoting peaceful and inclusive
societies. Amina Mohammed argued that the proposed SDGs should be
considered as “floors” rather than “ceilings” when the time came for
individual countries to set their targets. 9
5
6
7
8
9
“The Future We Want”, UN Resolution A/RES/66/288, 27 July 2012
“A New Global Partnership: The Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons
on the Post-2015 Development Agenda”, May 2013, pp. 30-31.
“Working document for 5-9 May session of the Open Working Group”, n.d
Under the MDG framework, the targets focused principally on the ‘ends’.
E. Stuart, “5 things needed to turn the SDGs into reality”, Devex.com, 29 July 2015
The Open Working
Group publishes its
proposals in July
2014
Number 7291, 28 September 2015
8
The UN General Assembly agreed in September 2014 that the SDG
proposals should be the “main basis” for the inter-governmental
negotiating process.
In his December 2014 ‘synthesis report on the post-2015 agenda’, “The
Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and
Protecting the Planet”, Ban ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General,
indicated that the 17 goals should be retained but rearranged in a
“focussed and concise manner”. 10 He also suggested that this might
involve organising them into six “essential elements” as below:
Source: “The Road to Dignity by 2030”, p20
3.2 The 2015 negotiating process
The final, intergovernmental, phase of negotiations began in January
2015.
Two main blocs, often with markedly different approaches to many
issues, emerged during the course of the negotiations: Western donors,
including the US, UK and EU; and the Group of 77 ‘developing world’
countries, plus China (henceforth G77/China). 11
The negotiations took place with two crucial Summits on the horizon:
10
11
“The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting
the Planet”, Synthesis Report by the UN Secretary-General, Ban ki-Moon, December
2014
This is not to suggest that there was a total identity of views within these blocs.
Other countries aligned themselves on a case-by-case basis.
Ban Ki-Moon’s six
“essential elements”
9
The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
•
•
July 2015. Addis Ababa. International conference on financing for
development. Objective: agreeing a framework for funding the
successful implementation of the SDGs.
September 2015. UN General Assembly (New York). Summit to
adopt the post-2015 development agenda, including the SDGs.
Addis Ababa. July 2015 – International conference
on financing for development 12
In March 2015, a ‘zero draft’ of the ‘Addis Ababa Accord’, as the
outcome document of the financing for development conference was
originally called, was published. 13 Revised drafts were periodically
circulated during the course of the subsequent negotiations.
The conference took place on 13-16 July 2015. By consensus, it agreed
a final outcome document known as the ‘Addis Ababa Action Agenda’
(AAAA). 14
Over 11,000 people attended the conference, including 18 heads of
state and government, ministers and representatives from governments,
non-governmental and UN organisations, plus the media.
A major sticking
point: international
tax cooperation
There were several issues on which agreement could not be fully
reached – for example, on international cooperation to combat tax
avoidance, where OECD countries fought successfully to prevent
discussions on the issue taking place within the UN through an
intergovernmental tax body in future – but ultimately ways were found
to avoid holding up an overall deal. 15
Box 1: International Institute for Sustainable Development’s overview of the concrete
outcomes of the conference
“In support of the AAAA, a number of significant partnerships were launched during
FfD3, including: the Addis Tax Initiative, which will support strengthening domestic tax
systems; the Global Financing Facility in Support of Every Woman Every Child, which
brings together countries, donors and the private sector; and the Commission on
Financing Global Education.
[…] The AAAA includes three main sections on: a global framework for financing
development post-2015; action areas; and data, monitoring and follow-up. The second
section on action areas includes seven sub-sections on: domestic public resources;
domestic and international private business and finance; international development
cooperation; international trade as an engine for development; debt and debt
sustainability; addressing systemic issues; and science, technology, innovation (STI) and
capacity building.
12
13
14
15
This is the third such international conference (FfD 3), following on from those in
Monterrey (FfD 1, 2002 ) and Doha (FfD 2, 2008).
Zero draft of the Addis Ababa Accord, 16 March 2015
The Agenda has quickly become known for short as the ‘A4’. For the full text of the
final outcome document, see the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA),
A/CONF.227/L.1, 15 July 2015.
For a while it looked as if the tax issue might derail the entire conference. “From
Addis to New York: what does the FfD summit imply for the SDGs?”, devex.com, 23
July 2015. However, OXFAM’s Winnie Byanyima has said that “the tax issue will not
go away”. W. Byanyima, “How can we make 2015 a turning point for
development?”, World Economic Forum blog, 17 August 2015
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 10
The AAAA comprises a number of concrete deliverables, such as: a technology facilitation
mechanism (TFM), which will be officially launched at the post-2015 Summit in September
2015 and which comprises a UN inter-agency task team and a multi-stakeholder forum on
STI for the SDGs, as well as an online platform; a global infrastructure forum to improve
alignment and coordination among established and new infrastructure initiatives,
multilateral and national development banks, UN agencies, and national institutions,
development partners and the private sector; an Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
Forum on Financing for Development (FfD) follow-up that will discuss the follow-up and
review of the FfD outcomes and the means of implementation (MOI) of the post-2015
development agenda; and an inter-agency Task Force convened by the UN SecretaryGeneral to report annually on progress in implementing the FfD outcomes and the post2015 Means of Implementation.
[…] In addition, based on the AAAA, official development assistance (ODA) providers
reaffirm their respective commitments, including the commitment by many developed
countries to achieve the target of 0.7% of ODA/Gross National Income (GNI), and 0.15 to
0.20% of ODA/GNI to least developed countries (LDCs).” 16
Agreement on a “new social compact to provide social protection and
essential public services for all” also received considerable media and
civil society attention. 17 However, no specific funds were allocated to it.
A new social
compact
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at the end of the conference:
The Addis Ababa Action Agenda is a major step forward in
building a world of prosperity and dignity for all. It revitalizes the
global partnership for development, establishes a strong
foundation for implementation of the post-2015 development
agenda, and points the way for all stakeholders for smart
investments in people and the planet where they are needed,
when they are needed and at the scale they are needed.
The conference in Addis Ababa was the first of three milestones in
the year 2015. Member States have now passed this first
hurdle. Now we must work even harder for a successful Summit
on sustainable development in September in New York and for a
meaningful agreement on climate change in December in Paris.
Let us keep ambition high and work to realize the great potential
of 2015 to be a year of transformation in leaving no one behind
and ensuring lives of dignity for all. 18
Official participants largely echoed this view. Others were less positive in
their assessment. For example, Oxfam argued that the outcome “does
not amount to adequate or appropriate Means of Implementation” for
the post-2015 development agenda “as it fails to secure sufficient and
accountable public finance while giving unconditional support for
private sector involvement in development.”19
The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
described the overall reaction to the AAAA as “mixed”. It also noted the
“lack of concrete commitments”, particularly on climate finance, and
16
17
18
19
“FfD3 Concludes with Adoption of Addis Ababa Action Agenda”, IISD, 16 July 2015
Briefing Note on the AAAA, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, July
2015.
“Secretary-General Praises Adoption of Addis Ababa Action Agenda at Development
Financing Conference as ‘Major Step Forward’ towards Prosperous World”, UN Press
Release, 16 July 2015
“OXFAM recommendations for the final draft of the outcome document for the UN
summit to adopt the post-2015 development agenda”,
Lack of concrete
commitments?
Too much reliance on
the private sector?
11 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
expressed the hope that this would be rectified at the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Paris in
December. 20
The Women’s Working Group on Financing for Development argued
that the AAAA was a step backward from previous conferences on
financing for development with regard to women’s human rights,
saying that it underplayed “systemic issues” that affect women in
particular, did not acknowledge women’s unpaid work, and viewed
gender equality and women’s empowerment too narrowly through the
prism of “economic growth, performance and productivity”. 21
New York. September 2015 – Summit to adopt the
post-2015 development agenda
Negotiations on the document to be considered by heads of state and
government at the September Summit continued at senior official level
during 2015.
In April 2015, Ban Ki-Moon issued a report on the processes and
institutions needed to support the transition from the MDGs to the
SDGs. 22
In June 2015, a ‘zero draft’ of the outcome document of the UN
Summit to adopt the post-2015 development agenda was published. 23
A revised version, intended to be the “draft for adoption” at the
September Summit, was published on 26 July. 24 Although there had
been some minor changes to the targets as they were set out in the
June zero-draft, the draft for adoption retained the OWG’s 17 goals and
169 targets. It fully endorsed the outcome of the Addis conference. 25
On 2 August, following some last-minute changes to the text, a
“finalised text for adoption” was agreed. 26 This was the text that heads
of state and government considered in New York between 25 and 27
September.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
A. Norton, “Why universality is a taxing agenda”, IIED blog, 20 July 2015
Women’s Working Group on Financing for Development, “Reaction to the Outcome
Document of the Third International Conference on Financing for
Development: Addis Ababa Action Agenda”, 17 July 2015
“Managing the transition from the MDGs to the SDGs: what it will take”, 26 April
2015
Zero draft of “Transforming our world by 2030: A new agenda for global action” , 2
June 2015
“Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Outcome
document for the UN Summit to adopt the Post-2015 Development Agenda: Draft
for Adoption”, 26 July 2015
“Two-Week Session to Finalize Post-2015 Agenda Kicks Off”, IISD, 20 July 2015;
“Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Outcome
document for the UN Summit to adopt the Post-2015 Development Agenda:
Finalised text for adoption”, 2 August 2015
“UN finalizes 2030 agenda for sustainable development”, IISD, 2 August 2015
Finalised draft for
adoption agreed in
August
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 12
The text was agreed unaltered at the Summit and became the final
outcome document, “Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development”. 27
The final outcome document begins with a Preamble and Declaration,
which are intended to communicate accessibly to the wider world the
vision, principles and commitments embodied by the new SDGs. Both
are viewed as crucial in establishing the public legitimacy and resonance
of the goals and targets that have been agreed.
The Preamble contains a statement about five interlinked and integrated
“areas” for action that are “of critical importance to humanity and the
planet”. These areas have quickly become known by the shorthand of
the ‘5P’s’: 28
Box 2: The 5Ps
People
We are determined to end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions, and to ensure that all human
beings can fulfil their potential in dignity and equality and in a healthy environment.
Planet
We are determined to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and
production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change, so that it can
support the needs of the present and future generations.
Prosperity
We are determined to ensure that all human beings can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives and that economic,
social and technological progress occurs in harmony with nature.
Peace
We are determined to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence. There
can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.
Partnership
We are determined to mobilize the means required to implement this Agenda through a revitalised Global
Partnership for Sustainable Development, based on a spirit of strengthened global solidarity, focussed in
particular on the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable and with the participation of all countries, all
stakeholders and all people.
The interlinkages and integrated nature of the Sustainable Development Goals are of crucial importance in
ensuring that the purpose of the new Agenda is realised. If we realize our ambitions across the full extent of
the Agenda, the lives of all will be profoundly improved and our world will be transformed for the better.
The Declaration contains the following statement of commitment by UN
Member States:
2. On behalf of the peoples we serve, we have adopted a historic
decision on a comprehensive, far-reaching and people-centred set
of universal and transformative Goals and targets. We commit
ourselves to working tirelessly for the full implementation of this
Agenda by 2030. We recognize that eradicating poverty in all its
27
28
“Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Outcome
document for the UN Summit to adopt the Post-2015 Development Agenda”,
advance unedited version
F. Dodds, “So what did we end up with after the negotiations in July for
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”,
blog.felixdodds.net, 5 August 2015
13 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest
global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable
development. We are committed to achieving sustainable
development in its three dimensions —economic, social and
environmental —in a balanced and integrated manner. We will
also build upon the achievements of the Millennium Development
Goals and seek to address their unfinished business.
3. We resolve, between now and 2030, to end poverty and
hunger everywhere; to combat inequalities within and among
countries; to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies; to protect
human rights and promote gender equality and the
empowerment of women and girls; and to ensure the lasting
protection of the planet and its natural resources. We resolve also
to create conditions for sustainable, inclusive and sustained
economic growth, shared prosperity and decent work for all,
taking into account different levels of national development and
capacities.
4. As we embark on this great collective journey, we pledge that
no one will be left behind. Recognizing that the dignity of the
human person is fundamental, we wish to see the Goals and
targets met for all nations and peoples and for all segments of
society. And we will endeavour to reach the furthest behind first.
The document then sets out the goals and targets before moving on to
a section on the “Means of Implementation” and a “revitalized Global
Partnership for Development”. The last section addresses follow-up and
review of implementation.
In addition to the 17 goals and 169 targets that have been agreed,
there will eventually also be a series of linked global, regional, national
and sectoral indicators. 29 A ”global indicator framework” is due to be
completed by March 2016. 30 The hope is that these indicators will
strengthen capacities to concretely measure progress in implementing
the goals over the period to 2030.
Completing the agenda: the UNFCCC meeting,
December 2015
Looking ahead, it is hoped that future efforts to implement the new
SDGs will be helped by the achievement of an effective global
agreement to tackle climate change for the post-2020 period at the
UNFCCC meeting in Paris in December 2015.
Representatives of 196 countries will attempt to reach an agreement to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the aim of limiting a global
temperature increase to below 2oC. If this Conference of the Parties
(COP 21) is successful it will be the first time, from 2020 onwards, that
both developed and developing countries will commit to tackling
greenhouse gas emissions
29
30
The MDGs had accompanying indicators. The UN reported progress against 60
indicators each year, doing so at global and regional/geographic levels. See
Millennium Development Goals, targets and indicators, 2015: statistical tables.
“Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Outcome
document for the UN Summit to adopt the Post-2015 Development Agenda”,
advance unedited version, para 75. An ‘Inter-agency and Expert Group on SDGs
Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) is leading work on this framework.
Global indicators to
be agreed by March
2016
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 14
There is a strong momentum for agreement to be reached as a
successor to the Kyoto Protocol. World leaders visibly failed to reach a
satisfactory agreement at the Copenhagen COP in 2009. The lessons
learned from this failure have resulted in a great deal of preparatory
work in advance of the Paris meeting.
Countries had an informal deadline of 31 March 2015 to submit their
own targets –their Intended National Designated Contributions (INDCs).
The EU, the US, Switzerland, Norway, Mexico, Russia and Gabon did so.
These countries represent 29 % of global emissions. By 24 September
2015, 72 countries representing 67% of global emissions had submitted
their INDCs. 31 There is yet to be clarity regarding how these
commitments will be monitored and verified.
31
Climate Home, Paris tracker – who has pledged what for 2015 UN climate pact, 24
September 2015
15 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
4. A transformational agenda?
4.1 Overview
During the negotiations leading up to the September UN summit to
adopt the post-2015 development agenda, many stakeholders called for
the new agenda to be ‘transformational’ in character. Inevitably, there
were many different interpretations of what transformation should
involve.
In addition, while all parties to the negotiations agreed that the SDGs
should reflect an approach which went beyond the focus of the MDGs
on poverty reduction and aid, there was often not complete consensus
as to what this should mean. 32
While far from completely monolithic in their views, Western donors
and the G77/China formed the main blocs in the negotiations.
Broadly speaking, Western donors favoured market-friendly, multistakeholder approaches to the way forward, in which public and private
actors cooperate closely. Critics argued that this bloc was too keen to
evade the particular responsibilities of developed countries in advancing
the post-2015 agenda.
The G77/China bloc sought to emphasize intergovernmental
cooperation, in which state sovereignty is safeguarded and governments
have more latitude to intervene in the economy in ways that suit their
particular circumstances. Critics argued that this bloc too often sought
to wriggle out of its responsibilities and sometimes wanted to minimise
the genuine participation of other stakeholders, including their own
citizens.
These divergent approaches framed ongoing debate about how to get
the balance right between ‘universality’ and ‘differentiation’ in the post2015 development agenda. Western donors tended to emphasize the
importance of universality, reflecting the principle that the SDGs are
global in nature and apply to all. 33
However, the G77/China wanted to make sure that the idea of
differentiation –– that is, the right of national governments to adapt the
SDGs to specific contexts and realities on the ground, and the particular
responsibility of developed countries to take a lead – was properly
acknowledged. 34
32
33
34
According to a 2011 study by Action Aid, over the previous decade, aid dependency
had fallen by a third on average in the poorest countries. D. Green, S. Hale, M.
Lockwood, “How can a post-2015 agreement drive real change? Revised edition”,
OXFAM discussion papers, November 2012
For a useful discussion of this issue, see A. Knoll, S. Grosse-Puppendahl and J.
Mackie, “Universality and differentiation in the post-2015 development agenda”,
ECPDM discussion paper 173, February 2015
For an assessment of the “sustainability challenges” facing the developed world in
the context of the SDGs, see Stakeholder Forum, “Universal Sustainable
Development Goals: understanding the transformational challenge for developed
countries”, May 2015
The debate over
universality and
differentiation
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 16
To this end, the G77/China advocated the principle of ‘Common but
differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR), which is now well-established in
international environmental law. However, developed countries
questioned whether the principle should apply beyond the
environmental sphere. In the negotiations, they preferred to talk rather
in terms of “shared responsibility”. 35
Squaring such circles was never going to be straightforward, but
acceptable compromises were usually eventually found. For example,
the principle of CBDR was reaffirmed in relation to the environment, but
reference was also made in the final outcome document to shared
responsibility. 36 This debate will undoubtedly continue into the
implementation phase.
Now that a deal has been done, the key question becomes: what will its
impact be over the next 15 years?
While this question cannot be answered with any certainty ahead of
time, it is at least possible to anticipate possible scenarios.
In April 2015, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development (CAFOD)
and the NGO coalition Beyond 2015 published a report in which they
said that the most likely outcome is either a “paper agreement” or
“business as usual”. 37
Below are the four possible outcomes it identified:
35
36
37
•
‘The Train Wreck’ – in this scenario, no goals are agreed,
meaning there is nothing to implement. This represents
failure for the UN system and has profoundly negative
results for UN-led multilateralism. While this scenario is
plausible, it is unlikely due to the amount of political capital
invested in the post-2015 process by member states and
the UN. However, COP15 in 2009 shows that political
investment does not necessarily result in agreement.
•
‘The Paper Agreement’ – this situation sees a potentially
‘transformative’ package of goals agreed but lacks strong
ownership, with weak implementation and accountability
mechanisms resulting in little impact. This scenario is
probable but undesirable as it delivers no real change.
•
‘Business As Usual’ – in this scenario, a mediocre set of
goals and targets are agreed, representing an ‘MDG+’
agenda, with mixed implementation and accountability
mechanisms. Some member states take up the challenge
but overall progress is patchy. This scenario is also highly
probable, based on analysis of current trends.
•
‘A Transformative Agenda’ – in the ideal scenario,
ambitious goals are underpinned by strong implementation
and accountability mechanisms. While this is by far the
most preferable option, it will be the most challenging to
achieve.
“Earth Negotiations Bulletin”, IISD, 28 June 2015. The principle of CBDR is
contained within the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
For CBDR see para 12; for shared responsibility see para 36.
CAFOD and Beyond 2015, “What if? Mapping scenarios to the end of 2015”, April
2015
Future prospects of
the SDGs
17 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
In the run-up to the Summit, Felix Dodds, an activist and expert on
sustainable development issues, argued that the Preamble (see section
3.2 above) in the final outcome document paves the way for a
genuinely “transformational agenda” because it acknowledges the
interlinkages between the actions to be undertaken in different
sectors. 38
The SDGs – a good
basis for action or
not?
Elizabeth Stuart at the Overseas Development Institute was a bit more
sanguine. While acknowledging that the SDGs are a “political marvel”,
she said:
The goals are not – sadly – a technical marvel: the frequently
clumsy phrasing, and their sheer number, do not readily translate
into an action plan. In their raw form, it’s hard to see how they
will inspire people to rise up and demand that their governments
deliver on their promise.
[…] In reality, no one knows what will happen with the goals, and
what does happen will look different in every country. Some
governments, and some campaigners, will inevitably focus on
specific issues, just as with the MDGs. But however they play out
in practice a combined effort to reach them will leave the world a
much better place in 2030. 39
At present, perhaps the most can be said is that, while the ‘train wreck’
scenario has been avoided, prospects for the SDGs hover tantalisingly
between the other three scenarios identified by Beyond 2015 and
CAFOD. It may well be that elements of all three prove accurate in
relation to different parts of the post-2015 development agenda by the
time it ends in 2030.
A crucial point to recognise in assessing future prospects is that – as was
the case with the MDGs – the SDGs are not legally binding. Successful
implementation therefore depends entirely on political commitment.
This section briefly surveys some key challenges faced in the successful
implementation of the September 2015 deal.
4.2 Will there be enough money – and who
should provide it?
These were major concerns during the negotiations on the post-2015
development agenda. It had been acknowledged by many that there
had not been enough money to implement the MDGs properly. There
are widespread fears that the same problem will occur with regard to
the SDGs between now and 2030. While truly reliable figures are hard
to find, it is widely accepted that the cost of the SDGs will exceed the
current global development aid budget by some way. 40
38
39
40
F. Dodds, “So what did we end up with after the negotiations in July for
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”,
blog.felixdodds,net, 5 August 2015
E. Stuart, “Governments adopt the SDGs next week. Then what?”, Overseas
Development Institute, 17 September 2015
European Scrutiny Committee, “The EU and the post-2015 development agenda”,
1st report, 2015-16, HC 342-I, 21 July 2015
“In reality, no-one
knows what will
happen with the
goals…”
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 18
These concerns were discussed at the international conference on
financing for development, held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 13-16 July
2015. It agreed a final outcome document known as the ‘Addis Ababa
Action Agenda’ (AAAA). 41 Given that the final outcome document from
the September 2015 Summit did little more than endorse the AAAA, it
is the latter on which we must focus when it comes to money matters.
The AAAA itself was not specific about the exact sums of money
needed to meet the post-2015 development agenda, focusing much
more on the “concrete policies and actions” that could help to achieve
that agenda. 42 Several commentators argued at the time that “the lack
of clear financing commitments […] does not augur well for
September’s SDG summit.” 43
The Addis document included generalised calls for developed countries
to meet the UN’s 0.7% aid target, which most have signally failed to
do. Indeed, the total amount of aid to Least Developed Countries has
been declining in recent years. The wider political and economic context
may continue to make it difficult for developed country governments to
increase aid spending in real terms over the next 15 years.
Oxfam was largely negative about the outcome on this score:
[…] there was no re-commitment on developed countries’
decades-old promises on aid (with the exception of the European
Union’s commitment to deliver this by 2030, 15 years after its
agreed delivery date), and no recognition that building resilience
against climate change will demand extra resources over and
above aid budgets. There was a welcome focus on the need for
developing countries to raise their own resources to tackle
poverty, but not enough was done to re-balance global financing
rules – particularly taxation rules – to help this happen. 44
The Addis outcome document brought into the frame new actors
which, it is hoped, can help to bridge what most observers expect will
be a significant ‘funding gap’ – most notably, domestic and
international private business and finance. 45
41
42
43
44
45
For the full text of the final outcome document, see the Addis Ababa Action Agenda
(AAAA), A/CONF.227/L.1, 15 July 2015. This is the third such international
conference (FfD 3), following on from those in Monterrey (FfD 1, 2002 ) and Doha
(FfD 2, 2008).
AAAA, p19
“From Addis to New York: what does the FfD summit imply for the SDGs?”,
devex.com, 23 July 2015
W. Byanyima, “How can we make 2015 a turning point for development?”, World
Economic Forum blog, 17 August 2015
AAAA, p12. Combating tax avoidance and illicit financial flows, and mobilising
remittances more effectively, are viewed as other potentially important ways of
bridging the funding gap.
A lack of clear
financing
commitments?
19 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
Western donors and parts of civil society have been increasingly keen to
look ‘beyond aid’, with a key new source of finance (in contrast to the
MDGs) being the private sector, both on its own and through PublicPrivate Partnerships. By contrast, the G77/China and other parts of civil
society have wanted to see developed countries continue to take most
of the strain through increased provision of official aid. 46
Looking ‘beyond
aid’?
Numerous commentators have been critical of the “financialisation” of
development through the post-2015 agenda, including the SDGs,
through the increased mobilisation of private finance.
Some observers have claimed that in reality the private sector “is not
well placed to fill the gap”. 47 Others have argued that going too far
down this road could leave many people in developing countries more
vulnerable to volatile commercial pressures and could in some situations
even lead to the permanent loss of assets – for example through ‘land
grabs’. Critics also assert that privately funded infrastructure projects all
too often cost more than purely publicly funded projects. 48 In addition,
concerns have been expressed about a new debt crisis in the developing
world, as countries borrow directly from international capital markets. 49
Supporters counter by saying that this is far too negative a view of the
role of private finance, adding that, without bringing it in much more
than in the past, the resources for the post-2015 development agenda
will simply be insufficient.
There will be disappointment among some ‘Southern’ and international
NGO stakeholders that key issues which could have generated
significant additional funds for development over the next 15 years such
as trade mispricing, migration and illegal movements of capital did not
feature more prominently in the final Addis outcome document. 50
Nonetheless, the overall assessment of many commentators was that
the Addis outcome document was a “good foundation” on which to
build. 51
46
47
48
49
50
51
Some delegates argued that a better phrase than ‘beyond aid’ is ‘aid and beyond’.
“The Addis Agreement: a good foundation, now time to build”, Overseas
Development Institute, 15 July 2015
“From Addis to New York: what does the FfD summit imply for the SDGs?”,
devex.com, 23 July 2015
“Goalfest in Addis”, Africa Confidential, 24 July 2015
S. Brooks, “Private finance and the post-2015 development agenda”, Open
Democracy, 23 May 2015
C. Melamed, “What global partnership for post-2015?”, Overseas Development
Institute, 14 November 2013
R. Greenhill and P. Carter,“The Addis Agreement: a good foundation, now time to
build”, Overseas Development Institute, 15 July 2015
Some key issues
neglected?
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 20
4.3 Are the monitoring and accountability
and follow-up mechanisms strong
enough?
It is widely acknowledged that the mechanisms established to track and
reinforce progress in achieving the MDGs were rudimentary or nonexistent. Follow-up and review was voluntary – and extremely patchy. 52
While the September 2015 Summit establishes a much stronger shared
political commitment on the part of member states, not everybody is
confident that enough has been done to overcome the inadequacies of
the system that operated under the auspices of the MDGs.
The top political mechanism identified by the summit is the High-Level
Political Forum on Sustainable Development, established in 2012, which
is the “main UN platform providing political leadership and guidance on
sustainable development issues at the international level.” It meets every
four years at the level of Heads of State and Government under the
auspices of the General Assembly and every year at ministerial level
under the auspices of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC),
whose president convenes the HPLF. 53 After every meeting, a
Declaration will be issued. The UN Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (DESA) acts as its secretariat. Every year it will consider a ‘Global
Sustainable Development Report’, one of whose tasks will be to bring
together scientific and policy information. 54
The HPLF has no enforcement powers, reflecting the fact that – like the
MDGs – the SDGs are not legally binding. Much will therefore depend
on whether political and moral suasion is more effectively deployed
under the SDGs to bring such mechanisms meaningfully to life. This will
involve incentives; what is less clear is whether and if so how it could
also involve forms of sanction.
These political mechanisms will be supported by a range of existing UN
bodies and regional and national mechanisms. Non-state actors will also
have opportunities to contribute feedback.
For some observers, it may be that the apparent heavy reliance on preexisting mechanisms comes worryingly close to putting “new goals in
old boxes.” 55 One such observer called during the negotiations for
greater institutional innovation, including the creation of a coordination
body for the chairs and presidents of governing bodies throughout the
UN system. 56
Alternatively, some are happy with the reliance on what already exists,
worrying that a move towards a more elaborate ‘architecture’ would
52
53
54
55
56
S. Kindornay and S. Twigg, “Establishing a workable follow-up and review process
for the SDGs” Overseas Development Institute, April 2015
The HPLF last met on 26 June to 8 July 2015. This was at ministerial level.
S. Kindornay and S. Twigg, “Establishing a workable follow-up and review process
for the SDGs” Overseas Development Institute, April 2015
H. Gleckman, “New goals, new outcomes and getting out of old boxes”,
International Institute for Sustainable Development, 12 May 2015
H. Gleckman, “New goals, new outcomes and getting out of old boxes”,
International Institute for Sustainable Development, 12 May 2015
New goals in old
boxes?
21 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
prove too complicated and ineffective, thereby ‘setting the SDGs up to
fail’.
Some also worry whether these mechanisms will manage effectively to
capture both global and national progress.
An important point of contention during the intergovernmental
negotiations was whether follow-up and review processes should be
voluntary. The G77/China bloc favoured this approach. By contrast,
Western donors wanted a significant degree of obligation and
standardisation. In the end, a voluntary approach was agreed, although
some principles were set down for these processes in the final text. 57
4.4 Will there be genuine ‘ownership’?
The MDGs were heavily ‘top-down’ in design, with developing countries
being invited to take part in consultation and decision-making about
their implementation largely after they had already been decided. 58
From the very start, the post-2015 development agenda was intended
to be different.
The language used in the final outcome document of the September
summit appears crystal clear. It states:
“We the Peoples” are the celebrated opening words of the UN
Charter. It is “We the Peoples” who are embarking today on the
road to 2030. Our journey will involve Governments as well as
Parliaments, the UN system and other international institutions,
local authorities, business and the private sector, the scientific and
academic community, civil society – and all people. Millions have
already engaged with, and will own, this Agenda. It is an Agenda
of the people, by the people and for the people – and this, we
believe, will ensure its success. 59
The negotiating process was certainly much more inclusive and broadbased, with the role of multiple stakeholders (including civil society
groups and the private sector) fully acknowledged. The final text
stresses that effective implementation of the SDGs will be based on a
“revitalised Global Partnership”.
Nonetheless, in the final analysis, it was governments that reached
agreement in September 2015, and during the negotiations, G77/China
priorities were often markedly different from those of the Western
donors. These differences could well resurface between now and 2030.
Some assert that the agreements reached on the post-2015
development agenda continue to reflect the greater power and capacity
in such negotiations of Western donors. They point to the July 2015
Addis conference on financing for development, when OECD countries
57
58
59
“Green, yellow, red: The state of the debate around the post-2015 development
agenda”, Global Policy Watch, 6 July 2015
Arguably, there were some examples of genuine national ownership of the MDGs –
for example, Thailand’s “MDG-plus model.” D. Green, S. Hale, M. Lockwood, “How
can a post-2015 agreement drive real change? Revised edition”, OXFAM discussion
papers, November 2012
“Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Outcome
document for the UN Summit to adopt the Post-2015 Development Agenda”,
advance unedited version, para 52
“We the peoples” on
the road to 2030
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 22
successfully opposed discussions to combat tax avoidance by
international companies taking place through the UN in future. They
argue that this shows that developed countries were still not “prepared
to give developing countries an equal voice in global decision-making.”
However, others have countered that doing it through the UN simply
would not work. 60
Some ‘Southern’ stakeholders may argue that the negotiations failed
ultimately to ‘de-colonize’ the process. 61 Others will be critical that the
process did not really move away from Western donor ideas of “grand
developmentalism” by adopting an approach much more attuned to
“what people actually want or need, and not what national
governments or global institutions think that the people need or
want.” 62
We have often seen in the past that, when the degree of convergence
of interest between development partners is superficial, joint ownership
of agendas can founder. Only time will tell how deep the convergence
of interests declared at the September 2015 Summit goes.
We can probably expect a nuanced picture, with some developing
countries (and regions) demonstrating a meaningful commitment to the
post-2015 development agenda and others giving it lip-service but not
much more.
4.5 Has climate change been effectively
integrated?
There is general agreement that climate change
will add to the costs of achieving the post-2015 goals in
developing countries. By some estimates, if no action is taken on
climate change, the additional costs of the impacts could amount
to seven per cent of African GDP by 2100. 63
According to the IIED, evidence from the UN Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change shows that every one of the SDGs “could be
affected by climate change, either directly or indirectly”. It goes on to
claim that the world’s 48 Least Developed Countries “are particularly
vulnerable to climate impacts.” 64
Such statements leave people wondering whether climate change might
render achieving the SDGs impossible. 65
Goal 13 in the final outcome document is to “take urgent action to
combat climate change and its impacts”. The document acknowledges
that the UNFCCC is the forum which takes the lead on climate change,
but notes that global warming risks undermining gains in tackling
60
61
62
63
64
65
R. Greenhill, “From Addis to New York: what does the FfD summit imply for the
SDGs?”, devex.com, 23 July 2015
“Post-2015 development agenda and SDGs: perspectives of the South Centre”,
October 2013, p15
A. Bayo Ogunrotifa, “Grand developmentalism: MDGs and SDGs in sub-Saharan
Africa”, Pambazuka Newsletter, 29 May 2015
“Will climate change render the SDGs impossible?”, IIED blog, 19 June 2015
“Will climate change render the SDGs impossible?”, IIED blog, 19 June 2015
“Will climate change render the SDGs impossible?”, IIED blog, 19 June 2015
Could climate change
make the SDGs
impossible?
23 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
poverty, with its adverse impacts undermining the ability of all countries
to achieve sustainable development. 66
This view was supported by the great majority of stakeholders.
However, during the SDG negotiating process there was debate about
whether there should be a stand-alone goal or integration of climate
change issues across the goals.
In a December 2014 report, the House of Commons Environmental
Audit Committee recommended that there should be a separate climate
change goal. 67 Christian Aid told the Committee that having a climate
goal was the only way of ensuring visibility and prioritisation and clearly
connecting action on climate change to poverty eradication. 68
In its response to the Committee’s report, the UK Government indicated
that it favoured a “visible integration” of climate change across the
SDGs, and did not explicitly support or reject having a separate climate
change goal. 69
There is evidence in the final outcome document of climate change as a
cross-cutting theme. The SDGs on energy, resilience, sustainable cities
and sustainable consumption and production all offer key points of
integration with the climate change goal.
The final outcome document also gives an undertaking to boost
resilience in relation to climate-related hazards like flooding and
drought and reaffirms a commitment to mobilise US$100 billion of
finance a year by 2020 to help the world’s poor green their economies
and adapt to climate impacts.
4.6 Are the goals and targets the right ones?
Apart from neglecting climate change, many were critical of the MDGs
for focusing too narrowly on poverty reduction and making progress in
social sectors such as health and education. The MDGs were felt to have
failed adequately to address a host of issues, including economic
growth, inequality, gender equality and promoting peace.
The September 2015 Summit to adopt the post-2015 development
agenda agreed a significant expansion in the number of goals and
targets by comparison with the MDG framework. This was with a view
to ensuring that the agenda was transformative. In turn, this reflected a
majority belief that an integrated and multi-dimensional approach
would prove a more fruitful way forward.
66
67
68
69
RTCC, Countries agree Post-2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals, 3 August
2015
Seventh report of the Environmental Audit Committee, Connected World: Agreeing
ambitious Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, December 2014
Ibid para 22
Environmental Audit Committee Press Release, Government rejects focus on tackling
inequalities in Sustainable Development Goals, 12 February 2015
Climate change as a
cross-cutting theme
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 24
However, several countries – including the UK (see below) – argued at
points during the intergovernmental negotiations that an overambitious agenda would only set the SDGs up to fail. But, with
G77/China bloc to the fore, efforts to reduce the overall number of
goals and targets were defeated.
An over-ambitious
agenda?
Amongst the new ‘stand-alone’ goals introduced were those on:
•
achieving gender equality and empowering women and
girls (Goal 5)
•
promoting “sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic
growth” (Goal 8)
•
reducing inequality “within and among countries” (Goal
10)
•
taking “urgent action to combat climate change and its
impacts” (Goal 13)
•
promoting “peaceful and inclusive societies” (Goal 16)
Some civil society voices will likely worry that the adoption of a
significant number of new stand-alone goals could be undermined
further down the line by renewed attempts to prioritise some of the
goals more than others.
This fear may have informed several responses to the proposed
simplification by the UN Secretary-General, in his December 2014
synthesis report, of the prospective goals into “six essential elements”
(see section 1.4). Critics viewed the idea as undermining the integrity of
the goals. 70
Nonetheless, some may be thinking that eventually the international
community will have to return to the issue of how to distil the goals
down to their essence. In this context, it is worth noting that the
preamble sets out five “areas of critical importance for people and the
planet” in which four of the six original ‘essential elements’ appear
again: people, planet, prosperity and partnership – now supplemented
by peace. The ‘elements’ of justice and dignity do not feature in this list
of ‘areas’. These ‘areas’ have quickly become known in the jargon as
the ‘5P’s’. 71
It is generally accepted that the targets have a particularly crucial role to
play in shaping the year-on-year priorities and plans of national
governments, subject to them having the flexibility to prioritise those
most relevant to their circumstances.
Some analysts view the 169 targets that have been adopted as far too
numerous to be useful in practice, complaining that many of them are
insufficiently precise and over-ambitious. 72 Bjorn Lomborg has
70
71
72
See, for example: “Gender equality and women and girls empowerment:
considerations for the Post-2015 agenda”, Women’s Major Group, February 2015
For a graphic representation of the 5P’s that bears a striking resemblance to the
Secretary-General’s ‘elements’, see F. Dodds, “Very nice graphic for the 5Ps in the
preamble to ‘Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development”, blog.felixdodds.net, 16 August 2015
See, for example, J. Vandemoortele, “A dispassionate look at the Sustainable
Development Goals”, Post2015 blog, 27 August 2015
The six elements and
the 5Ps
25 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
disparagingly called them “a giant pile of targets” and criticised them
for reflecting the “favourite projects” of every country and interest
group involved in the SDG negotiating process. 73
In the run-up to the Summit, an expert panel convened by the
Copenhagen Consensus Center advocated instead (without success) for
a maximum of 19 targets, claiming that meeting these targets would at
least double the “social benefits per dollar spent”, by comparison with
the 169 targets agreed. 74
Other stakeholders have expressed concerns, both during the
negotiations and post-adoption, about specific targets. For example,
some of those strongly in favour of a stand-alone goal on gender
equality will likely feel that “sexual and reproductive dimensions” have
been privileged in the targets over “economic and redistributive
dimensions”, with those socio-economic rights that are consistent with
a market-led approach to development (for example, property
inheritance or opening a bank account) featuring disproportionately. 75
Concerns about
specific targets
The international NGO Saferworld argued during the negotiations that
Target 16.a, which commits to “building capacities at all levels […] to
prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime”, should not be
included because it “encourages coercive approaches to security”. 76
However, its call ultimately went unheeded.
4.7 Does a ‘goal-based approach’ work?
While there are certainly major differences in approach to that taken in
relation to the MDGs, the post-2015 development agenda has retained
the goals-based framework.
Few commentators have rejected the retention of this framework
entirely. The majority view is that such goals and targets have proven
helpful in the context of implementing the MDGs, pointing to the many
areas where substantial progress has been made towards achieving
them.
A definitive MDG performance scorecard will not be available for a year
or so after 2015 because it will take time for governments to provide
the final information needed. However, a performance assessment can
be found in Appendix 2.
It is important to note that, in practice, year-on-year measurement of
progress will be made against the targets and indicators rather than the
goals. As with the MDGs, assessing progress towards the SDGs will rely
heavily on good quality data, which is sometimes in short supply,
although the final text agreed at the September UN Summit did include
73
74
75
76
B. Lomborg, “Promises to keep. Crafting better development goals”, Foreign Affairs,
November/December 2014
F. Kydland, T. Schelling and N. Storey, “Nobel Laureate’s guide to smarter global
targets”, Copenhagen Consensus Center, 2015
N. Kabeer, “Tracking the gender politics of the Millennium Development Goals:
struggles for interpretative power in the international development agenda”, Third
World Quarterly, No. 2, 2015, p391
“Zero or hero? What does the ‘zero draft’ of the world’s new development
framework do for peace?”, Saferworld, June 2015
See Appendix 2 for
an MDG
performance
assessment
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 26
important pledges to strengthen the capacity of developing countries in
this respect.
Some have argued that we cannot really know what difference the
MDGs have made unless we undertake an assessment of what would
have happened if they had not existed. They say that this research has
not really been done. It is claimed that only once it has been can we say
with high confidence what the impact of the MDGs have been. 77
What would have
happened if the
MDGs had never
existed?
A recent study found that while over half of the countries it looked at
had used the MDGs as planning and monitoring tools, doing so did not
increase the probability of a country actually increasing its health
budget. 78
While such counterfactual analysis cannot be definitive, this is an
important argument. It also points us to another dilemma – which is
how to define whether something has ‘worked’.
The ‘official goals’ of an initiative may not give us the full story in terms
of what is really going on. Analysts have argued that we need to go
beneath the surface and examine deeper trends in the global political
economy that the MDGs – and, in future, the SDGs – may be helping to
entrench.
Some analysts have articulated a fundamental critique of the MDG-type
approach on the grounds that such goals are little more than fig-leaves
for the entrenchment of a ‘neo-liberal’ global order in which
governments are emasculated and markets unrestrained. 79 This critique
may come to be extended to the SDGs too. Others have countered that
such views are rather simplistic. 80
More broadly, there are those that feel that the MDGs and SDGs
embody an overly technocratic and unrealistic approach to
development. Green, Hale and Lockwood argued in 2012 that
[…] too much of the debate is being conducted in a political
vacuum, dominated by overly theoretical policy analyses of what
could ideally be developed. It’s the messy business of power and
politics that will really determine what happens to poverty,
equality, essential services and sustainability over the next few
decades. 81
77
78
79
80
81
M. Lockwood, “What have the MDGs achieved? We don’t really know…”, From
Poverty to Power blog, 31 August 2012; D. Green, S. Hale, M. Lockwood, “How can
a post-2015 agreement drive real change? Revised edition”, OXFAM discussion
papers, November 2012
D. Green, “Have the MDGs affected developing country policies and spending?
Findings of new 50 country study”, From Poverty to Power blog, 24 July 2015
See, for example: S. Amin, “The Millennium Development Goals: A Critique from
the South”, Monthly Review, March 2006
D. Hulme, “Governing Global Poverty? Global Ambivalence and the Millennium
Development Goals”, University of Manchester, May 2009
D. Green, S. Hale, M. Lockwood, “How can a post-2015 agreement drive real
change? Revised edition”, OXFAM discussion papers, November 2012
Are the SDGs too
technocratic and
apolitical?
27 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
Many civil society activists would agree that success will be more about
“confronting the power relationships and vested interests that keep the
poor where they are […]”. 82
Green, Hale and Lockwood went on to stress that addressing whether
development goals and targets ‘work’ requires addressing the political
and economic context in which they have been designed and
implemented, concluding:
In terms of the ‘how’ of development, there has been increased
attention to systems thinking, complexity and change, with
development portrayed as an emergent, inherently unpredictable
and discontinuous process. It is not currently clear whether and
how this new thinking is compatible with a linear ‘goals, targets,
indicators’ approach […] There is a strong argument that
supporting development has to be more nimble and
opportunistic; actors need to get better at thinking on their feet
and making it up as they go along, rather than simply
implementing grand plans.”
For those that support a ‘goals and targets’ approach, global and
national action cannot be effectively coordinated and compared without
simplifying definitions and measures that inevitably do some violence to
complex realities: the challenge, therefore, is to find the best (or less
bad) definitions and measures, which should reflect an appropriate
balance between “achievability and ambition.” 83
Some analysts have gone so far as to propose a single number –
perhaps akin to the Gini Coefficient which measures inequality – that
could crystallise a country’s overall progress in meeting the post-2015
goals. One such proposal has been for a “multidimensional poverty
indicator”. 84 But no such ‘super-number’ has arisen out of the SDG
process to date.
82
83
84
K. Watkins, “Leaving no one behind – it won’t be easy”, Post-2015 blog, 21 July
2015
E. Stuart, “5 things needed to turn the SDGs into reality”, Devex.com, 29 July 2015
S. Alkire and A.Sumner, “Multidimensional poverty and the post-2015 MDGs”,
Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, March 2013
Getting the balance
right between
“achievability and
ambition”
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 28
5. UK policy
The two main British political parties have both supported the objective
of agreeing a new generation of goals and the SDGs can be expected to
play an important role in shaping the sustainable development policies
of the UK Government (and the Devolved Administrations) over the
period to 2030. 85 The as yet unanswerable question is how far this will
extend beyond rhetoric to substance.
5.1 Statements during 2014
In July 2014, the Secretary of State for International Development,
Justine Greening, called for economic growth, governance, rule of law,
tackling corruption, peace and stability, and putting women and girls
first to be included in the post-2015 development goals. 86
Speaking in September 2014 about the 17 proposed SDGs approved by
the UN General Assembly as the basis for final negotiations, the Prime
Minister, David Cameron, expressed concern about the number of
goals, saying: “There are too many to communicate effectively. There’s
a real danger they will end up sitting on a bookshelf, gathering dust.” 87
In its 2013 report on the subject, the International Development
Committee took a similar view. 88
In evidence to the Commons Environmental Audit Committee in late
2014, Justine Greening said that the Prime Minister would ideally like
there to be ten goals. A December 2014 report by the Committee called
upon the UK Government not to seek to reduce the number of goals
because to do this:
would inevitably be to omit key aspects of the sustainable
development framework after 2015, potentially including those
relating to environmental sustainability. That would be a
mistake. 89
85
86
87
88
89
In this connection, it is worth noting that, while international Development is a
reserved matter, the Scottish Government has a £9 million international
development programme overseen by Humza Yousaf, Minister for External Affairs
and International Development. There has been a multi-stakeholder ‘Scottish
Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals’. In July, First Minister Nicola
Sturgeon said that Scotland was “one of the first nations on Earth to publically sign
up to these goals and provide international leadership on reducing inequality across
the globe.” See: Scottish Business in the Community, “Scotland among first
countries to adopt UN Sustainable Development Goals”, 20 July 2015
Justine Greening, “New poverty goals must focus on peace, jobs and justice”, DFID
press release, 7 July 2014
“UN begins talks on SDGs, ‘carrying the hopes of millions and millions’”, Guardian,
24 September 2014
House of Commons International Development Committee, “Post-2015
Development Goals”, HC 657, 2012-13, January 2013, paras 81-84
House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, “Connected world: agreeing
ambitious sustainable development goals in 2015”, HC 452, 2014-15, December
2014, paras 47-53
UK Government
concerns about too
many goals
29 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
5.2 Statements during the 2015 negotiating
process
During the intergovernmental negotiations that began in January 2015,
the UK Government sought to build support for “ambitious, sound and
implementable goals and targets” to underpin the post-2015
development agenda. 90
In March 2015, Justine Greening said in a speech:
At the moment the UN’s working group have come up with a very
long, unwieldy list of goals and targets that will be very hard for
countries to work with, and there is a real risk we’re going to try
to focus on everything and end up achieving nothing. 91
In terms of the July 2015 financing for development conference in Addis
Ababa, the UK was a strong supporter of the ‘beyond aid’ agenda. In a
speech in the same month, Justine Greening argued:
[…] while aid is still necessary, it’s not sufficient either for the next
development ‘leap’ in its scale or in its nature.
When it comes to scale, there are more players on the
development scene than ever before – the private sector, donors,
philanthropists, professional organisations – all playing key roles.
[…] And more sources of finance: aid has gone from being
around twice as large as remittances and foreign direct
investment in 1991 to being around one fifth of FDI and a third of
remittances in 2012.
The nature of aid is changing too. What we call traditional aid –
the really important work we’re doing building schools,
vaccinating children, better sanitation – all of that continues to be
absolutely fundamental.
But ultimately it’s jobs, it’s inclusive growth for women and men,
and it’s enterprise that will defeat poverty for good. 92
By way of reiterating this stance, at the conference the UK Government
announced additional capital – the first for 20 years – for CDC (formerly
known as the Commonwealth Development Corporation), the UK’s
development finance institution, for investment in businesses in some of
the poorest countries in Africa and South Asia. 93
90
91
92
93
European Scrutiny Committee, “The EU and the post-2015 development agenda”,
HC219-xxviii, 2014-15, January 2015
“UK aid in 2015: The progress so far and the priorities ahead”, 10 March 2015
“Changing world, changing aid: Where international development needs to go
next”, 2 July 2015
£735m of new capital is to be invested through the CDC over three years. “UK
boosts support for businesses to create jobs in the world’s poorest places”, UK
Government press release, 16 July 2015
Greening endorses
going ‘beyond aid’
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 30
Justine Greening also launched the Addis Tax Initiative at the
conference. Its aim is to increase domestic resource mobilisation
through increasing the capacity of developing countries to raise tax. 94
The EU issued a response to the outcome document agreed at the Addis
conference (see below). The UK Government did not issue its own
response at the time, but with the UN Summit only ten days away, on
15 September 2015 Justine Greening gave oral evidence to the
International Development Committee’s inquiry on the SDGs and had
this to say:
The outcome from Addis, this Addis Ababa Action Agenda, was a
ground-breaking outcome […] I do not think, five to ten years
ago, we could have even got close to the outcome we did,
because it included all the sources of finance that we needed to
look at in the round again. 95
UK support for
building the tax
capacity of
developing countries
Greening: the Addis
outcome was
“ground-breaking”
Stance on the 2 August final draft
In the same evidence, Justine Greening downplayed the fact that the
number of SDGs set out in the finalised draft for adoption agreed on 2
August 2015 was greater than the UK had earlier called for, saying:
We will be very happy to not only celebrate the achievement of
the MDGs in New York, but also ratify this new set of global goals
[…] On the fact that there are more goals, we have been in an
incredibly complicated, challenging negotiation. In the end, we
ended up with 17. Having said that, did it include the areas that
the UK was very keen to have put in place? Yes, and I am
delighted with that. 96
Responding to a House of Lords debate on the SDGs on 17 September
2015, DFID Minister Baroness Verma She said that the UK considered
the SDGs to be a major step forward from the MDGs because they were
universal and comprehensive and underpinned by the principles of
‘leaving no-one behind”. For the UK, she said that this meant that “no
target should be considered met unless it had “been achieved by all
segments of society”. 97
She confirmed that DFID will be the lead department in coordinating the
UK’s international implementation of the SDGs, adding that, although
the global indicators against which the agenda will be measured will not
be ready until next year, DFID is thinking now about how to implement
the agenda and that the global goals will be the starting point for all
DFID’s future work. Baroness Verma said that the SDGs will also be built
into DFID’s strategic objectives and will inform current reviews under
way of bilateral and multilateral aid. DFID will also encourage all its
partners to plan and report against the goals. 98
94
95
96
97
98
A. Norton, “Why universality is a taxing agenda”, IIED blog, 20 July 2015. See also
Addis Tax Initiative - Declaration
Sustainable Development Goals 2nd evidence session, HC 337, Q44, published 17
September 2015. Evidence given by Rt Hon Justine Greening MP
Sustainable Development Goals 2nd evidence session, HC 337, Q42, published 17
Septe mber 2015. Evidence given by Rt Hon Justine Greening MP
HL Deb 17 September 2015 cc.1994-1998
HL Deb 17 September 2015 cc.1994-1998
UK thinking on
implementing the
SDGs
31 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
Baronness Verma indicated that the UK was already compliant with
many of the SDGs and that the UK Government was working closely
with the Cabinet Office and the Office for National Statistics to
determine how progress could be coordinated and measured more
effectively. She added that, in July 2015, the Chief Secretary to the
Treasury and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote to all
relevant departments asking how they would approach the
implementation of the goals. 99
Remarks by David Cameron at the Summit
Addressing the summit on 27 September, the Prime Minister said:
Achieving these Goals will take action, not words. I’m proud that
the UK has met our 0.7% commitment, and I call on others to
follow. This is so important for a number of reasons.
When times are darkest – like for the millions of Syrians forced
from their homes – aid can offer hope. And we know that wellspent long-term aid works wonders. It’s no coincidence that
malaria deaths in Africa have fallen dramatically in recent years it’s a direct result, in part, of our investment.
But honouring our aid commitments isn’t just the right thing to
do. It’s in all our interests to address the deepest causes of
instability and insecurity in the world today.
So today I say to my fellow world leaders from developed
countries: We’ve been making promises on aid for years. Now, let
us deliver on those promises. The world is watching.
Let’s be candid. Eradicating extreme poverty isn’t just something
that developed country governments can do. There’s a deep
responsibility on the leaders of all countries. 100
Parliamentary developments
As already noted, the International Development Committee is currently
holding an inquiry on the SDGs. 101
The European Scrutiny Committee has decided that EU policy and action
on the post-2015 development agenda (see below) will be discussed in
European Committee B on a date to be confirmed soon after the 2015
party conference season. 102
There was a House of Commons backbench business debate on the
SDGs on 10 September 2015. 103
The CPA UK is engaged with the SDGs. On its website, it has
announced that it will:
host 3 Regional Workshops in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean on
Sustainability, Energy and Development in Autumn 2015 as part
of a larger International Parliamentary Project aiming to empower
99
100
101
102
103
HL Deb 17 September 2015 cc.1994-1998
“PM calls on world leaders for more aid spending and more accountability”, UK
Government press release, 27 September 2015
International Development Committee, “Sustainable Development Goals inquiry”
webpage
European Scrutiny Committee, “The EU and the post-2015 development agenda”,
1st report, 2015-16, HC 342-I, 21 July 2015
HC Deb 10 September 2015 cc603-44
“Now, let us deliver
on those promises.
The world is
watching”
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 32
parliamentarians to engage with the UN's Sustainable
Development Goals and the new development agenda from 2016
– 2030.
The International Parliamentary Conference on Sustainability,
Energy and Development, to be held in Westminster in spring
2016 will then build on outputs from the Regional Workshops to
present a Global Toolkit as a resource for Parliamentarians in their
engagement with the new SDGs, encouraging Parliaments in their
role as key stakeholders in the implementation of these targets. 104
The British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, of which there is a
British group, is +engaged with the SDGs too. Its’ parent body, the
Inter-Parliamentary Union convened the Fourth World Conference of
Speakers of Parliament, which issued a Declaration, “Placing democracy
at the service of peace and sustainable development: Building the world
the people want” at the close of the conference on 2 September
2015. 105
5.3 EU dimensions
The UK has sought to influence the EU’s common negotiating position
so that it is consistent with its key priorities.
Reflecting the fact that the EU has competence in development
cooperation and humanitarian aid, it has been leading negotiations on
the post-2015 development agenda on behalf of Member States,
including the UK. 106
In December 2014, the Foreign Affairs and Environment Councils
agreed Conclusions “on a transformative post-2015 agenda”. The
Conclusions welcomed the July 2014 OWG report and the December
2014 synthesis report by the UN Secretary-General. There was no
discussion of the need to reduce the number of goals, although the
Conclusions did call for “well-defined indicators” and targets that have
a “transformative impact”. 107
In a January 2015 letter to the European Scrutiny Committee, UK
ministers broadly welcomed the December 2014 Conclusions but
recognised that:
an EU position may require compromise or may not be reached in
certain areas and will therefore need to ensure sufficient flexibility
for both the EU and Member States to play a constructive role in
“CPA UK to host Regional Workshops on Sustainability, Energy and Development”,
5 August 2015
105
British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union; “Placing democracy at the service of
peace and sustainable development: Building the world the people want”, 2
September 2015
106
The European Scrutiny Committee elaborates further: “The EU’s competence in
development cooperation and humanitarian aid is a specific form of shared
competence commonly referred to as a parallel competence. The treaties define the
nature and scope of the EU’s competence as follows: ‘In the areas of development
cooperation and humanitarian aid, the Union shall have competence to carry out
activities and conduct common policy: however the exercise of that competence
shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs’ (Article 4(4)
TFEU).” European Scrutiny Committee, “The EU and the post-2015 development
agenda”, 1st report, 2015-16, HC 342-I, 21 July 2015
107
“Council conclusions on a transformative post-2015 agenda”, General Affairs
Council, 16 December 2014
104
EU has competence
on development
issues
33 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
negotiations without prejudicing existing
competence/representation arrangements. 108
In late May 2015, The European Council agreed Conclusions on “A New
Global Partnership for Poverty Eradication and Sustainable Development
after 2015”. 109 Intended to “complement” the December 2014
Conclusions, they set out the “guiding principles” and “key
components” of the new global partnership and strongly informed the
EU’s negotiating position at the financing for development conference
in Addis Ababa in July 2015. UK ministers told the European Scrutiny
Committee that the Government welcomed the Council Conclusions. 110
At the Addis conference, the EU reaffirmed its commitment to achieve
the UN’s 0.7% aid target by 2030 at the latest, with 0.2% to go to
Least Developed Countries. 111
Following the conclusion of the Addis conference, the EU Commissioner
for International Cooperation and Development, Neven Mimica, said:
I welcome this accord, which puts in place very robust
foundations to support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
that will be agreed in September in New York and the climate
agreement to be adopted in December in Paris. 112
On 25 September, the European Commission welcomed the adoption
of the SDGs. 113
108
109
110
111
112
113
“The EU and the post-2015 development agenda”, European Scrutiny Committee,
HC219-xxviii, 2014-15, 25 January 2015
“A New Global Partnership for Poverty Eradication and Sustainable Development
after 2015”, European Council, 26 May 2015
European Scrutiny Committee, “The EU and the post-2015 development agenda”,
1st report, 2015-16, HC 342-I, 21 July 2015
“Statement by Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Neven
Mimica following the adoption of the “Addis Ababa Action Agenda” by the Third
International Conference on Financing for Development”, European Commission
press release, 16 July 2015
“Statement by Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Neven
Mimica following the adoption of the “Addis Ababa Action Agenda” by the Third
International Conference on Financing for Development”, European Commission
press release, 16 July 2015
“European Commission welcomes new 2030 United Nations Agenda for Sustainable
Development”, European Commission, 25 September 2015
EU reaffirms its
commitment to 0.7%
at Addis conference
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 34
6. Bibliography
Journals, articles and reports
Africa Confidential “Goalfest in Addis”, 24 July 2015
Y. Akyüz, “Post-2015 development agenda and SDGs: perspectives of
the South Centre”, South Centre, October 2013
S. Alkire and A. Sumner, “Multidimensional poverty and the post-2015
MDGs”, Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, March
2013
S. Amin, “The Millennium Development Goals: A Critique from the
South”, Monthly Review, March 2006
M. Batalla, “Green, yellow, red: The state of the debate around the
post-2015 development agenda”, Global Policy Watch, 6 July 2015
A. Bayo Ogunrotifa, “Grand developmentalism: MDGs and SDGs in subSaharan Africa”, Pambazuka Newsletter, 29 May 2015
S. Brooks, “Private finance and the post-2015 development agenda”,
Open Democracy, 23 May 2015
W. Byanyima, “How can we make 2015 a turning point for
development?, World Economic Forum blog, 17 August 2015
CAFOD and Beyond 2015, “What if? Mapping scenarios to the end of
2015”, April 2015
P. Carter, “If the SDGs are to ‘leave no-one behind’, donors should get
serious about social protection”, Overseas Development Institute blog, 9
September 2015
F. Dodds, “So what did we end up with after the negotiations in July for
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development”, blog.felixdodds.net, 5 August 2015
F. Dodds, “Very nice graphic for the 5Ps in the preamble to
‘Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development”, blog.felixdodds.net, 16 August 2015
L. Ford, “UN begins talks on SDGs, ‘carrying the hopes of millions and
millions’”, Guardian, 24 September 2014
H. Gleckman, “New goals, new outcomes and getting out of old
boxes”, International Institute for Sustainable Development, 12 May
2015
Global Land Indicators Initiative, “Land Rights: An Essential Global
Indicator for the Post-2015 SDGs”, 2 September 2015
D. Green, “Have the MDGs affected developing country policies and
spending? Findings of new 50 country study”, From Poverty to Power
blog, 24 July 2015
35 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
D. Green, S. Hale, M. Lockwood, “How can a post-2015 agreement
drive real change? Revised edition”, OXFAM discussion papers,
November 2012
R. Greenhill, “From Addis to New York: what does the FfD summit
imply for the SDGs?”, devex.com, 23 July 2015
R. Greenhill and P. Carter, “The Addis Agreement: a good foundation,
now time to build”, Overseas Development Institute, 15 July 2015
J. Gurin and L. Manley, “Open Data for Sustainable Development”,
World Bank, August 2015
C. Helder, “Evaluation Beyond 2015: Implications of the SDGs for
Evaluation”, World Bank, 15 September 2015
House of Lords Library, “Sustainable Development Goals: Parliamentary
Perspectives”, 10 September 2015
C. Hoy, “Millennium Development Goals: success stories and
‘unfinished business’”, Development Progress blog, 17 September 2015
D. Hulme, “Governing Global Poverty? Global Ambivalence and the
Millennium Development Goals”, University of Manchester, May 2009
International Institute for Sustainable Development, “Will climate
change render the SDGs impossible?”, 19 June 2015
International Institute for Sustainable Development, “Earth Negotiations
Bulletin”, 28 June 2015.
International Institute for Sustainable Development, “FfD3 Concludes
with Adoption of Addis Ababa Action Agenda”, 16 July 2015
International Institute for Sustainable development, “Two-Week Session
to Finalize Post-2015 Agenda Kicks Off”, 20 July 2015
International Institute for Sustainable Development, “UN finalizes 2030
agenda for sustainable development”, 2 August 2015
N. Kabeer, “Tracking the gender politics of the Millennium
Development Goals: struggles for interpretative power in the
international development agenda”, Third World Quarterly, No. 2, 2015
[available from the Library on request]
C. Kenny, “The MDG report: taking far more credit than is due”, Center
for Global Development, 7 July 2015
S. Kindornay and S. Twigg, “Establishing a workable follow-up and
review process for the SDGs” Overseas Development Institute, April
2015
A. Knoll, S. Grosse-Puppendahl and J. Mackie, “Universality and
differentiation in the post-2015 development agenda”, ECPDM
discussion paper 173, February 2015
F. Kydland, T. Schelling and N. Storey, “Nobel Laureate’s guide to
smarter global targets”, Copenhagen Consensus Center, 2015
M. Lockwood, “What have the MDGs achieved? We don’t really
know…”, Poverty to Power blog, 31 August 2012
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 36
B. Lomborg, “Promises to keep. Crafting better development goals”,
Foreign Affairs, November/December 2014
C. Melamed, “What global partnership for post-2015?”, Overseas
Development Institute, 14 November 2013
J. Vandemoortele, “A dispassionate look at the Sustainable
Development Goals”, Post2015 blog, 27 August 2015
A. Norton, “Why universality is a taxing agenda”, IIED blog, 20 July
2015
Overseas Development Institute, “Projecting progress: reaching the
SDGs by 2030”, flagship report, 21 September 2015
D. Osborn, A. Cutter, F. Ullah, “Universal Sustainable Development
Goals: understanding the transformational challenge for developed
countries, Stakeholder Forum, May 2015
Oxfam, “OXFAM recommendations for the final draft of the outcome
document for the UN summit to adopt the post-2015 development
agenda”, 22 July 2015
N. Risse and L. Wagner, “The Technology Facilitation Mechanism:
Conceived in Rio, born in Addis”, International Institute for Sustainable
Development, Policy Update No. 8, 10 September 2015
Saferworld, “Zero or hero? What does the ‘zero draft’ of the world’s
new development framework do for peace?”, June 2015
Scottish Business in the Community, “Scotland among first countries to
adopt UN Sustainable Development Goals”, 20 July 2015
E. Stuart, “5 things needed to turn the SDGs into reality”, Devex.com,
29 July 2015
E. Stuart, “Governments adopt the SDGs next week. Then what?”,
Overseas Development Institute, 17 September 2015
M. Suzman, “Scoring goals for World United”, The World Today,
August/September 2015
K. Watkins, “Leaving no one behind – it won’t be easy”, Post-2015
blog, 21 July 2015
Women’s Major Group, “Gender equality and women and girls
empowerment: considerations for the Post-2015 agenda”, February
2015
World Centre for Sustainable Development (RIO+ Centre), “SDG blogs”,
September 2015
Official sources
UN
“The Future We Want”, UN Resolution A/RES/66/288, 27 July 2012
“A New Global Partnership: The Report of the High-Level Panel of
Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda”, May 2013
37 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
“The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives
and Protecting the Planet”, Synthesis Report of Ban ki-Moon, UN
Secretary-General, December 2014
United Nations Economic and Social Council, “Managing the transition
from the MDGs to the SDGs: what it will take”, 26 April 2015 (Link
expired)
Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA), A/CONF.227/L.1, 15 July 2015
(Link to website active, link to doc not working)
The Addis Tax Initiative - Declaration, July 2015
“DESA briefing note on the Addis Ababa Action Agenda”, UN
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, July 2015
“Lessons from MDGs ‘springboard for future UN agenda – Ban”, UN
News Centre, 6 July 2015
“Secretary-General Praises Adoption of Addis Ababa Action Agenda at
Development Financing Conference as ‘Major Step Forward’ towards
Prosperous World”, UN Press Release, 16 July 2015
“Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Outcome document for the UN Summit to adopt the
Post-2015 Development Agenda”, advance unedited version
United Nations University, “17 days, 17 goals”, September 2015 (series
of articles on each of the SDGs)
Sustainable Development Summit 2015 (official website of the Summit)
Friends of Governance for Sustainable Development
Millennium Development Goals Report 2015
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED,
1992)
United Nations Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform
UK
DFID, “What are the global goals?”, news story, 21 September 2015
Environmental Audit Committee, “Connected world: agreeing
ambitious sustainable development goals in 2015”, HC 452, 2014-15,
December 2014
European Scrutiny Committee, “The EU and the post-2015
development agenda”, HC219-xxviii, 2014-15, January 2015
European Scrutiny Committee, “The EU and the post-2015
development agenda”, HC 342-i, 2015-16, 21 July 2015
International Development Committee, “The Post-2015 Development
Goals”, HC 657, 2012-13, January 2013
International Development Committee, Sustainable Development Goals:
first evidence session, HC 337, published 9 September 2015. Evidence
given by Jonathan Glennie, Director of Policy and Research, Save the
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 38
Children, Jamie Drummond, Co-Founder and Executive Director, ONE
Campaign, and Melissa Leach, Director, Institute of Development
Studies
International Development Committee, Sustainable Development Goals
2nd evidence session, HC 337, published 17 September 2015. Evidence
given by Rt Hon Justine Greening MP
J. Greening, “New poverty goals must focus on peace, jobs and justice”,
DFID press release, 7 July 2014
J. Greening “UK aid in 2015: The progress so far and the priorities
ahead”, DFID press release 10 March 2015
J. Greening, “Changing world, changing aid: Where international
development needs to go next”, DFID press release, 2 July 2015
“PM calls on world leaders for more aid spending and more
accountability”, UK Government press release, 27 September 2015
EU
"A decent life for all: ending poverty and giving the world a sustainable
future", European Commission, 27 February 2013
“Council conclusions on a transformative post-2015 agenda”, General
Affairs Council, 16 December 2014
“A New Global Partnership for Poverty Eradication and Sustainable
Development after 2015”, European Council, 26 May 2015
“Statement by Commissioner for International Cooperation and
Development Neven Mimica following the adoption of the “Addis
Ababa Action Agenda” by the Third International Conference on
Financing for Development”, European Commission press release, 16
July 2015
“European Commission welcomes new 2030 United Nations Agenda
for Sustainable Development”, European Commission, 25 September
2015
Inter-Parliamentary Union
Fourth World Conference of Speakers of Parliament, “Placing
democracy at the service of peace and sustainable development:
Building the world the people want”, 2 September 2015
Statistics and indicators
Inter-agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal
Indicators, “Open Consultation on the Global Indicator Framework”,
August/September 2015
Millennium Development Goals, targets and indicators, 2015: statistical
tables
39 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
Appendix 1 Sustainable development:
history of an idea
Sustainable development is an internationally recognised approach that
seeks to simultaneously advance economic, social and environmental
goals across generations and across the globe. In the UK Parliament, the
cross-departmental House of Commons Environmental Audit
Committee is tasked with ensuring that sustainable development is
reflected in all Government activities and policy-making.
The idea emerged and developed from the post-War environmental
movement, itself evolving from Victorian concerns about the effects of
industrialisation on the environment and people.
However, it was only in the 1980s and 1990s that it started to become
enshrined in UN and UK policy-making to bring development and
environment agendas together for a more holistic approach to solving
world problems of poverty and environmental degradation.
The Brundtland Commission – a defining moment
The 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, held in
Stockholm, gave sustainable development its first major international
recognition. The international community agreed that both
development and the environment, hitherto addressed as separate
issues, could be managed in a mutually beneficial way.
But it was not until The World Commission on Environment and
Development published its report “Our Common Future” in 1987 that
sustainable development was popularised as a policy-making
approach. 114
The Commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland 115 (and known as
the Brundtland Commission), had been tasked by the UN Secretary
General in 1983 with formulating a “global agenda for change” and
investigating increasing international concerns that human activity was
having severe and negative impacts on the planet and that the patterns
of growth and development were unsustainable. Such concerns had
been highlighted in the 1960s and 1970s in a stream of seminal
publications such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring about the impact of
pesticides (1962) and the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth report
(1972). 116
114
115
116
The World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future,
March 1987
Former Prime Minister of Norway and UN Special Envoy on Climate Change since
2007
The Club of Rome website describes the organisation as being established in 1968
as an informal association of independent leading personalities from politics,
business and science, “men and women who are long-term thinkers interested in
contributing in a systemic interdisciplinary and holistic manner to a better world. The
Club of Rome members share a common concern for the future of humanity and
the planet.”
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 40
The Commission’s report described a solution to the problems of
environmental degradation – sustainable development - and offered
what has become the ‘classic’ definition of sustainable development:
Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to
ensure that it meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs. 117
The 1992 Rio ‘Earth Summit’ and beyond
Sustainable development was the theme of the UN Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
This event is now commonly called the ‘Earth Summit’ and it marked
the first international attempt to draw up strategies and action for
moving towards a more sustainable pattern of development.
Over 100 Heads of State, with representation from 178 national
governments, attended the largest gathering of national leaders that
the world had seen at that time. The Summit was also attended by
representatives from a range of other organisations representing civil
society. 118
The Rio Summit covered three main themes: biodiversity, climate
change, and sustainable development. It resulted in legally binding
conventions on the first two, but only an ‘action plan’, called Agenda
21, on sustainable development.
The 1992 conference was followed by the Johannesburg World Summit
on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in September 2002 and the UN
Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012
- 'Rio+20'.
The Johannesburg Summit delivered three key outcomes: a political
declaration, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, and a range of
partnership initiatives. Key commitments included those on sustainable
consumption and production, water and sanitation, and energy.
At Rio+20 there was a firm commitment to develop new Sustainable
Development Goals and to ensure that these were carried out jointly
with the Post 2015 Development Goals, providing a key opportunity to
frame climate change and poverty eradication targets with a sustainable
development approach. This was widely welcomed.
However, as the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee
noted in a 2013 report, the rest of the conclusions of the Summit
disappointed many.
The Committee noted that:
There had been a lack of concrete agreement on key areas of the
agenda, notably on the green economy. It pointed out that the
commitments from Rio+20 challenged the UK, like all countries:
to do more to promote a green economy, but effectively left it to
individual countries to decide how strongly to embrace green
economy principles. It concluded that while the UK Government
117
118
Our Common Future, para 27
Sustainable Development Commission, archived website, “History of SD”
41 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
has said that it is committed to a green economy, it still had to
demonstrate this by producing an overarching strategy that
actively drives its delivery. 119
UK strategy and policy
In 1994, the UK became the first country to publish a national strategy
as recommended at Rio. This kick-started the establishment of domestic
policy machinery aimed at putting sustainable development principles
into action, including with regard to the running of the Government
estate.
In November 1997, the Labour Government acted on a manifesto
commitment and established the House of Commons Environmental
Audit Committee (EAC). The EAC is charged with monitoring and
auditing the contribution made by Government departments and
agencies to environmental protection and sustainable development and
related targets.
In 1999, the sustainable development strategy was revised and in 2000
the independent Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) was
established to advise the Government on integrating sustainable
development into policy.
A new strategy, the “UK Strategy for Sustainable Development:
Securing the Future”, followed in March 2005, launched by the then
Prime Minister Tony Blair. It remains in place today but has been
reaffirmed and refreshed (see below).
The strategy set out 5 principles for sustainable development (see Figure
1 below) aimed at ensuring a strong, healthy and just society while
living within environmental limits, delivered by means of a sustainable
economy, good governance and sound science. It stated that policies
should respect all 5 principles and that any trade-offs should be made
explicit. 120
119
120
Environmental Audit Committee, “Outcomes of the UN Rio +20 Earth Summit”, HC
200, 2013-14, June 2013
HM Government, “UK Strategy for Sustainable Development: Securing the Future”,
Cm 6467, March 2005, para 4
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 42
Figure 1 The guiding principles of the UK Government Strategy
for Sustainable Development (2005 and reaffirmed in 2011)
Source: UK Strategy for Sustainable Development – Securing the Future (2005) as
represented in the SDC Guidance for Sustainable Development Action Plans – Driving
Change (2005)
The strategy covers England and non-devolved issues and was
accompanied by a UK Framework agreed across the Devolved
Administrations, “One Future – Different Paths: The UK’s Shared
Framework for Sustainable Development”, and a set of sustainable
development indicators. 121 This package essentially set out the UK vision
for sustainable development until 2020, with the UK’s devolved
administrations establishing their own sustainable development
strategies or schemes complementing the overall national strategy. A
key commitment in the strategy was for all Government departments to
have their own Sustainable Development Action Plans (SDAPs).
The Strategy also gave the SDC a new ‘watchdog’ role across the UK to
scrutinise and report on the Government’s progress against the strategy.
121
HM Government, One Future – Different Paths, March 2005
43 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
In February 2011, the Coalition Government published “Mainstreaming
Sustainable Development – The Government’s Vision and what this
means in practice”. 122 It described sustainable development as:
[…] making the necessary decisions now to realise our vision of
stimulating economic growth and tackling the deficit, maximising
wellbeing and protecting our environment, without negatively
impacting on the ability of future generations to do the same. 123
The vision sets out how sustainable development is to be integrated into
departmental business planning and progress, as set out in Annual
Reports and Accounts, and provided for new Sustainable Development
indicators.
The SDC was abolished in 2011 on the grounds that sustainable
development had been sufficiently mainstreamed, so progress made
could be reported effectively by the Government itself.
The most recent progress report on implementation of the 2011 vision,
“Government progress in mainstreaming sustainable development”,
was published in May 2013. 124 It noted that government departments
had provided little detail on sustainable development within policy
development in the 2011/12 reporting period and said that more
guidance would be provided on this.
122
123
124
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Mainstreaming
Sustainable Development – The Government’s Vision and what this means in
practice”, February 2011
Defra, “Mainstreaming sustainable development – The Government’s vision and
what it means in practice”, February 2011
Defra, Government progress in mainstreaming sustainable development”, May 2013
Number 7291, 28 September 2015 44
Appendix 2 Achieving the MDGs:
performance assessment
The MDG framework
The MDG framework unveiled in 2001 comprised eight goals:
Box 3: The Millennium Development Goals
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MDG 1 – Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
MDG 2 – Achieve universal primary education
MDG 3 – Promote gender equality and empower women
MDG 4 – Reduce child mortality
MDG 5 – Improve maternal health
MDG 6 – Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
MDG 7 – Ensure environmental sustainability
MDG 8 – Develop a global partnership for development
The verdict on the MDGs
In July 2015, the UN published its final assessment report on the MDGs.
While acknowledging there was still a long way to go, its tone was
upbeat. Ban Ki-moon asserted that the MDGs had “worked at all
levels”. 125 However, some argue that the UN has been much too
generous in its assessment. 126 The Overseas Development Institute has
argued that:
While the world has made significant progress towards the MDGs,
as illustrated in the recently released UN summary report, most
haven’t been met […] some of the MDG targets are so far off
track that, if current trends continue, the SDGs will expire in 2030
before the original MDG targets will be achieved. 127
The official data shows that targets have been met in areas such as
extreme poverty and access to improved water sources. In September
2015 The World Health Organization (WHO) and UN Children's Fund
(UNICEF) reported that the MDG target on malaria has been met. 128
Advances have been made in many other areas, even where targets
have not been met – for example child and maternal death rates have
fallen. There are however are several areas where little or no progress
has been made – for example employment rates have fallen slightly and
carbon emissions have risen.
The series of charts overleaf shows changes since 1990 (the baseline
year) for a selection of MDG indicators.
125
126
127
128
“Lessons from MDGs ‘springboard for future UN agenda – Ban”, UN News Centre, 6
July 2015
C. Kenny, “The MDG report: taking far more credit than is due”, Center for Global
Development, 7 July 2015
C. Hoy, “Millennium Development Goals: success stories and ‘unfinished business’”,
Development Progress blog, 17 September 2015
“World Achieves MDG Target on Malaria: WHO, UNICEF”, IISD, 17 September 2015
The UN said that the
MDGs had:
“galvanised the
world to produce the
most successful antipoverty movement in
history, helped lift
more than one billion
people out of
extreme poverty,
made inroads against
hunger and enabled
more girls to attend
school than ever
before.”1
45 The Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda
Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
% on less than $1.25 a
day
1990
2015
% in employment
% undernourished
developing regions
1990
developing regions
2015
1990
2015
Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education
% primary enrolment
developing regions
1990
2015
% primary completed
developing countries
1990
2015
Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
% parliament seats
held by women
ratio girls to boys in
primary
1990
2015
1990
2015
Goal 4: Reduce child mortality
Millennium Development Goals
under 5 mortality rate
Selected indicators
Target levels are shown with a horizontal marker where they exist.
1990
2015
Green border = Good progress, meeting any target.
Amber border = Progress but any target is unlikely to be met.
Red border = No progress or getting worse.
Goal 5: Improve maternal health
Figures are for the whole world unless otherwise specified, and are from the UN Millennium
Development Goals Report 2015.
maternal mortality
Figures for 2015 are forecasts.
1990
2015
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
HIV incidence rate
1990
2015
malaria incidence
1990
2015
Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
CO2 emissions
1990
% using improved
drinking water
2015
1990
% using improved
sanitation
2015
1990
2015
Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development
% of developing
exports duty free
1990
debt service as % of
exports
developing regions
2015
1990
2015
internet users as % of
population
1990
2015
About the Library
The House of Commons Library research service provides MPs and their staff
with the impartial briefing and evidence base they need to do their work in
scrutinising Government, proposing legislation, and supporting constituents.
As well as providing MPs with a confidential service we publish open briefing
papers, which are available on the Parliament website.
Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publically
available research briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should
be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated or otherwise
amended to reflect subsequent changes.
If you have any comments on our briefings please email [email protected].
Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing only with Members
and their staff.
If you have any general questions about the work of the House of Commons
you can email [email protected].
Disclaimer
This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their
parliamentary duties. It is a general briefing only and should not be relied on as
a substitute for specific advice. The House of Commons or the author(s) shall
not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any loss or damage of any kind
arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any information at any
time without prior notice.
BRIEFING PAPER
Number 7291, 28 September
2015
The House of Commons accepts no responsibility for any references or links to,
or the content of, information maintained by third parties. This information is
provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence.