Sustainable Development Goals: easy win or slippery slope?

Making sense of UN communiqués is never easy at the best of times, but it’s particularly hard whenRio+20 logo you are not involved in the process and so can’t decode the bland summit speak – a mind-numbing array of frameworks for action, toolkits, partnerships, dialogues and the like. So it’s hardly surprising that reading the draft ‘zero draft outcome document’ (what language do these people speak? – sure ain’t Shakespeare) for the Rio+20 summit in June made my head hurt. As far as I can make out, it is almost entirely made of up a series of vacuous ‘best endeavours’ non-commitments, roughly adding up to ‘we will do our best to save the planet, but no promises’.

Politically, that may be the best approach, even though the climate change clock is ticking, and won’t wait for political conditions to become more propitious. With US elections due later this year, and every  Northern economy forced by austerity and fear of a double dip recession into a highly introspective and tight-fisted mood, no summit is likely to produce ambitious outcomes this year.

Which brings us to the proposed ‘Sustainable Development Goals’, discussed by Alex Evans in a new paper. The sudden rise to prominence of the SDG idea is partly down to energetic advocacy by the Colombian government – who first mooted the idea of SDGs – and also to negotiators’ desperate search for some kind of ‘announceable’ in Rio. At a recent ‘intersessional’ (UN speak again, sorry) everyone from Canada to Botswana weighed in to support the SDGs (although the BRICS and the US opted to remain silent (at least in the official proceedings). They also feature prominently in the zero draft outcome document, which proposes they be finalized by 2015, the date when most of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) currently in place are due to expire.

At first sight, the SDGs seem an admirable idea. There is indeed a problem that the current MDGs neglected scarcity and sustainability and in general,- environmental solutions need to be equitable (e.g. secure access to natural resources for people in poverty; action by rich countries to cut their consumption footprint), so let’s bring sustainability and development together, right?

sustainbility v timeBut Alex sees the SDG idea as fraught with political perils: to make sense they would have to apply to all countries, not just the developing ones (cue US veto); they might muddy the waters (and blur the poverty focus) as the UN tries to agree on the successors to the MDGs. At worst they could just add to the proliferation of meaningless sustainability language (see graph).

His conclusion? ‘While there are good reasons to explore a more comprehensive and integrated set of Goals beyond 2015, policymakers should use Rio+20 to focus on broad principles and on raising the level of ambition – not on attempting to rush into specifics without adequate preparation. This is a time to play a long game, not to go for quick wins that could all too easily backfire.’

In this case, kicking the can down the road might actually be the best approach.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our Privacy Policy.

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.

Comments

2 Responses to “Sustainable Development Goals: easy win or slippery slope?”
  1. Many thanks for raising this debate. It seems that Rio+20 could now becoming the launchpad for the post-2015 goals. It is good to get this debate going so we don’t end up in vacuum in 2015 of not having met the MDGs, but with nothing to follow-up. But linking it with Rio+20 which was not set up for this purpose raises a danger that the debate on future goals could be constrained by the remit of Rio+20. Looking at the Rio+20 website, there is extremely little on education, while education has rightly been a key part of the MDGs. I am not sure why this is, but would very much hope that any post-2015 debate would continue to see the importance of education in transforming lives and societies.

    We are discussing some of these issues on the Education for All Global Monitoring Report blog:
    http://efareport.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/the-future-we-want-post-2015-sustainable-development-goals/

  2. Michelle

    Hi Duncan

    I’m still thinking my way through the SDGs, although my gut feel is: 1) more closely aligning development and environmental issues will reap benefits for both agendas, and 2) I’m not sure the Rio Summit can get its ducks in a row in time, and it would be disappointing if this idea fizzles out or is discredited.

    You’re usually really good at referencing your sources, so I just wanted to point out that the graph you’ve included here is courtesy of the excellent XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1007/.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.