Posts
The Missing Element for
the Success of the UN Sustainable Development Program
The objective of this article is to review the scholarly
studies published on the progress of the United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals (SDG), for the purpose of determining whether the presence of a peaceful
environment necessary for development was considered in the implementation and
assessment of implementation at national levels. In doing so, the political principle
of “prosperity may be achieved only with peace”[1]
is taken as the point of reference, the benchmark.
Historical background-Foundational documents
The Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm on 16
June 1972 is viewed generally as the precursor of SDGs. The Conference’s
resolution was dedicated to the relation between the environment and
development while adding “Principle 26: Man, and his environment must be spared
the effects of nuclear weapons and all other means of mass destruction. States
must strive to reach prompt agreement, in the relevant international organs, on
the elimination and complete destruction of such weapons.”[2]
While the document calls specifically for nuclear disarmament for the desired
human environment, presumably for peace, it does not directly relate
peace to development, or prosperity.
Undeniably the genesis of the SDG, the most comprehensive
socio/economic, thus potentially the most globally impactful, and accordingly
the most ambitious and challenging United Nations (UN) project is the Brundtland
Report of 1987 (ambitiously titled Our Common Future) of the World
Commission on Environment and Development commissioned by the UN. The UN was
motivated by the alarm bells rang by the scientific community about the harm
caused to the environment by human activities with adverse climatic and
economic consequences. The Report did appropriately and strictly focus on relations
between human economic activities and the environment. “It was an urgent call
by the General Assembly of the United Nations: to propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable
development by the year 2000 and beyond;”[3]
Nevertheless, the Chairperson PM G.H. Brundtland also noted in the presentation
of the report, “After Brandt's Programme for Survival and Common Crisis, and
after Palme's Common Security, would come Common Future. This was my message
when Vice Chairman Mansour Khalid and I started work on the ambitious task set
up by the United Nations. This report, as presented to the UN General Assembly
in 1987, is the result of that process.”[4]
Thus, Brundtland report established a relation between the environmental and
economic development and the “Common Security” in addition to the “Common
Crisis”. It drew attention to the need “for international economic system of
co-operation.” It can be deduced from this statement that international
economic co-operation cannot take place without the presence of “security”,
presumably international peace. However, we reach that conclusion by inference,
in the absence of direct statements like indispensability of peace for “environmental
strategies for achieving sustainable development”.
Rio Conference on Environment and Development on 14 June 1992
linked the environmental concerns with the economic development as follows:
“Principle 4: In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental
protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and
cannot be considered in isolation from it.”. Like its predecessor of 1972, it
also added a similar caveat “Principle 25: Peace, development and environmental
protection are interdependent and indivisible.”[5], establishing
a more direct relation between development and peace, without however incorporating
means of maintenance of peace in the general development objective.
“At the Millennium Summit in September 2000, the
United Nations General Assembly adopted the Millennium Declaration (MD) as a
foundation for the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to be achieved by
2015”. “I. Values and principles …. 2. We recognize that, in addition to our
separate responsibilities to our individual societies, we have a collective
responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity
at the global level. …. 4. We are determined to establish a just and lasting
peace all over the world in accordance with the purposes and principles of
the Charter. We rededicate ourselves to support all
efforts to uphold the sovereign equality of all States, respect for their
territorial integrity and political independence, resolution of disputes by
peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and
international law, the right to self-determination of peoples which remain
under colonial domination and foreign occupation, .… 6. …. • Shared
responsibility. Responsibility for managing worldwide economic and
social development, as well as threats to international peace and security.
.… II. Peace, security and disarmament …. 8. We will spare no effort to free
our peoples from the scourge of war.…. 9. We resolve therefore: … • To
make the United Nations more effective in maintaining peace and security by
giving it the resources and tools it needs for conflict prevention, peaceful
resolution of disputes, peacekeeping, post-conflict peacebuilding and
reconstruction. ….. (and) VIII. Strengthening the United Nations …. 29. We
will spare no effort to make the United Nations a more effective instrument for
pursuing all of these priorities: the fight for development for all the peoples
of the world, the fight against poverty, ignorance and disease; the fight
against injustice; the fight against violence, terror and crime; and the fight
against the degradation and destruction of our common home.” [6]
(Emphasis added). The United Nations community made it abundantly clear with
this Declaration that the fight for development cannot succeed only by
fighting against environmental degradation without also fighting for peace.
It also promised to be effective in conflict prevention, peaceful resolution of
disputes, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding.
2012 UN Rio Conference on Sustainable Development
resolved in The Future We Want, “I. Our common vision 1. We, the Heads
of State and Government and high-level representatives, having met at Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, from 20 to 22 June 2012, with the full participation of civil
society, renew our commitment to sustainable development and to ensuring the
promotion of an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future
for our planet and for present and future generations. 2. Poverty eradication
is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensable
requirement for sustainable development. …….. 5. We reaffirm our commitment to
make every effort to accelerate the achievement of the internationally agreed
development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. …… 8. We
also reaffirm the importance of freedom, peace and security, ……(Emphasis
added). 10. We acknowledge that democracy, good governance and the rule of law,
at the national and international levels, as well as an enabling environment,
are essential for sustainable development, including sustained and inclusive
economic growth, social development, environmental protection and the
eradication of poverty and hunger. We reaffirm that, to achieve our sustainable
development goals, we need institutions at all levels that are effective,
transparent, accountable and democratic. 11. We reaffirm our commitment to
strengthen international cooperation to address the persistent challenges
related to sustainable development for all, in particular in developing
countries. In this regard, we reaffirm the need to achieve economic stability,
sustained economic growth, the promotion of social equity and the protection of
the environment, while enhancing gender equality, women’s empowerment and equal
opportunities for all, and the protection, survival and development of children
to their full potential, including through education. …”[7].
This Resolution acknowledged peace being of “importance”; while however
“reaffirming the need to achieve” development in matters from social equity to
education, it neglects the same to achieve development in peace. In operative
Sections like “B. Advancing integration, implementation and coherence:” implementations
by States and assessments of their progress do not include domestic or
international peace. Consequently, Section “V. Institutional framework for
sustainable development:”, which establishes “a universal, intergovernmental,
high-level political forum, .…[to] follow up on the implementation of
sustainable development” does not charge the political forum to follow up on the maintenance of peace at “regional,
national, subnational and local levels”. Neither “B. Sustainable development goals”,
nor “VI. Means of implementation” provides for the maintenance of peace.
Therefore, the 2012 Rio Conference did not pursue the
promises of the 2000 MDG.
The Executive Summary of the Prototype Global Sustainable
Development Report drawn in 2014 noted peace in a very generic form only
in its opening paragraphs, “Since the creation of the United Nations, the
world’s peoples have aspired to make progress on the great global issues of
peace and security, freedom, development and the environment.”[8] The
Prototype’s language expectedly followed on 2012 Rio Resolution, limited itself
to the assessment of progress made in 17 Goals without including the effect of
the prevailing domestic and/or international peace on sustainable development.
2015 UNSDG Resolution Preamble states, “This Agenda
is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to
strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. ….. of sustainable development: the
economic, social and environmental. ……
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.”[9]
(Emphasis added). The 2015 SDG Resolution does not contain any actionable
provision as regards the maintenance of domestic and/or international peace. UNSDG, seems to have followed the same
thought process of the 2012 Rio conclusions, by only stating the necessity of
peace for development without integrating it in the Development Program
with means of implementation and assessment mechanisms established for the other
fields. The SDG did not dare to revive the Millenium Development Goals although
it set out to be a plan of action for development.
The 2019 Global Sustainable Development Report, The Future is Now: Science for Achieving Sustainable Development, was the first report of “assessment of assessments” prepared by an Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General. The Prologue of 2019 First Report by PM G.H. Brundtland 32 years after her original report that help launch the UNSDG program states, “Each of us, from scientists and doctors to politicians and even playwrights, needs to be prepared to take the helm in an appropriate and realistic way – from our local community to national and international levels.”[10] The Afterword of the Report indicates how the Independent Group undertook its mandate, “the Report should incorporate the different strands of scientific knowledge to provide an integrated assessment of and guidance on the state of global sustainable development and, at the same time, strengthen the science-policy interface and put forward scientific evidence …” It “capitaliz(ed) on critical interlinkages among the Sustainable Development Goals”, although its mandate was to be an “assessment of assessments”. Scientific assessment seems to have excluded political science. An assessment of Goal 16 fell on the wayside. We are currently looking forward to the second Report that will be released in September 2023. In the interim, numerous studies were published in scientific journals assessing the implementation of the SDG.
Scholarly assessments of progress
As early as in 2016, a study by Mark Elder et al. drew
attention to the importance of peace by identifying the maintenance of peace as
another goal. But, they settled by forcing an interpretation of Goal 16, “The
word governance is not directly mentioned in the SDGs, but Goal 16 on peaceful
societies is generally considered to be the SDG related to governance. ………….
Still, Goal 16 is focused on peaceful societies, and peace is reasonably
considered a worthy goal in itself. ……..
Therefore, this paper recommends focusing on strengthening
coordination and governance capacity in the early stages of SDG implementation.”[11]
A 2017 study by P. Pradhan et al. rightly and importantly
noted, “the SDGs provide a holistic and multidimensional view on development.
…… For this, all SDGs need to act as a system of interacting cogwheels that
together move the global system into the safe and just operating space.”[12]
Co-operation between the implementation of several SDGs as well as in the
assessment of their progress is of the utmost importance in their success. The adoption
of such, as a criterion for the general assessment of progress of SDGs, must be
welcome.
Thomas Hickman noted in his 2022 study of success factors of
the Millenium Development Goals, “Globally agreed goals therefore cannot be
expected to easily trickle down from intergovernmental negotiations within the
United Nations to the national level and then further to regions and provinces
as well as cities and municipalities. Thus, scholars and policymakers concerned
with the effectiveness of globally agreed policy goals should dedicate more
attention to the domestic contexts in which such global principles and norms
are supposed to take effect.”[13]
This observation brings to light a necessary element for the success of the
SDGs, the international inter-dependence of development, which is the second
pillar of the political principle, in addition to prosperity, constituting the
theme of the present article.
Martin Koering wrote at the end of 2022, “The “social”
dimension of the challenges of climate change, climate action and
sustainability has often been an after-thought, but in 2023 this dimension will
rise further up the sustainability agenda.”[14]
If this prediction becomes true, he added, than there may be hope for political
dimension about domestic and international peace will take prominence in goals,
Means of Implementation, and Assessments of Progress. Here we may add, not only
the social dimensions of climate change but also other social dimensions in
domestic and international peace, like population growth, migration, general
education policies, which affect social inequality, thus peace, must take
prominence in the implementation and assessment of SDGs.
The study made by Frank Biermann states, “First, regarding
the global governance system, we find that the political impact of the SDGs has
been mostly discursive, for example, through their adoption as a reference
point in international policy pronouncements and in a changed discourse within
global institutions.
……………… there is no strong evidence that the SDGs have had a
transformative impact on the mandates, practices or resource allocation of
international organizations and institutions within the United Nations system
(for example, refs. 11,12).
………. Studies also suggest that the High-Level Political
Forum on Sustainable Development has not lived up to expectations of becoming
an effective ‘orchestrator’13 in
global sustainability governance.”[15]
In this study, the term “global governance” used in the related UN documents,
which also appeared in a few other publications, is potentially a cause for
indignation; it could be replaced by a more accurate and acceptable term
“global inter-dependent endeavor”. It may also be advisable to draw attention
to observations in some studies concerning the disregard of some SDGs by some
countries presumably for politically motivated ideological reasons. Such practices
must be condemned by the High-Level Political Forum on SDG as contempt of SDG, thus
contempt of humanity’s prosperity. In this regard, the involvement of national and international NGO networks to
serve as watchdogs for the implementation of SDGs would be a considerably
effective instrument for assessments.
Conclusion
A meaningful and effective action to counter and reverse the
adverse effects of human activity on the environment and climate must be global
in all respects, because of the complexity of the problem. The UNSD program is
therefore the appropriate way to initiate and implement the action. The UN
member states’ governments are the right channels or arms to carry out this program.
As may be seen from the texts of pre-2015 UNSDG Resolution,
as well as from the 2015 Resolution itself, prosperity constitutes the core or
the objective of the SDGs while peace, although recognized as necessary, has
only been mentioned peripherally as important or necessity for the SDG program’s
implementation. SDGs are appropriately declared as ambitious and all-encompassing
objectives for transforming the world to a prosperous future for all peoples of
the globe. Detailed implementation and progress assessment provisions are in place.
The inseparable relation between development and peace was repeatedly
recognized at the highest levels and stages of the SD program. Yet, thirty-five
years since the Brundtland Report, peace and security remains an important
aspiration for the SDG program. This aspiration was never incorporated or
integrated with the SDGs. This omission may have been for not jeopardizing the
adoption of the resolutions and commitments expressed therein because of the ever-present
disagreements within the international community, and of the lack of courage of
governments to tackle them.
Whether domestic or international, the absence of peace is no
less the cause and consequence of poverty and inequality than any other
natural, social, or political challenges. Peace and prosperity are dependent on
each other, they grow or fail together. Unsurprisingly, many studies published
in scientific journals indicate that SDGs cannot succeed in countries where
there is internal strife. Peace is fundamental, a sine qua non, for
prosperity, even more than the synergic relationship between all the SDGs. None
of the SDGs can succeed without domestic and international peace.
Nationwide action, in particular fundamental and
comprehensive ones like economic development, require the good majority of
public’s understanding and support for it to succeed. For this purpose, the SDGs
include public education of the program. SDG is ultimately a political will
for individual countries. It is not enough for the SDG and the national
governments to be ambitious, peoples of the participating countries must be
ambitious about the program as well; its requirements must be understood and
internalized by the public. Furthermore, just as it is for individuals within a
national society, the prosperity of individual nations of the international community
is not progress, rather it is the source of inequality, thus unrest. As many
nations as possible, if not all, must develop economically at the same time, or
with comparable effort. What must be emphasized, therefore, is that not only
national administrations but also their citizens must be convinced that their national
prosperity is intertwined with the prosperity of other nations. Nations
must strive to develop towards prosperity with the development of other nations
in mind, not at their expense. National and international NGO networks could be
excellent conduits in this respect.
In designing an international program to counter the adverse
effects of climate change on economic development, the effects of domestic and
international peace both on economic development and the environment should not
be overlooked. UNSDG, being the source and the overseer of this
international program, must also commit itself to support peaceful
environment for development. like international financial assistance
provided for development. Therefore, a goal must be included in SDGs for
domestic administrations to establish and maintain domestic peace together with
all the necessary Means of Implementation, financial assistance, regular
assessments, etc. Such a global target, guidance and assistance for countries’ domestic
peace will be helpful also for pursuing international peace. The synergic and
symbiotic relation between prosperity and peace is “universal, indivisible” as
the SDG itself. The UN’s maintenance of peace efforts will get a mutual boost.
Unlike 2012 Rio and 2015 UNSDG Resolutions’ constrained
approach that the incorporation in the program a Goal of maintenance of peace may
endanger the success of the SDGs, the integration of peace efforts with those
of prosperity will reinforce the success of the Resolutions’ ambitious goals. The
integration of this element in SDGs, without further delay, before the 2030
target date, will validate the political principle “prosperity may be achieved
only with peace”, coined by the “transformative leader”[16],
who adopted also the related political principle, “peace at home, peace in the
world”[17].
April 2023
[1] The political principle
advanced by M.K. Ataturk, the first president of the Republic of Turkiye. See A.
Mango, Atatürk;
M. Camcigil Atatürk’s
Thought, etc. …
[2] https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL7/300/05/IMG/NL730005.pdf?OpenElement
[3] https://Documents/Literature%20on%20UN%20Sustainable%20Development%20program/Brundtland%20report%20UN.pdf
[4]
idem
[5] https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/rio1992
[6]https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_55_2.pdf
[7]
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July 2012, 66/288. The Future We Want
[8] Prototype Global Sustainable Development Report 2014 Prototype SDG report.pdf
[9] TRANSFORMING OUR WORLD: THE 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT A/RES/70/1 sustainabledevelopment.un.org (See Attachment for the relevant parts of the Declaration)
[10] 24797GSDR_report_2019.pdf (un.org)
[11] An Optimistic Analysis of the Means of Implementation for Sustainable Development Goals: Thinking about Goals as Means, Mark Elder et al. , Sustainability 2016, 8(9), 962
[12] A Systematic Study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interactions Prajal Pradhan et al., Earth’s Future, Volume5, Issue11 November 2017 Pages 1169-1179
[13] Success factors of global goal-setting for sustainable development: Learning from the Millennium Development Goals Thomas Hickmann et al., 23 November 2022 Success factors of global goal‐setting for sustainable development: Learning from the Millennium Development Goals - Hickmann - Sustainable Development - Wiley Online Library
[14] The top 5 sustainability and climate trends to watch in 2023, Martin Koehring, 31 December, 2022, Economist Impact
[15] Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals Frank Biermann et al. Nature Sustainability volume 5, pages795–800 (2022) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00909-5
[16] Robert Crease, The Workshop and the World, Norton &Co.2019
[17] See end note 1.
Attachment
Sustainable
Development Goals and Targets
(Excerpts relevant to
the present article)
Introduction
…………
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. …. They are integrated and indivisible and
balance the three dimensions of sustainable development. …. ….
Our vision
7. In these Goals and
targets, we are setting out a supremely ambitious and transformational vision.
We envisage a world free of poverty, hunger, disease and want, where all life
can thrive. We envisage a world free of fear and violence. A world with
universal literacy. A world with equitable and universal access to quality
education at all levels, to health care and social protection, where physical,
mental and social wellbeing are assured. …
8.We envisage a world
of universal respect for human rights and human dignity, the rule of law,
justice, equality and non-discrimination;
…….
Our shared principles
and commitments
10.The new Agenda is
guided by the purpose and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
including full respect for international law. It is grounded in gthe Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties, the Millenium
Declaration and the 2005 World Summit Outcome. It is informed by other
instruments such as the Declaration on the Right to Development. ………
Our world today
……….
We recommit ourselves
to the full realization of all the Millennium Development Goals,
………
The new Agenda
……
35.Sustainable
development cannot be realized without peace and security; and peace and
security will be at risk without sustainable development. The new Agenda
recognizes the need to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies that
provide equal access to justice and that are based on respect for human rights
(including the right to development), on effective rule of law and good
governance at all levels and on transparent, effective and accountable
institutions.
Factors which give rise to violence, insecurity
and injustice, such as inequality, corruption, poor governance and illicit financial
and arms flows, are addressed in the Agenda. We must redouble our efforts to
resolve or prevent conflict and to support post conflict countries, including
through ensuring that women have a role in peacebuilding and State building. We
call for further effective measures and actions to be taken, in conformity with
international law, to remove the obstacles to the full realization of the right
of self-determination of peoples living under colonial and foreign occupation,
which continue to adversely affect their economic and social development as well
as their environment.
………
Means of
implementation
41. We recognize that
each country has primary responsibility for its own economic and social development.
……….
42. We support the
implementation of relevant strategies and programmes of action, …… We recognize
the major challenge to the achievement of durable peace and sustainable development
in countries in conflict and post conflict situations.
………….
55.The Sustainable Development
Goals and targets are integrated and indivisible, global in nature and universally
applicable, taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels
of development and respecting national policies and priorities.
…..
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
16.1Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere
16.2 End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence
against and torture of children
16.3Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and
ensure equal access to justice for all
16.4By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen
the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime
16.5 Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms
16.6 Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels
16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative
decision making at all levels
16.8 Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in
the institutions of global governance
16.9 By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration
16.10 Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms,
in accordance with national legislation and international agreements
16.a Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international
cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries,
to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime
16.b Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable
development.
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global
Partnership for Sustainable Development
Finance
Technology
Capacity building
Trade
Systemic issues
…………
Means of implementation and the Global Partnership
64. …… We recognize the major challenge to the achievement of durable peace
and sustainable development in countries in conflict and post conflict situations
…………
Global level
87. Meeting every four years under the auspices of the General Assembly,
the high level political forum will provide high level political guidance on
the Agenda and its implementation, identify progress and emerging challenges and
mobilize further actions to accelerate implementation. The next high level
political forum under the auspices of the General Assembly will be held in
2019, with the cycle of meetings thus reset, in order to maximize coherence with
the quadrennial comprehensive policy review process.
