The 2030 Agenda – “transforming our world “- with its 17 SDGs is meant to be accomplished by 2030. Half of the SDGs’ targets are off track and several regressing. In terms of geopolitical constellations, a large number of UN member states have turned authoritarian and enamoured by austerity. In terms of ability to advocate for progressive norms, the UN has been eviscerated. A tough call, then, to get an ambitious new or at least reconfirmed developmentalist agenda. What ought we improve in terms of design, commitments, implementation?
SDG 16 in essence is about Universal human rights, even if it avoids that language
Perhaps we need to rethink fundamentally about efficiency and effectiveness of any “transformative” agenda. One (of many) major obstacles to the 2030 Agenda’s performance has been that the SDGs are not legally binding. The voluntary national reviews are, duh!, not binding. Governments can promise the moon, but are not held to account. So, perhaps we ought to connect to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) for a rights-based framing of development, and subsequently as a tool to monitor progress. The HRC offers “special procedures”, such as a network of independent special rapporteurs on human rights, universal reviews, as well as the repository binding conventions, nine of which are core. Each convention has a committee, which examines the respective national report, provides an independent expert assessment, and gathers, hears and publishes the statements by other governments, UN agencies,NGOs and academics. Ratifiers are obligated to report on how they are complying with recommendations and undergo rigorous assessment in a continuous process. South and North governments are equally heard, and equally criticized. This would increase efficiency – governments would have one reporting line, namely to the various committees of the Human Rights Council. It could create analytical coherence, Enhanced effectiveness would result from the binding nature of recommendations compiled at the HRC.
There are many arguments for moving the process away from the US. Relocating the negotiation process to Geneva, as the seat of the Human Rights Council, could conceivably nudge discussions in a rights-emphasizing direction. Other venues, too, would notionally provide advantages. Nairobi comes to mind, as do cities in Brazil or Colombia which have hosted large, energetic, mould-breaking conferences in the recent past. A venue in a democratic country in the global South could increase accessibility and trust, and enable an agenda truly informed by progressive civil society.
Towards a truly transformative development agenda
The 2030 Agenda – “transforming our world “- with its 17 SDGs is meant to be accomplished by 2030. Half of the SDGs’ targets are off track and several regressing. In terms of geopolitical constellations, a large number of UN member states have turned authoritarian and enamoured by austerity. In terms of ability to advocate for progressive norms, the UN has been eviscerated. A tough call, then, to get an ambitious new or at least reconfirmed developmentalist agenda. What ought we improve in terms of design, commitments, implementation?
As per the 2024 Pact for the Future, the plan is to launch follow-up negotiations next year, but the UN, various country groupings, and concerned academics have already begun generating ideas, building on the experiences and processes that resulted in the 2030 agenda. Most stay in the established track.
human rights, even if it avoids that language
Perhaps we need to rethink fundamentally about efficiency and effectiveness of any “transformative” agenda. One (of many) major obstacles to the 2030 Agenda’s performance has been that the SDGs are not legally binding. The voluntary national reviews are, duh!, not binding. Governments can promise the moon, but are not held to account. So, perhaps we ought to connect to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) for a rights-based framing of development, and subsequently as a tool to monitor progress. The HRC offers “special procedures”, such as a network of independent special rapporteurs on human rights, universal reviews, as well as the repository binding conventions, nine of which are core. Each convention has a committee, which examines the respective national report, provides an independent expert assessment, and gathers, hears and publishes the statements by other governments, UN agencies,NGOs and academics. Ratifiers are obligated to report on how they are complying with recommendations and undergo rigorous assessment in a continuous process. South and North governments are equally heard, and equally criticized. This would increase efficiency – governments would have one reporting line, namely to the various committees of the Human Rights Council. It could create analytical coherence, Enhanced effectiveness would result from the binding nature of recommendations compiled at the HRC.
There are many arguments for moving the process away from the US. Relocating the negotiation process to Geneva, as the seat of the Human Rights Council, could conceivably nudge discussions in a rights-emphasizing direction. Other venues, too, would notionally provide advantages. Nairobi comes to mind, as do cities in Brazil or Colombia which have hosted large, energetic, mould-breaking conferences in the recent past. A venue in a democratic country in the global South could increase accessibility and trust, and enable an agenda truly informed by progressive civil society.
Obviously, changing venues by no means alters the political economy of the poly-crises and the dysfunctional, oppressive world political, economic and social order. Of course, embarking on a progressive track does face pitfalls. It will require hard work and new forms of deliberative democracy. As Irene Vélez Torres, Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development, Colombia, remarked at the Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels Conference, hope lies in collective action, and this crisis can create a possibility to create a new architecture of international relationships.
Share this: