Imagine for a moment the ability to change the world according to our wishes. Dramatic economic inequality gives way to social and political inclusion. Universal human rights become a reality. We end deforestation and the destruction of arable land. Fish stocks recover. Two billion people look forward to a life without poverty, hunger and violence. Rather than paying lip service to climate change and resource scarcity, we start to respect and uphold the limits of our planet and its atmosphere.
That was the aim in 2001, when the UN adopted its Millennium Development Goals, and it will be the aim this year, when the goals expire and the UN adopts a successor framework for environmental and development policy.
The coming set of Sustainable Development Goals will seek to protect ecosystems, conserve resources and, as with the Millennium Development Goals, lift millions of people out of poverty.
Combining environmental and developmental frameworks is a good idea — one that builds on the success of a host of legally binding international conventions and agreements crafted under the UN’s auspices to protect the climate, conserve biodiversity, uphold human rights and reduce poverty. Though they may not be perfect — and, unfortunately, the nations that ratify them do not always achieve the targets — they have led to the creation of institutional processes that encourage nations to keep their promises and embolden citizens to hold governments accountable.
However, even though the Sustainable Development Goals will thus stand on solid legal ground, that ground must be developed further.
For starters, global agreements and targets have not yet been put in place for major environmental challenges, including the destruction of fertile topsoil and global plastic production. Such agreements will be necessary to enable the Sustainable Development Goals to consider human rights, the environment and development holistically.
Researchers and civil society organizations have been calling for a reversal of soil degradation by 2020 and are pressing for at least one international panel of experts to meet at the UN to address this central aspect of global food security. Every year, 12 million hectares of land — an area the size of Austria and Switzerland — are lost to overuse and excessive application of fertilizers. The environmental impact is magnified by large-scale farming. The social consequences can also be severe: eviction, the loss of livelihoods and violent conflict.
The use of plastic must also be reined in. Since the 1950s, worldwide production has increased by a factor of 100. Every year, more than 280 million tonnes of plastic is produced, with vast quantities winding up in groundwater, rivers and oceans — and entering the food chain. Though plastic is not biodegradable, not a single nation has pledged to prevent it from entering our environment.
Another largely unexplored possibility would be to set targets for phasing out environmentally damaging and socially detrimental subsidies. Globally, such subsidies, like those offered by the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, run into the hundreds of billions of US dollars, draining budgets and often doing nothing for the poor. Cutting them would not only remove perverse incentives; it would also free up money for education, universal healthcare and infrastructure in rural areas, where it is needed to create income opportunities.
Unfortunately, people are unlikely to get the world of our wishes. The negotiations over the Sustainable Development Goals reflect what is currently possible in a multilateral framework: relatively little. No government is truly willing to tackle the causes of inequality and hunger, which would require making fair taxation and comprehensive welfare a top priority. Such reforms would be more effective than any development aid, but for now they are off-limits.
The rules of the global economy also remain untouchable, making it nearly impossible to restructure financial and trade policies to ensure that they do not result in more poverty, unchecked climate change and irreversible resource destruction.
The language agreed upon so far is not reassuring. A timeworn commitment to economic growth at all cost is no answer to the question of how development can be balanced against the limits of the planet and that billions of people live in poverty. In a finite world, infinite growth is impossible, and rising output will not put food on everyone’s table if the benefits of growth are not fairly distributed.
It is not only the advanced nations who are impeding the creation of a bolder development agenda. Elites in emerging and developing nations are using the negotiations primarily as a platform to call for international aid transfers.
The UN is only as good as its members. Their goodness will be shown by the extent to which they view the Sustainable Development Goals as an opportunity to establish truly new priorities and truly universal goals for environmental and development policy in the 21st century.
Barbara Unmuessig is president of the Heinrich Boll Foundation.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS