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
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
RSS