how global goals for sustainable development work

Joseph Mitchell Global goals for sustainable development – May 2012 @j0e_m

Global goals for sustainable development

1. Introduction

This paper asks whether a set of global goals would be an effective tool for changing global behaviour towards meeting the requirements of sustainable development. This introduction sets out the criteria used to judge effectiveness, and outlines the rest of the essay.

The ‘effectiveness’ criteria used is one of whether goals are likely to elicit any change in the behaviour of global actors towards sustainable development. Clearly this is a low bar. To decide whether global goals are more effective than other governance tools it would be necessary to examine exactly what must be achieved and to perform a thorough review of the most appropriate method to reach those outcomes. However, sustainable development is a vast subject and a large research project would be required in order to make a robust prediction about the likely success of various methods. Moreover, the literature on ‘global goals’ is limited compared to that on international law or international organisations. This essay is merely a starting point in a discussion about the effectiveness of sustainable development goals.

Following a conceptualisation of ‘global goals’ in section two, the essay goes on to consider the arguments for and against sustainable development goals, in sections three and four respectively. The essay concludes, in section five, that agreement on the effectiveness of global goals is likely to require a constructivist rather than realist worldview and that further evidence-based research is necessary.

2. An overview of global goals

This section conceptualises global goals, explains the topical nature of the issue, and then describes how sustainable development goals are being advanced.

A global goals approach is best exemplified by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These were agreed by the United Nations General Assembly in 2000 and were designed to focus the world’s efforts to end poverty. They are a set of eight broad goals, divided into 21 targets, with specific, mostly quantifiable indicators, to be met by 2015. For example, ‘MDG 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases’ has three targets, including ‘6A: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS’, which are measured by ten different indicators, including ‘HIV prevalence, condom use, and proportion of population with comprehensive, correct knowledge of HIV/AIDS’. Goals were used in this context in order to harmonise efforts to end poverty and to provide a way of measuring progress.1

Global goals are not legally binding. A party that commits to them will suffer no repercussion should they not be met. No coercive power is exercised, and no new international organisations will be created. Instead, positive outcomes are reliant upon the commitment made by signatories and the discursive, social power of jointly-shared goals. Global goals are deliberately simple: in their shortest form, the MDGs are just 37 words – including all the targets and indicators they are just over 1000 words – the antithesis of a complex international treaty.

Global goal-setting is back on the global agenda for two reasons. The first is temporal: discussions are growing, particularly in the development field, as to what should follow the

1 United Nations, 2007.

1


MDGs in three years time. The second is that environmentalists are now considering whether global goals might work for sustainable development. The governments of Colombia and Guatemala proposed sustainable development goals (SDGs) for the agenda of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in June 2012.2 They will seek agreement on the idea of a set of SDGs and a mandate for the UN to develop the precise goals by 2015.3 It is not necessary at this stage of negotiations to agree on the precise goals, and these shall not be discussed in this essay. Some of the key suggestions are presented in Annex 1. It is necessary, however, to discuss whether goals are an appropriate tool at all.

3. Why goals work

This section develops the argument that global goals, targets and indicators could be an effective tool in changing global behaviour to meet the requirements of sustainable development. It considers where goals lie on a spectrum of behaviour change, argues for goals’ discursive power generally, and for their particular relevance for sustainable development.

a. Goals generally

Methods of behaviour change can be seen as lying on a spectrum from norm promotion to binding law with strong compliance mechanisms. Often the latter is considered the strongest method. Yet the early part of the spectrum is not necessarily less effective. In the absence of law, it is possible to use normative, behavioural or cognitive factors, such as reputation, elite group membership or domestic pressure to create change. These might include league tables, prizes, or citation before international panels.4 These efforts socialise concepts that come to be the norms that change or reinforce behaviour.5 Global goals are towards the norm-promotion end of the spectrum: their power is discursive. A small group of well-publicised goals would shape obligations, expectations, priorities and commitments.

This discursive power lies both in the goals and the indicators. Firstly, a small group of goals can be easily absorbed and explained by the media, far more so than a legal treaty. This has been demonstrated with the MDGs, which are advocated by media luminaries such as Ted Turner.6 This keeps goals on the global media agenda and builds public support to maintain domestic pressure on governments. Clear, overarching goals are not only a boon to the media, but also to those working in the field, particularly in smaller non-governmental organisations. Those who argue that only bottom-up policy will create sustainable development tend to neglect the power of having a strong international norm to which to link a grass-roots policy.7 Bottom up innovation is not generated out of nothing, but is rather a response to necessity or a call to action. Goals give advocates for change a strong brand on which to hang their campaigns, empowering them to succeed. Organisations working towards a global goal might be more likely to get funding or support from larger agencies. Common goals create better opportunities to link with other ‘roots’ doing similar things: the shared language creates an environment for efficiency and productivity.

2 República de Colombia, 2011.3 Ibid.4 See, e.g. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership, etc.5 See, e.g. Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998.6 Turner, 2011; Murray et al, 2007.7 Victor, 2006, p.99.

2


Secondly, beyond the overarching goals, the indicators provide the detail required to prove technical robustness. Moreover, setting the indicators themselves can be a useful way of socialising demands for change. In this process, actors have to start with the outcomes they want to see achieved. They must work together as a ‘global’ society to carefully define how they will measure success. This stage of development may be difficult, but once established, allows any actor who can concretely prove that an indicator is shifting due to an action they took to be socially rewarded, or allows campaigners to prove the opposite, and to shame the actors. Indicators could be especially powerful in the field of sustainable development, for the reasons explained in 3b below.

The discursive power of goals also allows for the exercise of power over intransigent institutional opposition, such as the hegemonic macroeconomic discourse found in the international financial institutions. The single goal these institutions promote is economic growth; an idea that has captured the discourse of ‘progress’ for decades. The extent to which new global goals can change this was demonstrated to a greater and lesser extent by the MDGs. These were enthusiastically adopted by the World Bank, who now work in tandem with the United Nations to provide data on poverty. The effect on the IMF has been weaker. It argues that GDP growth and limited state spending is still the key to the meeting MDGs.8 This demonstrates a lack of discursive power: the IMF adopted the MDGs, but managed to place them within their worldview, and as a result IMF policies have not changed.

Finally, though this essay has used MDG evidence to support several claims for goals, there is the question of whether these global goals did effectively change behaviour on poverty reduction overall. Much of the literature agrees that the MDGs changed the political debate and galvanised support for global poverty reduction by providing clarity, a focus on implementation, and inspiring engagement beyond traditional development sectors.9 This does not mean that they helped to reduce poverty. It is not possible to prove that the MDGs caused a reduction in poverty greater than would have been realised counterfactually. However, authors in the field have concluded that the MDGs probably helped increase aid spending and probably changed national policies to benefit poverty reduction.10

b. Goals for sustainable development

There are reasons to believe that global goals would be particularly effective for sustainable development, including the potential for bringing together the three realms of sustainable development, the global nature of environmental problems and solutions, and the current movement towards a new macro-indicator of global progress.

One of the motivations for those suggesting the SDGs is to re-harmonise the three elements of sustainable development: economic growth, social welfare and environmental protection, which have become disparate over time.11 Sustainable development came to mean ‘the environment’ when, as clearly defined in the Brundtland report, it was meant to be the marriage of those three fields.12 A set of common goals could encapsulate all three elements, reminding people of their interlocking nature.

8 IMF, 2010; Gutner, 2010.9 E.g. The High Level Panel on Global Sustainability, 2012, p.72; Melamed and Sumner, 2011.10 Melamed and Sumner, 2011.11 República de Colombia, 2011.12 Drexhage and Murphy, pp.1,2.

3


Secondly, it is not only states whose behaviour requires change. Sustainable development is a post-globalisation problem, which requires a multi-scalar reaction, going beyond the nation state to include corporations, local governments and individuals.13 Sustainable development problems are global in nature, and so are their solutions. It was on this basis that Agenda 21 was created at the first Rio Summit. The SDGs could build on this, creating specific, coherent and clear targets for sustainable development, to be pursued at various levels of governance.

It is the indicators that are particularly important. These operationalise sustainable development, making it real for finance ministers or development banks who may have ignored it, or left it for environmental departments to deal with, because it was perceived as a woolly concept. Furthermore, strong indicators in this area could help establish paradigmatic shift in two ways. Firstly, they could inspire a movement away from the primary value given to GDP indicators towards an indicator inclusive of social and environmental measures. Secondly, they could also to expand ideas of what sustainable development can incorporate, from a green economy to participatory governance models to social protection, education and health.14 On the former point, global discourse on progress continues to present an increase in income as the end goal of society and individuals. It is difficult to understate the power of indicators of income, which can bring down governments, remove boards from companies and are religiously reported by the media. A more complex, holistic metric could be a powerful force in shaping thinking around progress.

Several governments, think tanks and international organisations are already working on new indicators for progress, whether ‘wellbeing’ or ‘happiness’ to go ‘beyond GDP.’15 The SDGs could support these efforts, or better, bring them together to create universal metric – a global sustainable development index.16 The idea of a regular ‘state of the planet’ report by the UN Secretary-General will be discussed at Rio+20. This could build upon the power of this indicator.17

4. The problems with goals

This section outlines and reviews several arguments against global goals as a means of changing global behaviour, including the limited power of discourse versus self-interest, the problems for local delivery and accountability, and the issue of finding agreement on the goals.

The first criticism goes to the heart of the effectiveness of goals as it regards compliance and their universal nature. It states that the most accurate indicators and robust reporting may still not elicit change if the powerful do not will it. Empathy, reputational costs and socialisation of norms only go so far in the face of domestic political accountability, profit-making and personal consumption. While lessons from other regimes are sometimes positive – states do, for example, regularly submit to external monitoring and potential sanction on human rights and trade issues – sustainable development may require far greater behaviour change and national

13 See, e.g. Scholte, 2000.14 Global Environmental Governance Project, 2011.15 These include the ‘environmental accounting’ work of the World Bank, UNECA’s sustainable development indicator framework for Africa, the UNECE/OECD/Eurostat Taskforce for Measuring Sustainable development, OECD’s Better Life Index, and various national ‘wellbeing’ indexes. The majority of these were inspired by the work of the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission.16 Global Environmental Governance Project, 2011, pp. 7-9.17 For the ‘state of planet’ review see United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), 2012, para. 56.

4


costs.18 The difficulty is intensified with global goals as there is no strict individual culpability if they are not met. There is thus a strong incentive for free-riding.

Further research is necessary on whether global goals could be matched with innovative compliance mechanisms that add to the discursive power discussed in section three. An institution like the UN Global Compact regularly de-lists companies that fail to meet its criteria and bans them from using its branding – this institutionalised ‘naming and shaming’ process might still not be enough.19 To neutralise these realist arguments against global goals, it would be necessary to find some kind of universal issue-link or lock-in mechanism that creates more self-interested incentives beyond obedience to social norms.

The second criticism is from those who argue that the global nature of the goals is inappropriate when sustainable development is driven by ‘resolutely local’ issues.20 Others suggest that that while the goals could be global, national governments must have primacy on ownership and accountability for the framework and delivery.21 This seems contradictory, but countries will have to take different measures to ensure the world meets goals: this creates a problem when the overall indicator of success is global, and the rewards of sustainable development may be unevenly distributed.

While it is clear that local action must be taken to meet any SDGs, this does not necessarily require local actors. A scaled-up Global Environment Facility would enable projects to be initiated, financed and managed by different parties, as befits a global solution. National governments may only be needed for their approval. Furthermore, global indicators could be channelled into expectations for each nation, which could be monitored by a central global body. This would still rely on the social power of goals and that nations would take action despite the lack of coercion. The lessons from the MDGs are not particularly favourable: several targets are likely to be missed and there will be no national or global accountability for this, just unmet commitments. 22 Likewise, the OECD aid target of 0.7% is not met by many, suggesting that reputation costs and domestic pressure is not enough to drive compliance.23

The third criticism deals with the process of gaining agreement on the actual goals, perhaps not so much easier than agreeing on a comprehensive treaty. The SDGs have been proposed in an atmosphere probably less cooperative than that of the MDGs. The latter were developed in the late 1990s in a context of booming OECD economies and a uni-polar world, with trigger pressure applied by faith-based campaigns providing the grass-roots support for large-scale political anti-poverty commitments.24 Fifteen years on and power structures are changing: the world faces increasing multi-polar (or ‘non-polar’25) deadlock in institutions, and austerity in

18 For example, the UN Human Rights Council, and stronger regional bodies such as the European or Inter-American Courts of Human Rights. The WTO is exceptional at a world level in that it provides a dispute settlement mechanism, but its sanctions are limited. 19 See www.unglobalcompact.org. 20 Victor, 2006, p.99.21 UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service (2011).22 Melamed, 2011.23 OECD, 2010.24 E.g. The Jubilee 2000 campaign was a network of churches working with Oxfam et al.25 Haass, 2008.

5


the OECD region. Early meetings on the SDGs have suggested some difficulties regarding the indicators and ‘regional particularity’.26 India is thought to be against quantifiable indicators.27

More positively, as pointed out by several NGOs, there is already much collective agreement on the ‘goals’ of sustainable development - the next step is to prioritise them and support their delivery.28 The original proposal by Colombia and Guatemala argues that since the Rio Summit in 1992 set out the guiding principles and road map and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 set out a plan of implementation, Rio+20 only needs to take the next small step towards creating SDGs to encourage structured implementation.29

5. Conclusion

This essay described global goals and specifically the suggestion of SDGs at Rio+20. It then developed the reasons for which goals, targets and indicators can change global behaviour, most of which relied upon their discursive power. It argued that goals would be particularly effective in the issue area of sustainable development, since they could help marry the tripartite realms, reflect the multi-scalar action required and their indicators could shift the discourse of progress beyond GDP. The essay then provided an overview of the weaknesses of global goals, particularly with regard to free rider effects, confusion over levels of responsibility and action, and the fact that agreement on indicators may be difficult to reach. The first of these is still the most problematic.

Ultimately, whether global goals are perceived as effective will depend on whether a realist or constructivist position towards international affairs is taken. However, given the growth of ‘global’ issues, which somewhat transcend nation-states (and realist theory), and given that discursive power should not be underestimated, global goals are likely to be effective in changing state behaviour. As Fuchs says: ‘discursive power precedes the formation and articulation of interests in the political process...’30 While empirical evidence for behaviour change caused by goal-setting is sparse, perhaps the fact that global goals are back on the agenda, and have travelled between disciplines, is a sign that many people believe they are an effective tool.

Further research into this area could investigate: the political will for the goals; the risks of competition between development and environment activists; the legitimacy of the goals-drafting process; the larger question of the most effective method for achieving sustainable development; and opportunities or ideas for new methods to change global behaviour. Given that there are merely three months to Rio+20, supporting sustainable development goals would seem like a realistic and achievable starting point.

26 Evans and Stevens, 2012; Global Environmental Governance Project, 2011, p.11.27 Evans and Stevens, 2012.28 World Future Council response, in UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service, 2011, p.8.29 República de Colombia, 2011.30 Fuchs, 2005, p.778, my emphasis.

6


6. Annex 1

Suggested sustainable development goal areas31

Theme Colombia/Guatemala (8) NGOs / CSOs (17) UN High Level Panel (11)

Energy Energy, including renewable

Clean energy Energy

Consumption Changing consumption patterns

Sustainable consumption and production

Sustainable consumption

Commons Biodiversity and forests Biodiversity BiodiversityForests

Oceans Healthy seas and oceans

Oceans

Water resources Water WaterFood Advancing food security Food security

Sustainable agricultureSocial policy Green jobs

Sustainable livelihoods, youth and education

Decent work and social inclusion

Combating povertyBasic health

Climate Climate sustainabilityDisaster risk reductionResilience

Habitat Promoting sustainable human settlement development

Green cities

Governance Subsidies and investmentNew indicators of progressAccess to informationPublic participationAccess to redress and remedyEnvironmental justice for the poor and marginalised

31 High-level Panel on Global Sustainability, 2012; UN Conference on Sustainable Development Secretariat, 2012; República de Colombia, 2011.

7


7. Bibliography and works cited

Bond, Patrick, 2006, ‘Global Governance Campaigning and MDGs: From Top-down to Bottom-up Anti-Poverty Work’. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 339-354.

Evans, Alex and Steven, David, 2012, ‘Sustainable Development Goals – a useful outcome from Rio+20?’ New York, New York University’s Center on International Cooperation.

Drexhage, John and Murphy, Deborah, 2010, ‘Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012.’ Background Paper prepared for consideration by the High Level Panel on Global Sustainability at its first meeting, 19 September 2010. International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn, 1998, ‘International norm dynamics and political change.’ International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 887-917.

Fuchs, Doris, 2006, ‘Commanding Heights? The Strength and Fragility of Business Power in Global Politics’, Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.771-801.

Global Environmental Governance Project, 2011, ‘Input to the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability: Paradigms.’ Submission prepared in the context of Working Group II of the High-level Panel of Global Sustainability. Available at http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/gsp/docs/Input%20on%20Paradigms.pdf, accessed March 28, 2012.

Gutner, Tamar, 2010, ‘When “doing good” does not: the IMF and the Millennium Development Goals.’ In Deborah Avant, Martha Finnemore and Susan Sell, eds., ‘Who Governs the Globe?’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haass, Richard, 2008. ‘The Age of Nonpolarity.’ Foreign Affairs, May 3. Available at www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63397/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity, accessed March 28, 2012.

The High-level Panel on Global Sustainability, 2012, ‘Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing.’ Addis Ababa, United Nations.

International Monetary Fund, 2010, ‘Reaching the MDGs: Macroeconomic Prospects & Challenges in Low-Income Countries.’ Background Note by IMF Staff for the United Nations MDG Summit. Available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/mdg/2010/091610.pdf, accessed March 28, 2012.

Melamed, Claire, 2011, ‘Creating consensus: political opportunities and barriers for a post-2015 agreement on development’. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Melamed, Claire and Sumner, Andy, 2011, ‘A Post-2015 Global Development Agreement: why, what, who?’ Paper produced for the ODI/UNDP Cairo workshop on a post-2015 Global Development Agreement, 26-27 October 2011.

8


Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, República de Colombia, 2011, ‘RIO + 20: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) : A Proposal from the Governments of Colombia and Guatemala.’ Available at http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/colombiasdgs.pdf, accessed March 28, 2012.

Murray, Christopher and Frenk, Julio and Evans, Timothy, 2007, ‘The Global Campaign for the Health MDGs: challenges, opportunities, and the imperative of shared learning.’ The Lancet, Vol. 370, Issue 9592, pp. 1018-1020, September 22, 2007.

OECD, 2010, ‘History of the 0.7% ODA Target’. DAC Journal 2002, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 9-11, revised 2010. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/38/45539274.pdf, accessed March 28, 2012.

Scholte, Jan Aart, 2000, ‘Globalization: A Critical Introduction’. London: Macmillan.

Turner, Ted, 2011, ‘Power in collaboration: advancing the Millenium [sic] Development Goals.’ Harvard International Review, Spring 2011, pp. 74-77.

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), 2012, ‘The Future We Want - zero draft of the outcome document.’ Available at http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/futurewewant.html, accessed Feb 16, 2012.

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Secretariat, 2012, ‘RIO 2012 Issues Briefs No.6: Current Ideas on Sustainable Development Goals and Indicators’. Available at http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/218Issues%20Brief%206%20-%20SDGs%20and%20Indicators_Final%20Final%20clean.pdf, accessed March 28, 2012.

United Nations, 2007, ‘Millennium Development Goals Indicators: The Official United Nations Site of the MDG Indicators’. Available at http://mdgs.un.org, accessed March 28, 2012.

United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service, 2011, ‘Summary Report: Civil Society Consultation Conducted by the UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS) for the UN Secretary General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability’. Available at http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/gsp/docs/Summary_Report_-_UN-NGLS_Consultation_for_the_Global_Sustainability_Panel.pdf, accessed March 28, 2012.

Vandemoortele, Jan, 2005, ‘Ambition is Golden: Meeting the MDGs’, Development, Vol. 48, No.1, pp. 5–11.

Victor, David, 2006, ‘Recovering Sustainable Development’. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 85, No. 1 (Jan-Feb), pp.91-103.

9

how global goals for sustainable development work

News & Politics