Section 2 – Making the Global goals (SDG/ Agenda 2030) REAL – and integrating them in the EUSBSR/policy structure

2018-11-04 | Reals

“The new agenda must become part of the contract between people, including civil society and responsible business, and their governments – national and local” –

Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General.

“We all should start to think on how to translate these global goals into nation-scale implementing plans. Here is a unique opportunity for the BSR countries to take a lead in making SDGs truly transformative, empowering the regions and local communities to drive the process” –

Council of the Baltic Sea States, PL Precidency 2015

Brief background of Agenda2030/ the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

At the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit on 25 September 2015, world leaders adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which includes a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to achieve by 2030 (further – Agenda 2030).

The new Agenda is a global and universal document, requiring a collective response from all countries and regions in the world. The implementation of the 17 SDGs, will take different forms in diverse regions and realities due to capacities, needs for development and environmental status. The 17 SDGs includes 169 targets and could be divided into 3 groups – Biosphere, Society and Economy. Nevertheless, following the principles of sustainable development, SDGs and targets are closely interrelated and could be achieved only in connections with each other.

All UN member states (including all BSR and neighbouring countries) have declared their support of the Agenda 2030. This means the SDGs should be embedded into plans and national and regional policies. This also applies to the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). For example, the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) has, under the Polish presidency, decided to develop a new sustainable development agenda for the BSR after 2015[1]

 

sdg tårtaThese goals are the following (Figure 2.1):

1) End poverty in all its forms everywhere;

2) End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture;

3) Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages;

4) Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all;

5) Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls;

6) Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all;

7) Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all;

8) Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all;

9) Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and foster innovation;

10) Reduce inequality within and among countries;

11) Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable;

12) Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns;

13) Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts;

14) Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development;

15) Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss;

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;

17) Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development.

About half of the SDGs are either directly environmentally related or address the sustainability of natural resources: health, food and agriculture, water and sanitation, human settlements, energy, climate change, sustainable consumption, oceans and terrestrial ecosystems.

Implementation of the SDGs: national ambitions and assessment

 

The Table 1:1 represents the capacity of the Baltic states and the bordering countries in achieving the Agenda 2030 based on the assessment of SD Index (UN, 2016. https://issuu.com/unsdsn/docs/sdg_index_and_dashboards_country_pr). The table shows that the BSR countries form one of the most advanced regions in the world, with Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Germany as SDG leaders and all other countries taking places in the top 30% of the world list. Parts of the experience of developed countries of the BSR could be used by others as “good practices” if successfully transferred to other states, where differences of contexts, powerstructures, cultural norms are taken into account . Having said that, it is important to note, that if the assessment of the “lead” countries would have taken into account the whole ecological footprint, the picture would have more complex character, as big parts of consumables in these countries supports unsustainable structures in other parts of the world.

Futher; the baltic region, and neighbouring countries/regions such as NW Russia and Belarus, seem to lack information and advocacy for the Agenda2030 on local levels, to a high extent. Simoultaneously, the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) calls the goals “a unique opportunity for the BSR countries to take a lead in making SDGs truly transformative, empowering the regions and local communities to drive the process”. The council plan to draft a new SD agenda for the region during the spring 2016, adapted to the 2030Agenda.

The setup of assessment- and monitoring structures, and the level of “radicality” embedded in it, is of essential importance for the level of healthy change which the Agenda 2030 will be able to support and activate.

Table 1:1.
National capacity for achievement of the Agenda 2030 in the BSR region and bordering countries (UN, 2016)
Name of the Country World’s SDG Index Strengths Weaknesses
REALS partnercountries (EU neighboring countries)
Belarus 23 (of 149) Goal 1 “No poverty”

Goal 4 “Quality education”

Goal 6 “Clean water and sanitation”

Goal 10 “Reduced inequality”

Goal 12 “Responsible consumption and production”

 Goal 2 “Zero hunger”

Goal 7 “Affordable and clean energy”

Goal 9 “Industry, innovation and infrastructure”

Goal 13 “Climate action”

Goal 16 “Peace and justice. Strong institutions”

Goal 17 “Partnerships for the goals”
Russia 47 (of 149) Goal 1 “No poverty”

Goal 6 “Clean water and sanitation”

Goal 12 “Responsible consumption and production”

Goal 14 “Life below water”

 Goal 3 “Good health and well-being”

Goal 9 “Industry, innovation and infrastructure”

Goal 10 “Reduced inequality”

Goal 13 “Climate action”

Goal 14 “Life below water”

Goal 15 “Life on land”

Goal 16 “Peace and justice. Strong institutions”

Goal 17 “Partnerships for the goals”
EU member states
Sweden 2 (of 149) Goal 1 “No poverty”

Goal 3 “Good health and well-being”

Goal 4 “Quality education”

Goal 6 “Clean water and sanitation”

Goal 7 “Affordable and clean energy”

Goal 9 “Industry, innovation and infrastructure”

Goal 10 “Reduced inequality”

Goal 11 “Sustainable cities and communities”

Goal 17 “Partnerships for the goals”

 Goal 8 “Decent work and economic growth”

Goal 12 “Responsible consumption and production”

Goal 13 “Climate action”

Goal 14 “Life below water”

Goal 15 “Life on land”
Denmark 2 (of 149) Goal 1 “No poverty”

Goal 3 “Good health and well-being”

Goal 4 “Quality education”

Goal 6 “Clean water and sanitation”

Goal 9 “Industry, innovation and infrastructure”

Goal 10 “Reduced inequality”

Goal 17 “Partnerships for the goals”

 Goal 8 “Decent work and economic growth”

Goal 12 “Responsible consumption and production”

Goal 13 “Climate action”

Goal 14 “Life below water”

Goal 15 “Life on land”
Estonia 21 (of 149) Goal 1 “No poverty”

Goal 4 “Quality education”

Goal 6 “Clean water and sanitation”

Goal 11 “Sustainable cities and communities”

 Goal 3 “Good health and well-being”

Goal 9 “Industry, innovation and infrastructure”

Goal 13 “Climate action”

Goal 15 “Life on land”

Goal 16 “Peace and justice. Strong institutions”

Goal 17 “Partnerships for the goals”
Finland 4 (of 149) Goal 1 “No poverty”

Goal 3 ‘Good health and well-being”

Goal 4 “Quality education”

Goal 6 “Clean water and sanitation”

Goal 10 “Reduced inequality”

Goal 11 “Sustainable cities and communities”

 Goal 8 “Decent work and economic growth”

Goal 12 “Responsible consumption and production”

Goal 13 “Climate action”

Goal 14 “Life below water”

Goal 15 “Life on land”

Goal 17 “Partnerships for the goals”
Germany 6 (of 149) Goal 1 “No poverty”

Goal 6 “Clean water and sanitation”

Goal 7 “Affordable and clean energy”

 

 Goal 9 “Industry, innovation and infrastructure”

Goal 13 “Climate action”

Goal 14 “Life below water”

Goal 17 “Partnerships for the goals”
Latvia 28 (of 149) Goal 1 “No poverty”

Goal 6 “Clean water and sanitation”

Goal 7 “Affordable and clean energy”

Goal 14 “Life below water”

 Goal 2 “Zero hunger”

Goal 9 “Industry, innovation and infrastructure”

Goal 15 “Life on land”

Goal 16 “Peace and justice. Strong institutions”

Goal 17 “Partnerships for the goals”
Lithuania 31 (of 149) Goal 1 “No poverty”

Goal 4 “Quality education”

Goal 6 “Clean water and sanitation”

 

 Goal 7 “Affordable and clean energy”

Goal 9 “Industry, innovation and infrastructure”

Goal 13 “Climate action”

Goal 15 “Life on land”

Goal 16 “Peace and justice. Strong institutions”

Goal 17 “Partnerships for the goals”
Poland 38 (of 149) Goal 1 “No poverty”

Goal 6 “Clean water and sanitation”

Goal 12 “Responsible consumption and production”

Goal 14 “Life below water”

Goal 2 “Zero hunger”

Goal 7 “Affordable and clean energy”

Goal 8 “Recent work and economic growth”

Goal 9 “Industry, innovation and infrastructure”

Goal 13 “Climate action”

Goal 14 “Life below water”

Goal 15 “Life on land”

Goal 16 “Peace and justice. Strong institutions”

Goal 17 “Partnerships for the goals”

A series of interviews made with REALS partners confirm the results of the UN assessment. Strengths and weaknesses in achieving SGDs at the national level mentioned by the community leaders and experts generally correspond with the Table XX. Nevertheless, the REALS partners emphasis the ultimate importance to understand clear and strategically: what is the real purpose and benefit of the SDGs, how can they be made an effective working instrument for achieving better and more sustainable world rather than being another formal framework for “repackaging” business as usual models into a more sound and “contemporary” statistics?

In the following section we identify the main “areas of concern” by the REALS partners expressed during the interviews, formal and informal discussions at the meetings, training and seminars during the project. We hope this reflections, followed by suggested directions for action will be considered by decision-makers and taken into account when designing and implementing SDGs in the region.

 

SDGs in Baltic Sea Region – more than new statistics;
Questions and recommendations on behalf of REALS

 

This section mirrors a “collective intelligence” of REALS, which has been evolving through conversations, communication and activities. Below we identify the main areas of concern, questionmarks and recommendations regarding the SDG´s.

Cross-sectoral and cross-level approach for community enabling

A general vision within the UN is that efficient governance mechanisms for the SDG´s have to be put in place at global, regional, national, local- and community-centered levels, encouraging all to take an active role. This will be based on participatory approaches, building upon the principles of transparency, accountability and empowering citizens, local communities, businesses, NGOs and other civil society players. How this is going to be realised in practice is still to be seen and worked out.

Lots of organizations and governmental institutions advocate for the implementation and integration of the Agenda i national and regional policies. In parallell, several global campaigns are launced to increase popular awareness of the #Global goals. These campaigns -launched by eg. the UN- often address the importance of local and community-led action and engagement.

But, although effective communication via Internet, media, and social-media is seen as critically important part of the process, the first and the most crucial step is to foster and enable community-led action on the ground. This experience has to be made highly visible through media and communicative tools widely spreading information on what actually happen within the existing mosaics of local fields, initiatives and communities, as well as inquire how that can be even more enabled, by seeing how common people are encouraged to act and learn.

We ask:

  • How can the SDGs be used to support and facilitate changes on the ground? How can Agenda-2030 support local initiatives working at the cross-section of the SDG targets (e.g. social, economic and environmental community resilience)?
  • How can local initiatives support and contribute to implementation of the national and international SDG targets?
  • How the BSR and neighbouring area can support and facilitate effective common actions under Agenda-2030 including coordination between national SDG plans, promoting integration, supporting information dissemination and setting up standards (e.g. for public involvement and monitoring)?
The private sector and moneydriven corporate power – can it support the SDGs?

The private sector is rapidly gaining increased interest for the implementation of the SDGs, and corporations have been important stakeholders in the establishement of the Agenda2030. Many corporations do have a quickly growing sense of responsability related to questions and challenges targeted by the goals. And the private/corporate sector is given high importance within the mainstream discussion on the Agenda2030 and its chances for achievement, often with green-tech highlighted as the main pathway to success.

Corporations are also seen as important collaborators within a wider need of a multi-stakeholder and cross-sectoral collaboration where responsabilites towards local needs and environmental regions are fully adressed.

We ask:

  • Can primarily money driven corporate interests truly support a world which perhaps needs to cultivate other forms of “capital” and value? We return to this question further down.
  • Lets say that profit driven corporations truly could support the implementation of the SDGs (which would require an radical increase in the “cultivation of other forms of “capital[3] than only financial); – which changes (philosophical, economic, social, educational) are then made to balance the interests of financial prosperity with other forms of human development and well-being (personal development, healthy environment, rights of all living beings, happiness)?

 

A complex, “holistic” and integrated approach

The Agenda-2030 have been developed with an awareness of the highly complex and interconnected nature of todays challenges. Therefore it takes steps beyond the three connected pillars of sustainable development: social, economic and ecological and embodies an approach where social, environmental, cultural, economic and “glocal” dimensions are integrated and interdependent.

The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) points out the need for an integrated approach: “This is where the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) fell short: they identified sectoral goals – and targets under them – with little consideration of how efforts to attain a goal in one sector would affect (or be affected by) efforts in another sector, or whether the total demand for key resources could be met by existing supplies without degrading the resource base and underlying ecosystems[4]. Many SDG proposals to date have followed a similar pattern.

Yet a different “holistic” approach is gaining support as well – one that aims to integrate goals across sectors to make the SDGs more cost-effective and efficient, reduce the risk that SDG actions will undermine one another, and ensure sustainable resource use. As a project-partnership based on the view that challenges and solutions related to healthy, sustainable and resilient life are always characterized by complexity and interdependency, the REALS warmly welcomes the holistic perspective which the Agenda2030 opens up for. Working with the interconnected benefits of our systems is crucial for re-generation of damaged ecosystems, health and social relations. This is a central insight from our partners as well as other communities whithin the permaculture-, ecovillage- and transition towns networks.

We ask

  • How can an intersectoral and systemic approach actually empower bottom-up interaction and real justice for all -beyond “business as usual”?
  • How can the holisitc approach embedded in the SDGs be kept? How can the silo-way of approach be prevented, where stakeholders only choose the goals and targets which suits them best?
  • How can the holistic vision embedded in the goals be a motor in rediscovering the essential interconnectedness of ecological, cultural, social and individual life?
Path to a fair and peaceful world?

Agenda2030/SDGs could be a new pathway to a more fair and sustainable world. It could support local communities and regions to act “glocally” – ie acting locally for both local and global sustainability, resilience and health. The achievement of basic levels of goods and services for all, where it goes hand in hand with re-generated ecosystemhealth and services, may be a future possibility for all everywhere. Improved and fair redistribution of wealth and resources (locally, regionally, globally); as well as equitable access to opportunities, information and rule of law – could be realised through the buildup of resilience on all levels – environmentally, socially and individually. But how can this tremendous capacity for change emerge in a world marked by the paradigms of neo-colonialism, patriarchy, racism and competition?

Critisism from many levels are pointing towards the double sidedness of, for example, development work: for each dollar given to economically poorer countries, 18 is taken out[5]. How can the SDG´s contribute to a new paradigm shift where they support the transition beyond a injustice and a “buisness as usual” approach? How can the SDG´s bring true justice to all, including non human beings, within highly complex challenges?

New vision, innovative ideas

Within the 2030 Agenda, innovation is seen as a key to development and progress. And new “fresh” ideas are needed based on science, traditional knowledge and citizen common sense. But how will these new ideas effect the highly complex and interconnected ecosysems, socio-cultural communities and unique places where they are to be implemented? And which values can community-led action/engagement add to truly resilient implementation of solutions?

The implementation of Agenda 2030 depends on the participation and engagement of a multitude and diversity of stakholders, and there are already great awareness and agreement embedded in the SDG-articulation pointing towards the need for powerful solutions to be continously based on cross-sectoral and multi-level interaction, participation and governance. How this can be done and how it will look like seem to be very diffuse and unagreed.

As a project-partnership based on the view that challenges and solutions related to healthy, sustainable and resilient life always are characterized by complexity and interdependency, we warmly welcome the holistic perspective which the Agenda2030 opens up for.

But – how can the holistic approach embedded in the goals be kept? How can the silo-way of approach be prevented, where stakeholders only choose the goals and targets which suits them best?

And how can the holistic vision embedded in the goals be a motor in rediscovering the essential interconnectedness of ecological, cultural, social and individual life? Working with the interconnected benefits of our systems is crucial for re-generation of damaged ecosystems, health and social relations. This is a central insight in communities whithin the permaculture-, ecovillage- and transition networks.

Recommendations:
  • We call for increased support and action related to local initiatives which has an inherent integrated approach and therefore targets many of the SDGs simoultaneosly.

There is a need to unleash the creativity we know exists, deepen participation of citizens and redirect funding streams to support community-led innovation projects. This call also highlights the need for policymakers to look over the horizon, and seeing beyond eg social innovation towards socio-ecological innovation, from cultural analysis to biocultural analysis, from anthropocentic to biocentric perspectives. This does not mean that specialism isn´t needed. It means that experts needs leaders and companions who carry a bigger array of approaches and networks. Forms which allow integrated approaches can be cooperatives with a socio-ecological basis, community supported production, with CSA as an important example, ecovillages and other social initiatives as best practices for sustainable living. Permaculture- Transition and ecovillage projects as well as local governments for sustainability (example ICLEI) are examples which readily support an integrated implementation of the SDG´s.

  • We call for a radicalization concerning the SDG´s, its implementation, monitoring and financing
    Root causes should be adressed such a the wealth of the 1%, the externalization of ecological and social costs, and the non-recognition of ecological debt. Implementing the Agenda 2030 in a responsible, fair and just way will not be possible without taking these essential aspects into account. One of serveral necessary ways to do this is to include ecocide (eradicatingecocide.com) as an international crime within the Rome statues.Reducing ecologically perverse subsidies need to be an urgent and prominent measure to help get us to achieve a true cost economy.
  • We call for an alternative to GDP in measuring the SDG´s in terms of development, prosperity and health.This call especially targets SDG 8. Goal 8 is the one goal which has received lots of doubt within the REALS partnership group[6]. Altermative models include e.g. Gross National Happiness in Bhutan and a model developed within the Permaculture framework.- “the 8 forms of capital[7] – cultural, social, living, material, financial, experiential, learning and spiritual.
  • We call for increased empowerment towards approaches within socio-ecological innovation, entrepreneurship and action. Approaches which often have been situated “at the margins” can then begin to be placed closer towards the mainstream. Examples are illustrated by these “multifaceted” and open ended questions: “How can socio-ecological livelihoods create platforms for leadership trainings focused on sustainability and resilience? ; ”How can improved social wellbeing of people be integrated with land-stewardship and food production practices?” ; “How can increased personal resilience be interlinked with increased climate change adaptation?”
  • We call for finance which is increasingly circular in a regional and localised way, applying the principle of subsidarity.
  • We call for cross-silo research and collaboration, pro-active awareness raising campaigns and advocacy
    • Development of the multi-purpose indicators to make assessment of the SDGs at all levels to monitor, evaluate and learn from the experience how to progress.
    • Building the capacities of countries to collect and analyze data, availability of information for different stakeholder group.
    • Raise the political will and preparedness, in the rich countries
    • Support innovative grass-root initiatives and decisions with an holistic focus.
  • We call for increased trans-boundary cooperation and good governance
    • Programs to work in border regions (similar to Interreg) on common issues
    • Promote inter-sectoral partnerships;
    • Sharing case studies and good practices
    • Flagship programmes / projects
  • We call for multi-stakeholder and public- private partnerships
    • Significant efforts should be further put for cooperation between citizens, civil society, various levels of government, private sector;
    • Establishment of issue-based coalitions and platforms that integrate multiple stakeholders (governments, civil society and the private sector) to improve decision-making, strategic planning, service delivery, knowledge sharing, and collective monitoring and accountability at all levels;
    • Change of the institutions for articulation and aggregation of diverse interests into policies.
  • Public Finance: Subsidies and Taxation
    • Stop public finance flows to unsustainable practices;
    • Replace the subsidisation of other unsustainable practices in favour of sustainable alternatives.
    • Supprt systems aiming to develop Basic Income
  • Trade, if fair and green
    • Ensure that “external costs” are internalized whithin all traderegulations.
    • Ensure that in the process of trading that there is a full respect for the environment, and that trade should not violate any of the principles or rights expressed in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights;
    • Ensure that all trade practices are based on principles of good governance, such as transparency, accountability and the rule of law.

Further references and information:

Back to main page

Footnotes:

[1] “Cooperation on sustainable development in the Baltic Sea Region – climate change adaptation case study” CBSS Pl Precidency 16.10.2015

[2] “Cooperation on sustainable development in the Baltic Sea Region – climate change adaptation case study” 16102015 https://www.msz.gov.pl/resource/f2de8b50-03bd-4afb-a69c-c547cd7a55c2:JCR

[3] 8 forms of capital: http://www.regenterprise.com/

[4] http://www.sei-international.org/publications?pid=2474

[5] http://therules.org/the-world-bank-poverty-creation-and-the-banality-of-evil/

[6] Interviews made within the REALS partnership

[6] 8 forms of capital: http://www.regenterprise.com/