Countries wanted to keep their 'policy space' safe so that they can adapt policies in their local contexts. This might be a double-edged sword because on one hand it protects sovereignty of nations to have their own policies but on the other hand does not give any handle to SDG mechanisms to hold countries accountable for policies that are problematic in terms of human rights and social justice.
There was lot of resistance to sexual rights, which were finally dropped off the list of SDGs. Despite resistance reproductive health and rights got included in SDGs, as of now.
Elephant in the room
Corporate capture is indeed an elephant in the room in such discussions. With countries shying away from funding the development agenda, the pressure is mounting on corporations to fund the implementation of SDGs. But countries are almost reluctant to strictly regulate these multinational corporations. One wonders if the influence of the funder-corporations is so huge that countries are shying away from monitoring them?
Three parallel processes for post-2015 goals
Ajit K Jha of PAIRVI said that there were three parallel processes around post-2015 discussions. One was OWGs, which have now concluded with list of 17 SDGs and 168 targets. Another process was Intergovernmental Committee of Experts for Sustainable Development and Financing, which has just concluded after 10 sessions (July 2013-August 2014). Third process is High Level Political Forum (HLPF), which has replaced the Commission on Sustainable Development. All three processes are intergovernmental in nature and participation of civil society representatives is possible subject to approval.
HLPF is unique in a way that it is rooted not just in UN Economic and Social Council (UN ECOSOC) but also in the secretariat of UN General Assembly. Another unique aspect of HLPF is that its resolution supports regional processes to feed in, but the other two processes mentioned above are largely 'New York centric'. So HLPF has 5 regional offices globally that are supposed to facilitate preparatory processes with participation of different countries and groups. However the sad aspect is that at national level there is no effort from the government to hold consultations with civil society around post-2015 discussions. The positive aspect is that civil society is indeed reaching out to engage consultative debates with a range of sectors as well as parliamentarians. Two parliamentarians of ruling party government in India participated in this consultation, one of whom promised to engage other parliamentarians for a dialogue with civil society around post 2015 discussions soon.
What happens when countries do not meet SDGs
This is a missing link as there is almost no mechanism to hold countries accountable on not implementing SDGs rather such accountability mechanisms exist only in other regulatory frameworks such as WTO, etc. Protecting SDGs from corporate capture is another challenge. With negotiations slated to begin in January 2015, let us hope people centric issues take centre-stage to change the world post-2015.
Bobby Ramakant, CNS
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
