![](https://static.globalissues.org/ips/2023/09/SDG-Summit-gets_.jpg)
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Sep 22 (IPS) – What does transformative and transformative mean in the overarching efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda?
Now that the second edition of the SDG Summit has concluded, it is time to take stock of what was agreed this week at United Nations Headquarters in New York. The core of the Summit did not consist of the various Leaders’ Dialogues which, as important as it may be to get heads of state and government to think about the Agenda, are just talk without any practical implications.
What deserves more attention instead is the Political Declaration issued at the Summit after months of negotiations facilitated by the governments of Ireland and Qatar. The document has been heralded as truly significant, a “transformative and transformative” game changer that will be able to put sustainable development back at the center of global deliberations.
But is it really so?
Certainly, the Declaration contains bold language that makes a real effort to secure the international community’s steadfast leadership towards the 2030 Agenda. Yet would this be enough to not only compel the world government’s commitment to achieving this goal, but also in-depth follow-up and implementation in the months and years to come?
As we know, the SDGs are still far from on track, and every report published confirms this. The fact that the Declaration is comprehensive, as it covers the entire spectrum of policymaking covered by the Agenda’s seventeen SDGs, is hardly enough.
After all, expectations were high, as the document had to be executable and an impetus for change.
True leadership means and implies action, and after the conclusion of the Summit no one can be optimistic that governments will take concrete action. The reality, as much as the UN tries to portray it in such a way, those who expect achievable, concrete and detailed progress are now feeling disappointed and frustrated, and rightly so.
It is true that the final text has paid close attention to the interconnected challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. But for these two global issues, all the figures that were estimated to solve these two global issues disappeared from the final approved document.
Any reference to the goal of delivering $100 billion by 2025 (let’s not forget that every year, even though this detail didn’t even appear in any of the original drafts that circulated) found no place in the adopted Declaration. The same could be said for the $700 billion biodiversity fund included in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Solace could be found in mentioning the proposal of an SDG Stimulus, one of the key proposals pushed by the UN Secretary General. Unfortunately, in this case too, the figure of $500 billion per year proposed by Mr Guterres did not make the final cut.
As industrialized countries struggle to deliver on their climate action pledges, having a paragraph, even a short one, on the Stimulus can be seen as a victory, especially for Mr. Guterres. The Secretary-General may have mixed feelings about the final Political Declaration.
It is true that his ambitious idea of the Summit of the Future, planned for 2024, was taken up, even if this turned out to be without much enthusiasm from the international community. But on the other hand, the concept of a new social contract, so central to Mr Guterres’ reform agenda, has been completely ignored.
This is perhaps not surprising given the political implications (and consequences) of what can be described as a bold attempt to rethink and renew the relationships and dynamics between the state and its citizens.
After all, at the United Nations, anything that sounds too political (and truly transformative) will be vigorously pushed back by member states, especially those that have their own “unique” understanding of democracy and human rights.
Positive and probably unexpected was the attention the Declaration paid to the latter. Human rights have been accepted not just once, but several times in the document, and this is commendable, if only symbolic.
A disappointment is the fact that no space was given to the importance of citizen involvement, which in itself is a tool for advancing the idea of a New Social Contract. But even without any connection to this overtly progressive idea, civic engagement and thus one of its greatest manifestations, volunteerism, found no place whatsoever in the document.
Apparently UNV was not particularly active during the design process, nor during the whole series of side events organized around the SDG Summit, and this is quite alarming. Even more so, the fact that the Declaration offers no transformative plans or promises to empower youth.
It is as if the Policy Brief published in April by the Office of the Secretary General, Meaningful Youth Engagement in Policymaking and Decision-Making Process, was not digested at all by the Member States involved in drafting the final document.
In this regard, the creation of a UN Youth Agency, another key part of Mr Guterres’ reform agenda, while important, will not be transformative at all if instruments and mechanisms are not created to enable young people to participate.
The issue of localization of the SDGs, probably the best approach to engage and mobilize citizens, especially young people, in pursuing the 2030 Agenda, also did not receive the necessary attention. Likewise, the entire process of the Voluntary National Reviews or VNRs was not emphasized as it should have been.
It remains incomprehensible why the Member States are not so keen to translate the SDGs at local level. “We will continue to integrate the SDGs into our national policy frameworks and develop national plans for transformative and accelerated action,” the statement read.
“We will make the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and achieving the SDGs a central focus of national planning and monitoring mechanisms,” the document further adds.
This recognition is certainly welcomed, but only a lot of political capital and commitment will be able to translate these lofty statements into a real revolution in the way policymaking is currently carried out, which is far too remote and disconnected from the people.
However, localizing the SDGs should have been seen as a real game changer, and much more attention should have been paid to it. We should have gone much further than the declaration in the Declaration, according to which leaders say that “the SDGs will be further localized and integrated planning and implementation will be promoted at the local level.”
The Political Declaration is a positive document, but by no means a groundbreaking document. The reality is that governments are not really held accountable for implementing their SDGs.
The VNR mechanism is completely inadequate, not only because it is voluntary, but also from a structural point of view. Ultimately, there is no real watchdog with power over countries that are missing their commitments to achieving the SDGs, nor does the UN system have any real leverage to force member states to submit their VNRs within a binding timeframe.
I wish the SDG Summit would resemble a COP process like the annual climate change-related process, with real pressure and real negotiations. Under the current setup, leaders come to the Summit just to talk, preach, complain or be condescending, but there is no real high-level negotiation.
That is why, for example, the language on climate change mentioned throughout the document, as important as it is, does not address the real debate about phasing out and phasing out fossil fuels.
In this context, the fact that the Political Declaration does not mince words on the ongoing but stalled negotiations on a legally binding mechanism or the Treaty on Business and Human Rights unfortunately becomes something redundant and replaceable.
The Writer is co-founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership and is based in Kathmandu.
IPS ONE office
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram
© Inter Press Service (2023) — All rights reservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service