Carrying Out 2030 Agenda will Require Governments Adapt Institutions, Policies, Speakers Agree, as Economic and Social Council Continues Integration Segment
Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the national level would require Governments to adapt institutions, policies and relationships with companies and civil society to better serve their diverse populations, the Economic and Social Council heard today, as it moved into day two of its integration segment.
The annual segment promotes integration of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. The 2016 session aims to develop policy recommendations that will guide implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
In a morning panel discussion, titled “institutional frameworks and policy planning”, five experts explored options for carrying out the new Agenda at the national level, highlighting both success stories and pitfalls in merging — and often streamlining — complex institutional arrangements. In those efforts, panellists agreed, people, money and timeframes mattered.
Dang Huy Dong, Deputy Prime Minister, Ministry of Planning and Investment of Viet Nam, described his country’s transition from a centrally planned economy to one that generated 70 per cent of its gross national product from the private sector. Viet Nam would launch a policy for web-based social and crowd-funding, he said, creating a webpage for each commune that allowed residents to interact with donors, enterprises and others interested in supporting rural communities. Each page would be sponsored by a lead donor. “We used to think only the Government could consider providing jobs for people,” he said, “but in our experience, it’s the private sector that is providing jobs.”
Åsa Persson, Senior Research Fellow and leader of the global research theme “Transforming Governance” at the Stockholm Environment Institute, said that unsuccessful policy integration could lead to “policy dilution” where no one was taking responsibility for the nation. Political leadership, organizational change, procedural tools and learning were all critical for an overhaul and examination of how the 2030 Agenda would be approached.
Jenik Radon, Adjunct Professor of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, cited the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to make the point that all voices must be heard. A 600-page environmental impact assessment on the incident focused on seals and walruses, rather than people. “If you are far away from where something happens, it is easy to make decisions on it,” he said, noting that the perspective of policymakers was often far from that of an affected community. As the new Goals were ambitious, he advocated publicizing environmental impact assessments for all eyes to see. “If you know it is public, you know you can be judged and rated. Let all voices be heard,” he said.
In a keynote address, Rachel Kyte, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Sustainable Energy for All, asked participants to imagine they were in a village in Africa in 2024 and that all the residents had electricity, technology and health care. “That is what integration looks like,” she said, noting that how the United Nations organized itself to appreciate where progress was happening — and where it was not — was critical.
An afternoon panel on “making it work: shared vision and innovative thinking in action” heard four experts underscore the importance of turning policies and strategies into action on the ground. The Sustainable Development Goals were both singular and interactive, said the moderator, Sharon S. Dawes, Professor Emerita at the University of Albany. They required new ways to “feed learning” into the process of policymaking.
With that in mind, Julián Ugarte Fuentes, Executive Director for Latin America, Socialab, said his organization had launched an online platform where 500,000 users were proposing ways to provide basic services to people in slums, and more deeply, trying to understand why those people lacked resources in the first place. One reason was about the motivation of traditional providers. “Often, the end goal is not humanity,” he said. “It often is profit.”
Ana Vaz, Research Officer at the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, said many poverty indicators did not capture the overlapping of deprivation. A first step was to define poverty and choose parameters to measure different aspects of it. Programmes could then be tailored towards specific populations.
Wu Xun, Professor and Associate Director, Institute for Public Policy, Hong Kong University of Science, agreed that impact assessments tended to focus less on integration and more on specific objectives for specific policies. To integrate environmental, social and economic considerations in policy, those three aspects must be emphasized throughout the policy formulation process.
David Miller, President and CEO of the World Wildlife Fund Canada and member of the Network of Political Leaders United to Support Shared Societies of the Club de Madrid, supported a “shared societies” approach to achieving the Goals, with equal opportunity to participate in decision-making.
Also speaking in the morning panel were Ricardo Cardona, Sectorial Minister for Social Development and Inclusion of Honduras; and Rolf Alter, Director of the Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). David Donoghue, Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations and co-facilitator of the Post-2015 Development Agenda, was the moderator.
The Economic and Social Council will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 4 May, to conclude its integration segment.
Opening Remarks
SVEN JÜRGENSON (Estonia), Vice-President of the Economic and Social Council, said that the morning panel would address institutional and governance frameworks needed for the effective integration of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. The session would also consider how policy innovation and integration could inform national strategic frameworks and policy planning to advance the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Panel I
The Council this morning held a panel discussion on “institutional frameworks and policy planning”. Moderated by David Donoghue, Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations and co-facilitator of the Post-2015 Development Agenda, the session featured presentations by Ricardo Cardona, Sectorial Minister for Social Development and Inclusion of Honduras; Dang Huy Dong, Deputy Prime Minister, Ministry of Planning and Investment of Viet Nam; Rolf Alter, Director of the Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); Åsa Persson, Senior Research Fellow and leader of the global research theme “Transforming Governance”, Stockholm Environment Institute; and Jenik Radon, Adjunct Professor of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University.
Mr. DONOGHUE, in his opening remarks as moderator, said that seven months had passed since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, which should not be seen as a “beautiful picture on the wall that we admire but do little about”. It was vital for all member States to keep up the momentum to ensure that the “rich promise of 2015” was fulfilled. The Agenda itself could not answer all of the questions in relation to implementation. There were many different strands to the discussion — what organs would need to be restructured, what could be done at the regional level, what States could do internally and internationally to reach the targets. The United Nations and Member States must begin to adopt frameworks that would, in the years to come, lead to the achievement of the Agenda. It was also important to ensure that all voices were heard and that systems put in place at the national level work actively to recognize that policy impacts in one area could have adverse effects in other areas.
Mr. CARDONA said that 2014 and 2015 were difficult years for Honduras largely because of El Niño. A severe drought had damaged crops and ecosystems. The Government immediately sprung to action, providing food and other supplies to help the 169 towns affected by the weather patterns. It was unfortunate that the effects of climate change could only be seen in the light of poverty. “We were in the poorest of the poorest towns,” he said, recalling how the Government had distributed food to over a thousand people. The country’s President ordered an intervention to put in cement floors in the homes of the villagers. Small businesses were established, as well. The Government implemented three State policies that were making change happen at the grass-roots level. “Better life” was a platform which enabled the Government to reach 1.6 million inhabitants with the goal to reduce poverty. It had also promoted smarter water and land use through providing water, irrigation, financing to small and medium-sized producers, and building roads in rural areas. All of that was implemented and financed by the Government. To fund those initiatives, the Government had increased taxes by 11 to 15 per cent. Honduras had a vision and a national plan which linked its agenda to the Sustainable Development Goals. On a regional level, civil society, local governments and non-governmental support was instrumental. All stakeholders must do their part to spread the message of the Sustainable Development Goals. The message must reach all people, including school children. Policies must come from the top-down but also the bottom-up, he said, emphasizing the need to empower communities.
Mr. DONG said his Government was preparing a plan to implement the Sustainable Development Goals, with the important involvement of the corporate sector. Over the last 30 years, it had gradually reduced the number and importance of State-owned enterprises in the economy, while at the same time, allowed the private sector, including foreign direct investment (FDI), to quickly develop. The private sector now contributed to 70 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). All equitized enterprises were now more efficient, creating jobs and performing better. Viet Nam was also doing more to allow the private sector to support social and economic development, which had created millions of jobs each year. “We used to think only the Government could consider providing jobs for people,” he said, “but in our experience, it’s the private sector that is providing jobs.” The money received from privatization was distributed to social sectors, and the Government had recently pumped $3 billion into education and hospitals. It would launch a policy for “web-based social and crowd funding”. For every commune, which consisted of two or three remote villages, the Government, with the help of telecommunications companies, would provide a free service webpage that described local conditions and allowed residents to interact with donors, enterprises and others interested in supporting rural communities. Each page would be sponsored by a lead donor.
Mr. ALTER said that good governance had always been relevant. There was a clear need for data and an important process was under way to establish indicators to Governments to understand what had to be managed and measured. Transparency and accountability had not been diminishing, and the rule of law and integrity remained vital for good governance. Focusing on institutions, actors and knowledge, he said first that the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development (OECD) supported Governments in ensuring that their institutions were up to the job. To do so, it worked to understand how Governments were organized and had found that several countries had not achieved efficient ways to organize their centres of governance. “Money matters. People matter,” he said, as do “second actors”, including audit institutions, which had found that performance was largely underexploited. Entrepreneurs must be part of the movement towards achieving the Goals, as must cities and international organizations. In addition, knowledge was not just an issue of data. Institutional frameworks must be adjusted to make data an integral basis of decision-making. Enabling environments were essential. Many Governments did not enjoy the full trust of their citizens. But, such trust was vital for carrying out reforms.
Ms. PERSSON, sharing insight from the research community, stressed the importance of policy review and upgrading institutions. Across different countries and regions, institutional arrangements were insufficient. Tough choices needed to be made and that would require political accountability. The successes of environmental policy and integration had fluctuated over time, and it was important to remember that unsuccessful policy integration could result in “policy dilution” to the point that a nation became “no one’s responsibility”. Political leadership, organizational changes, procedural tools and a cognitive and learning dimension were all critical for an overhaul and examination of how the 2030 Agenda would be approached. There was no time for a business-as-usual approach. There were already some of the proposed downstream tools in place and what was needed now was a more upstream approach. It was interesting and encouraging to see that countries were upgrading their tactics by setting up committees and review processes. To that end, they must do more to solve inconsistencies, she said, urging Member States to “get specific” and look at how action in one area impacts other sectors.
Mr. RADON said that, as a lawyer, he frequently looked at cases which made him conclude time and again that all voices must be heard. He mentioned the Gulf of Mexico and BP oil spill. The environmental impact assessment on that case had focused on seals and walruses, which were not even there. That study had also noted a consultant who was no longer alive. The lessons of that particular document were many. First, it was 600 pages long. That meant the document was passed on to officials and it was approved. “Did anyone read it?”, he asked. It was the community who could see their needs. “If you are far away from where something happens, it is easy to make decisions on it,” he said. Since the Sustainable Development Goals were very ambitious, especially in the environmental sense, it would be helpful to publicize all environmental impact assessments so that all voices could be heard and have an opportunity to analyse and assess the findings. That would create incentives for preparers to be accurate and honest because they would be held accountable. All voices must be heard because “one could never have enough monitors and reviewers”. Professionals made the decisions but it was people in the communities who were most impacted. As a lawyer, he knew how important it was to examine the law. Any sort of impact on the environment must be made public. Focusing on the pragmatic was a challenge. “We can speak to each other, but can we speak to the community?”, he asked. More people must have access to the information and then they could comment and examine and institutions must adapt to the feedback.
In the ensuing discussion, participants outlined national plans and strategies to implement the Sustainable Development Goals and explored how to adapt institutional arrangements to promote integrated decision-making.
The representative of the Republic of Korea underscored the need for institutions to implement the Sustainable Development Goals, noting that the Government’s role was to build institutional frameworks. She agreed that countries required national strategies to implement the Goals.
The representative of Guyana pointed out that integration sometimes required adjusting the “nuts and bolts” of national structures, leading to confusion over “who is responsible for what”. He asked about the risks of policy integration, noting that Guyana did not have a national Sustainable Development Goals strategy but it did have policy orientation towards a green agenda for all of its 10 administrative regions. Its approach was to use the administrative dimension more effectively in promoting “development hubs”. That was a challenge, as some communities were sparse and spread out.
A representative of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) cited a World Bank study on how policies could be integrated in practice, notably through digital means.
Ms. PERSSON, responding to those comments, drew attention to integrating policies in a democratic manner, noting that the Swedish Government had delegated to sectoral authorities the implementation of 16 national environmental objectives. The process had worked but had a high transaction cost associated with that decision.
Mr. CARDONA, on digital innovation, said his Government’s communication policy, which it established with the private sector, had worked well. Public-private integration could be useful in implementing the Goals and reducing poverty.
Mr. DONG said company registrations were now done online, which could never have happened in years past, while a public procurement portal had created more transparency, which, in turn, could make a three- to four-fold difference for procuring agencies.
Mr. ALTER said integration had upside and downside risks, and Governments must provide more evidence for decisions made to exploit synergies. Risks had to be made known and evaluated with their costs and benefits. Integration would take more time and resources. There would be a loss in the speed of implementation because it would take more time to listen and act on all voices. The risks of dilution could be reduced by frontloading decision-making: investing early and understanding where Governments could learn from successes and failures.
Mr. RADON recalled that Governments created the environment. “That’s where the Government’s strength is,” he said. Risks must be managed. Innovation meant sharing ideas, and since that was so complex, Governments could not rely on one expert. People’s voices were needed and should be integrated into decisions. “Our job is to integrate what we learn from them,” he stressed.
Mr. JÜRGENSON, opening the afternoon session, said the inclusive and transparent processes underlying the 2030 Agenda were essential for active ownership by a broad spectrum of groups, which in turn, opened the door to an array of talent and skills. Those advantages had the potential to expand solutions through greater knowledge, market access and technological availability.
Keynote Address
RACHEL KYTE, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Sustainable Energy for All, said that integration was often spoken about in the abstract. She asked participants to close their eyes and imagine that they were in a village in Africa and the year was 2024. Imagine that all of the people there had access to electricity, technology and health care. That was what integration looked like. She also asked participants to picture they were in London in 2024 in a meeting of board members of firms who served the energy sector. Imagine that those in the meeting were predominantly women and they were senior representatives of the energy firm. That was integration. Technology could get the world to that 2024, if institutions, political will and the necessary financing were realized.
How the United Nations organized itself to appreciate where progress was happening and to integrate where progress was not happening would be critical, she said. It was about putting different people in the room and getting different answers on the questions at hand. The scale of integrated solutions would be enormous. From a development perspective, when one talked to a community leader and a local mayor, broader issues would become more specific. A global emissions problem must be turned into an issue easily accessible and into something relatable such as the creation of jobs that would result from clean energy initiatives. Integrated solutions may be needed for those who would be left behind, such as coal communities. “That would require enormous sensitivity, support and targeted help,” she said. As prices dropped for new renewable technologies, it would become increasingly possible to lift people out of poverty for less. In Nairobi, people were using cellular phones to change their lives as they, for the first time, could use those devices to access clean, affordable and reliable energy.
It was important to bring the results collected on the ground into the United Nations system and broker much-needed conversations, she continued. Integration also meant the inclusion of stakeholders as they would have to recommit to the process of making it all happen — “to bring kilowatts into people’s lives”. Affordable clean energy for all was a way to bring dignity to those who did not have it and entrepreneurship to those who craved it. If the energy sector in 2024 resembled what it looked like today, then the world would not have gone through the transition it needed. Integration meant bringing different perspectives into the mix. “We will work with any and all because we believe this is an achievable goal before 2030,” she said, urging everyone to join the conversation.
Panel II
In the afternoon, the Council held a panel on “making it work: shared vision and innovative thinking in action”, moderated by Sharon S. Dawes, Professor Emerita, University of Albany, United States. It featured presentations by Ricardo Cardona, Sectorial Minister for Social Development and Inclusion of Honduras; David Miller, President and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada and member of the Network of Political Leaders United to Support Shared Societies of the Club de Madrid; Ana Vaz, Research Officer at the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative; Julián Ugarte Fuentes, Executive Director for Latin America, Socialab; and Wu Xun, Professor and Associate Director, Institute for Public Policy, Hong Kong University of Science.
Ms. DAWES, opening the panel, underscored the importance of turning policies and strategies into action on the ground. This afternoon’s panel would discuss the broad talent and skills that would open doors to a larger scope of knowledge and a wider pool of stakeholders and experiences. Collectively, the Sustainable Development Goals were complex and daunting. Silos might never disappear; Governments might need to work around or with them. But, boundaries were more amenable to “cross-talk” — the idea that we could learn from any experience in carrying out the Goals. Each Goal represented ways of thinking, areas of focus that were at once singular and interactive.
She said the Goals represented boundaries among the public, private and civil sectors. Boundaries were seen also in different levels of development, which occurred around the world and often within the same country. Regions — defined by geography — represented another set boundaries for crossing, as did languages and the values embedded in them, institutions, communities, and different ideas of good performance in considering what constituted a better life. Crossing boundaries could be a form of knowledge-sharing — and risk-taking: doing things differently and understanding connections as never before.
Mr. MILLER, noting that the Club de Madrid was a network of more than 100 Presidents and Prime Ministers who had come to power through democratic processes, said the “shared societies” concept was the right way to think about achieving the Goals in an integrated manner. It was essential to include all segments of society in discussions on how to address economic challenges. Those challenges included progress that was too slow, systems that were not fit-for-purpose, sustainability that was a low priority compared to self-interest, and technology, which could be used to help many, but was often used to benefit the few. Toronto’s economic development strategy was based on “One Toronto” — an idea that no one should be left behind that had helped the city address problems in an integrated manner. Important questions centred around whether all sectors were involved; there was transparency and full access to information; how benefits were divided; impacts on the natural environment; and who bore the costs. The “shared societies” agenda showcased what was required to enable the people-centred approach at the heart of the 2030 Agenda.
Mr. UGARTE FUENTES said that Socialab observed problems and organization in slums. Questions were around how to solve water problems through traditional public policies, as well as innovative solutions. His organization had launched an online platform that today had 500,000 users who were proposing solutions to provide water, and more deeply understand why people lacked basic resources in the first place. One reason was because they were poor. They did not own the land. Another reason was about the motivation of providers. “Often, the end goal is not humanity,” he said. “It often is profit.” In turning to others for ideas, he realized that young people were driven by purpose. Throughout Latin America, companies based on empathy and solutions were growing more popular, with consumers — people — recognizing that mission by choosing to spend money on their products and services. For consumers and investors, there was opportunity to move money towards “the guy who loves” and away from “the one who is selfish”. More broadly, he supported a shift away from an economy of selfishness towards one of love.
Ms. VAZ focused her presentation on assessing poverty in all its dimensions, saying that many of the current measurements did not capture the overlapping of deprivation. The first step would be to determine how one defined poverty and choose parameters to measure its different aspects. One must study individually the deprivation of each specific individual or household. After identifying the poor, the deprivation score needed to be calculated in other methodologies. Suppose that a girl stopped going to school, her deprivation score would have deteriorated and her situation would worsen. Measuring such an overlapping impacts index would create specific programmes that could be applied to specific groups and populations. To that end, Governments were beginning to adopt a multidimensional poverty index, which would inform them in building tailored approaches to various grass-roots problems.
Ms. VAZ, in the ensuing discussion, responding to a question from the representative of Peru about allocation of resources, said that identifying the poorest populations allowed Governments to identify insufficiencies in each municipality. Using Colombia as an example, she noted how it had built a map outlining where deprivation, poverty and inequality existed.
Mr. MILLER said that a similar measure occurred in Toronto which then prioritized public investments into neighbourhoods in need. “It’s about where the needs are the greatest, and therefore, that gives Governments most interested in solving various challenges the opportunity to do so,” he said.
Mr. UGARTE FUENTES, answering a question posed by Chile’s delegate about the “economy of love”, said that many people work for money and that promoted selfishness. People have realized that they “don’t like selfishness” and focused more on love and mixing that into the economy. Money was just a means to an end, but with love a society could grow. There were no poor in the world, rather it was just the context applied to them.
Mr. WU said that impact assessments tended to focus less on integration and more on specific objectives for specific policies. To integrate environmental, social and economic considerations in policy, those three aspects must be emphasized throughout the policy-formulation process. A key determinant of success was the issue of capacity. There was often focus on analytical capacity — “whether we know how to do the right things”. Lacking was an emphasis on other capacities, such as political capacity — whether a policy could be sustained in a certain political environment — and operational capacity. Capacity could also be viewed as individual — organizational and system policy capacities. At the individual level, factors centred on how well policymakers demonstrated political acumen, knowledge about policy analysis and managerial expertise in planning, budgeting and staffing. Organizational capacity captured legitimacy in the policy process, availability of policy professionals and an organizational commitment to policy effectiveness. At the system level, it captured the extent of political accountability for policies; quality of system-wide data collection and sharing, and intergovernmental and inter-agency coordination.
The representative of Sweden drew attention to her country’s environmental quality goals and whether they could be followed up. The Government had invited 18 people from varying backgrounds to share their views about the system. “They were 18 different stories”, she said, asking panellists about the balance between indicators that monitored and measured — and “getting the feedback into the system”. She questioned whether indicators truly influenced the policy cycle.
Mr. WU, responding, said that stakeholders in the policy process had different views based on their training and experiences. There was often a conscious effort to bring together people with diverse backgrounds. “The integration has to happen somewhere,” he said, and it could occur at the individual level, so policymakers could be aware of various dimensions. Integration also should happen at the organizational level, building teams with different backgrounds.
Mr. MILLER pointed out that, when the first European explorers after the Vikings came to Canada, they wrote that one could “walk across the cod fish” from the boat to the land. For 400 years, people had fished by hand. In the 1960s, modern techniques took over and small communities tried to survive. What happened was not a scientific failure, but rather, a political failure to use the science. Today, there was an analogy with climate change, with problems around people recognizing the science.
The representative of El Salvador said her country’s new indicator of multidimensional poverty was a major step forward for integration because there was now a move away from measurement based on income to one focused on well-being.
ABZE DJIGMA, Founder and CEO of AbzeSolar, asked how to ensure the quality of data.
Ms. VAZ, answering a question about how to ensure data quality, said at the top of her list would be capacity-building at the level of national statistical offices because they were the ones able to locally collect the most reliable data. A short questionnaire could also be developed to collect information. Mr. XUN emphasized the importance of the process that aimed to improve data quality in the future. An important step was expanding access of data to all.
Mr. UGARTE FUENTES, answering a question about the role of the United Nations, said that innovation was rare, and therefore, was something the Organization should promote. It would be beneficial to create a group that could discuss new ways to develop solutions. The United Nations should support risk because “if we don’t want to fail, who will bring about the new solutions”. Innovators do not necessarily have doors open to them. They also lacked financing and resources.
Mr. MILLER said that the United Nations could be consistent with the philosophy that society shared and that everyone must be part of the solution. The United Nations should consider carefully how to build alliances with local governments and city institutions. Grass-roots organizations must be a part of the conversation, where they could propose solutions and inspire a bottom-up approach. That would help establish a link between a broad policy-setting and community implementation.
Mr. XUN said that to get to the solutions the United Nations must have room to focus on the process. Instead of developing a universal approach, working with individual countries would be a good starting point. When those recommendations converge they could be adopted on a global level. Much attention had been focused on analytical, but not on the political and operational aspect.
The representative of Iraq, taking to the floor, said the United Nations had a pool of experience and information in the area of where it had succeeded and failed. Those experiences could be used to determine new formulas and approaches to ensure that everyone was working at the same level to accomplish set goals and build integrated policies.
A representative of civil society emphasized the importance of data and stressed the need for quality information. It would be helpful if the United Nations held a panel about its experience with making critical discussions “in the unknown” where it did not have the information it needed.