Part 1: Everything you need to know about the Post-2015 Development Agenda

Part one of our three part series on the Post-2015 Development Agenda.

As the race to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) enters its final stretch, concerned citizens wait to see whether the findings of the Open Working Group will translate into a set of Sustainable Development Goals that closes the environmental, social and economic development gaps left by the MDGs. Wait a moment. What’s this again? Is this different from the Post-2015 Development Agenda? What happened to the High Level Panel of Eminent Persons? And how does this tie into the World We Want survey I completed earlier this year? Confused? I’m not surprised.

Let me try to clarify things. In 2000, world leaders committed to a new global partnership to reduce poverty set out in time-bound targets with a deadline of 2015: the eight Millennium Development Goals. A decade later, it was clear that ‘poverty had not been made history’. So in June 2012, at the UN conference known as Rio+20, it was agreed that a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) would be developed to replace the MDGs. The UN Secretary-General established a High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons to advise on this process. At the same time, the UN facilitated thematic consultations on 11 key issues and 50 national dialogues. In January 2013, the General Assembly established an Open Working Group to prepare an SDG proposal. In June 2013, the High Level Panel released their report, which outlined 12 goals and 54 indicators. About a year later, in July 2014, the Open Working Group concluded its report; a proposal comprising 17 goals and 169 targets. Between now and September 2015, there will be inter-governmental negotiations in the General Assembly culminating in a Post-2015 Summit in September 2015.

I’m not surprised you’re confused. More importantly, there’s a lot evidence to suggest that you’re also not that interested. There has been sparse media commentary on the SDG process, and the few pieces that have been published have either been penned by UN agencies or focus more on high profile Arab participation in the process, such as Her Majesty Queen Rania’s appointment to the HLP, than on the substance. When I speak to civil society organisations, this apathy is echoed. They are nonplussed why they should divert energy and scarce resources into building momentum around a process that is unlikely to impact their budgets, operating environment or beneficiary groups. There is also a perception that the process is too politicised; how many of you tuned out when you read that the final step in establishing the SDGs involved nine-months of inter-governmental negotiations at the General Assembly?

Yet, this is where I think we need more discussion. The MDG agenda and what will replace it has a profound impact on development programming. For better or for worse, these global targets channel funding, and thus programming, in very specific ways. When the MDGs curiously failed to include justice and the rule of law — despite the clear linkages between weak justice systems, conflict and growth — the effect was to demote the importance of the justice sector in development strategising, and to cut it off from mainstream funding mechanisms. Grassroots organisations, all the way up to UN agencies felt pressured to couch proposals in MDG-terms, regardless of whether there was a tangible connection or not.

Second, several benefits have accrued from this process. Eight isolated goals focused thinking and galvanised action in a way that would not otherwise have been possible, escalating understanding about poverty reduction. The MDG framework also strengthened statistical systems and data collection, which has encouraged a transition towards development planning based more upon evidence than politics.

So just for a moment, let’s say we buy into this idea that the MDG-SDG process is important. How is the West Asia-North Africa region progressing? North Africa appears on track to meet 4 of the 8 goals (universal primary education, reduced child mortality, environmental sustainability and a global development partnership), and 9 of the 16 targets. West Asia should meet 2 of the 8 goals (reduced child mortality, and a global development partnership) and 5 of the 16 targets. Both regions have made no progress or progress has deteriorated in efforts to halt and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDs. West Asia’s performance only outclasses that of Sub-Saharan Africa (which is expected to meet 1 of the 16 targets) and Oceania (expected to meet 2 of the 16 targets). North Africa isn’t doing much better – its progress leads only these regions and South Asia.

The story is not all bad. The WANA region has made remarkable progress towards education targets, most notably in gender parity in education, and has the potential to become a world leader in renewable energy technology. But it remains a land of contradiction. Its bourgeoning youth population - the largest in the world - has the potential to lift the region out of poverty and establish a new era of responsible government, or be the flashpoint for protracted conflict and environmental degradation. While countries such as Jordan suffer from extreme water and energy insecurity, Gulf States are among the world’s highest users of energy for desalination, and while the region is a leader in female literacy and higher education, their low labor force participation rates limits economic advancement.

So what does all this mean? That the region is not progressing as well as it should, and that this agenda matters, means that the SDGs are too important to be decided on the 38th floor of the UN headquarters building in New York. The time is ripe to pressure policy makers to better understand the priorities and challenges specific to this region to make sure that they are reflected in the global agenda.

We also need to make sure that lessons learned through this global experiment are taken up. As pressure to meet MDG targets has intensified it has become clear that it is possible for a goal to be met, but that it is met unsafely or non-equitably. Guaranteed access to water, for example, is meaningless without looking at water quality or regularity of access. Any new set of international commitments must, therefore, include quality and equity safeguards.

Another lesson is the importance of flexibility to align goals with national priorities. The water-energy scarcity and refugee challenges of Jordan are not shared by the sea level rise and extreme poverty problems of Melanesia, or the health crisis and spread of HIV/AIDs in Africa. We need to ensure that the inevitable ‘watering down’ involved in negotiating global goals does not prevent evidence-based national priorities from being set. If targets are too far away from national interests, development becomes skewed and the aspirational value of the process is lost.

So please, take charge of this agenda. Use the next nine months to spearhead a discussion about regional development priorities. There was no roadmap annexed to the MDGs and there will likewise be no roadmap for the SDGs. The Arab region needs to write this roadmap itself, and that requires frank assessment of our region, the constraints and opportunities therein, and the messy interconnections between goals. Better to start now than never.