PHM-Exch> Technocratic fiddling while the planet burns: Towards a higher level of ambition for the UN's High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Developmenr

[Claudio Schuftan]

The 2019 High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development—the global
platform for reviewing progress on the SDGs—took place last week at the UN
in New York, and in general terms, it was more of the same. Admirable
rhetoric, but not much evidence of serious efforts at comprehensive
implementation, and a host of major flaws and limitations to contend with.
As CESR has observed at previous HLPFs (see 2017
<http://www.cesr.org/es/node/49528> and 2018
<http://www.cesr.org/es/node/49690>), the space given to civil society is
far too limited, most of the Voluntary National Reviews feel very
disconnected from reality, and one leaves with the feeling that most
governments are at best timidly tinkering around the edges, making minor
adjustments to business-as-usual while the planet burns.
There were, however, three elements that made this year’s HLPF somewhat
distinct. First, inequalities were under the spotlight, given that Goal 10
(“reduce inequality within and among countries”) was up for special review
for the first time, and the overall theme was “Empowering people and
ensuring inclusiveness and equality.” Goal 10 had been given scant
attention at the HLPFs so far—an analysis of the 2018 VNRs by the Committee
on Development Policy confirmed that SDG10 received the fewest mentions,
for example. So 2019 was an opportunity to bring inequalities to the
forefront and honestly grapple with the implementation challenges.

There was widespread acknowledgement that most countries are way off-track
with regard to tackling inequality, and in many areas we are in fact moving
backwards—with regard to wealth and income inequality, but also with the
frightening growth of xenophobia and discriminatory attitudes towards
migrants, as well as backlashes to the rights of women and LGBTQIA+ people.
However, there was little insight in the official sessions as to the real
obstacles to making progress on inequality—corporate and elite capture,
vested interests, lack of political will and failures of global economic
governance. As the Pathfinders “challenge paper
<https://cic.nyu.edu/publications/challenge-paper-inequality-and-exclusion>”
makes clear, we already know what policies work—the problem is that those
measures are not politically palatable to those wielding power. For
instance, in the official session on Goal 10, there was plenty of
rhetorical agreement on the importance of progressive fiscal policy—but
when States lined up to dutifully tell the world what they had done to
tackle inequality, the word “tax” had somehow disappeared from their
vocabulary. Meanwhile, Goal 10 commitments regarding human rights and
discrimination were also largely overlooked in the discussion.

Indeed, the most concrete, grounded and strategic discussions about the
impacts of inequality, its drivers and remedies took place outside of UN
premises, for example, at the launch
<https://www.globalpolicywatch.org/blog/2019/07/17/reshaping-governance-for-sustainability-2019-spotlight-report-launched-at-the-un-hlpf/>
of
the civil society Spotlight Report
<https://www.2030spotlight.org/en/book/1883/chapter/reshaping-governance-sustainability>,
and CESR’s “Time to be Bold
<http://www.cesr.org/fighting-inequality-time-be-bold-0>” event with Oxfam,
Fight Inequality Alliance and others. Another event
<https://www.civicus.org/index.php/media-resources/news/united-nations/new-york/3918-civicus-at-the-2019-high-level-political-forum>
co-hosted
by Civicus, CESR and others made brutally clear that the interconnected
fights against extreme inequality and climate catastrophe cannot be won
while human rights and environmental defenders are being silenced,
threatened and jailed. Yineth Balanta <https://twitter.com/MinaYineth>, an
Afro-descendant activist and environmental defender from Colombia whom CESR
helped bring to the HLPF, spoke powerfully
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh2Q8tZNZf8&feature=youtu.be> about her
community’s experience of standing up to extractive industries. Meanwhile,
governments such as Egypt were given UN space—and the legitimacy of
co-hosting UN agencies—to hold forth on how they are tackling inequality,
while arresting human rights defenders and other dissenting voices back at
home.

Second, this was the end of the initial four-year cycle of the HLPF, with
“reform” of the HLPF and its modalities now on the table for discussion. In
terms of quantity of engagement, the HLPF has been a big success—with over
140 VNRs presented, and large governmental and civil society delegations
attending. However, the quality of engagement exhibits the same serious
flaws as in 2017 <http://www.cesr.org/es/node/49528> and 2018
<http://www.cesr.org/five-key-takeaways-2018-high-level-political-forum>.
Different proposals
<https://www.2030spotlight.org/en/book/1883/chapter/democratic-global-governance-if-it-doesnt-challenge-power-it-isnt-democratic>
are
being floated now for meaningful reform.

>From CESR’s perspective, there are a number of indispensable measures to be
taken if the HLPF is to grapple more seriously with the challenges of the
SDGs. For example, not only should there be more time for VNRs (half an
hour per country including questions is grossly inadequate), but there
should also be a requirement to hear at least two civil society responses.
Similarly, national civil society shadow or “spotlight” reports must be
given formal status as official contributions to the HLPF, as in the UN
human rights monitoring system.  The three-hour goal-specific panels
reinforce unhelpful silos, so should be replaced with discussions that
tackle major cross-cutting challenges affecting multiple SDGs and requiring
transnational cooperation and solutions. Discussions around debt, the
global tax system, conflict and militarism, migration, climate change
mitigation and adaptation would be a far better use of time at the only
global space designated for discussing progress and setbacks on the 2030
Agenda. However, given the vested interests in the status quo, and the
preoccupation of key UN agencies with sheer volume of engagement from
Member States, it unfortunately seems unlikely that the “reforms” will
amount to anything very radical.

A third observation from the 2019 HLPF is the increasing recognition of the
intersections between human rights and the SDGs, at least by UN figures and
civil society. The 2030 Agenda is formally underpinned by the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights and other international human rights treaties.
As CESR’s executive director, Ignacio Saiz, argues in the Spotlight Report
<https://www.2030spotlight.org/sites/default/files/spot2019/Spotlight_Innenteil_2019_web_special_contribution_I1_Saiz.pdf>,
human rights obligations should therefore be indispensable guideposts to
implementation. However, we are still seeing a very wide disconnect,
despite the efforts and exhortations
<https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24828&LangID=E>
of
the High Commissioner for Human Rights, her staff and civil society. For
example, South Africa presented a VNR this year, but made no reference to
the detailed SDG-related recommendations resulting from its review a few
months ago by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR), such as making fiscal policy more progressive and increasing
spending on health, education and social protection. It fell to civil
society to remind the government of the relevance of CESCR’s
recommendations and the country’s human rights obligations, done with a
powerful statement from the floor and a written submission from CESR,
SECTION 27 and Institute for Economic Justice
<http://www.cesr.org/factsheet-austerity-midst-inequality-threatens-human-rights-south-africa>
.

Of course, integrating human rights in SDG implementation is about far more
than just pointing out relevant treaty body recommendations. It cannot be
reduced to a technocratic or depoliticized exercise of cross-referencing.
Human rights should inform and enliven our understanding of SDG commitments
like “Leave No One Behind”  and “policy coherence
<https://www.2030spotlight.org/en/book/1730/chapter/sdg-10-invoking-extraterritorial-human-rights-obligations-confront-extreme>.”
They should help draw normative red lines
<https://www.2030spotlight.org/en/book/1883/chapter/human-rights-2030-agenda-putting-justice-and-accountability-core-sustainable>
around
governmental discretion and navigate trade-offs and competing interests.
Human rights enable us to spell out the binding duties to which States,
international institutions and powerful non-state actors should be held
accountable <http://www.cesr.org/who-will-be-accountable-sdgs> in their
sustainable development efforts.

For advocates, there is a difficult balance to strike between pragmatism
and integrity—as we try to convince States that their human rights
obligations mean something very immediate to SDG plans and processes.
However, the inconvenient truth is that meaningfully aligning sustainable
development practice with human rights is not easy—if it is, you’re almost
certainly doing it wrong. It should be awkward and challenging to those in
power. Dismantling power hierarchies, systemic inequalities and structures
of oppression are at the very heart of human rights law and practice. That
is exactly why it is so crucial to embrace them if we want to see SDG
implementation become truly transformative and move decisively away from
the business-as-usual status that was so evident at this year’s HLPF.

Kate Donald, CESR
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20190808/96c5fabb/attachment.html>