The much-hyped Sustainable Development Goals to be adopted by the UN summit starting this week in New York will not deliver the new economy that the world so desperately needs. Their creators want to reduce poverty and inequality without touching the wealth and power of the global 1%. They fail to understand a basic fact: Mass poverty is the product of extreme wealth accumulation and over-consumption by a few.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) negotiated painstakingly over two years by all UN Member States with thousands of public interest organizations providing their commitment and expertise have been copyrighted. And by whom? The UN you would think? But no. They have been re-branded as Global Goals (GGs) and the copyrighted by Project Everyone, a private company incorporated and registered in London.
On its own website (www.globalgoals.org), Project Everyone claims ownership of the 17 icons that it is popularizing, with active help from celebrities and the UN Secretariat itself, representing each of the 17 Goals that the heads of State and Government are endorsing this week as common objectives of humanity from here to the year 2030.
For poor countries thwarted in their efforts to reform the global financial system, vague commitments on debt in the 2030 agenda offer scant cause for optimism
In any evaluation of the pros and cons of the millennium development goals, the eighth – on developing a global partnership for development – is inevitably likely to receive the least attention. The idea behind goal eight was that rich countries would change policies to help the MDGs become a reality. The fact that little has happened is one reason why many of the goals will not have been met by the deadline at the end of this year.
The World Bank is to make the most dramatic change to its global poverty line in 25 years, raising its measure by a half to about $1.90 per day in a move likely to swell the statistical ranks of the world’s poor by tens of millions.
The move from $1.25 would be the biggest revision since the World Bank introduced its $1 a day yardstick of global poverty in 1990.
More than a hundred Heads of State and Government will gather in New York this week to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This agenda is intended to make the UN 'fit for purpose', but it is important to ask, 'whose purpose will it be fit for'?
A new study from Global Policy Forum warns that the United Nations is embarking on a new era of selective multilateralism, shaped by intergovernmental policy impasses and a growing reliance on corporate-led solutions to global problems.
Much has been said about the post-2015, now “2030 Agenda”, about its strengths and weaknesses.
Do the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent an agenda for transformation or for a continuation, at best acceleration, of current practices?
They have the seeds of both.
The SDGs are not the Millennium Development Goals, which were partial goals, shaped mainly on the dynamics of receiving external public assistance, ODA.
These goals are universal and inclusive.
“A Brief Biography of Illicit Financial Flows,” examines the evolution of the issue from obscurity to global prominence over the past ten years.
Illicit Financial Outflows as a Drag on Human Rights Realization in Developing Countries
In his chapter, Dr. Thomas Pogge notes that today’s huge human rights deficit is almost entirely avoidable. Here, Dr. Pogge argues that “the morally significant issue is not whether such deprivations were even worse twenty-five years ago. Rather, the morally significant issue is whether such deprivations are today partly or wholly avoidable, and if so, at what cost.” Curbing illicit financial outflows must be an aspect of reducing these human rights deficits; massive rights deficit reductions could be achieved if developing countries were able to capture and collect appropriate tax on illicit financial outflows from multinationals and their own wealthiest citizens.
Five Country Studies: India, Mexico, Russia, the Philippines, and Brazil
To be released at the Washington Conference 21-22 September
In the early 1990s, when I was Prime Minister of Norway, I once found myself debating sustainable development with an opposition leader who insisted that I tell him the government’s single most important priority in that field. Frustrated, I replied that what he was asking was impossible to answer. I concluded our exchange by explaining why: “Because everything is connected to everything.”
Fortunately, such thinking is now more widely held than it was back then, thanks partly to the human development approach, which emphasizes the complexity of nature and recognizes that one-dimensional solutions cannot address multidimensional problems like those we currently face. Indeed, today’s challenges are seldom simply environmental, social, or economic, and their solutions do not lie within the area of competence of a single government ministry. Without broad, multidisciplinary impact analysis, such narrow thinking can lead to new problems.
The High Level Panel on Humanitarian Cash Transfers, which I chaired, published our report this week. We concluded that the international system should take deliberate steps to seize two big opportunities to improve humanitarian aid. First, we should take the opportunity to improve humanitarian aid by providing many more unconditional cash transfers. Second, we should use the spread of cash transfers to help bring about much-needed improvements in the humanitarian system.
Speaking at the conclusion of the Trade Union Climate Summit of 250 trade union leaders from Ghana to Brazil, Canada to the Philippines and climate experts, Foreign Minister Fabius heard union demands for a climate agreement which delivers and commits to just transition and ambition on climate change.
“Unions have been disappointed to see that workers and their families have been left out of the draft climate agreement and have called on the French Presidency to ensure just transition language is reinstated,” said Sharan Burrow, General Secretary, the International Trade Union Confederation.
Governments across Africa are obsessed with foreign direct investment. Yet every year the continent losses billions of dollars through illegal financial outflows connected with FDI. More money is lost through legal transfers of super-profits and foreign investors are responsible for distorting national economies.Governments across Africa are obsessed with foreign direct investment. Yet every year the continent losses billions of dollars through illegal financial outflows connected with FDI. More money is lost through legal transfers of super-profits and foreign investors are responsible for distorting national economies.