Sustainable Development - Making Globalisation Work for People and the Planet - mephistolessiveur.info
Through a schematic representation of the relationships of the three pillars of sustainable development the paper concludes that a lasting solution to the impact. As co-chair of the UN Secretary-General's Sustainable Development Goals Advocates, it is very important for me to interact with young people. In this paper, we link the Maastricht Globalisation Index with. Sustainability of globalisation may render world development more sustainable.
Your generation has a fair chance of being remembered for eradicating poverty and stopping harmful climate change. I there are a number of reasons for this: Most current challenges are not new, however. Poverty, inequality, hunger, crisis, conflict and disease have been with us throughout history. Make no mistake — globalisation is here to stay. And it is crucial for global progress and economic growth. We need more and closer cooperation across the world — not less.
We must manage globalisation — not fight it. So, the important question is: How can we manage globalisation to the benefit of everyone while protecting our environment and climate? I believe the answer is: When the heads of state and government adopted the SDGs at the UN in Septemberit was against the backdrop of unregulated globalisation. The SDGs are a roadmap to the future we want — also in terms of managing globalisation. That said, a roadmap will only show us the way.
It will not take us where we want to go. We as nations and people have to work hard, day by day, in order to reach the 17 goals. China is certainly working hard. China has assisted more than countries in their development process [through South—South cooperation]. I would also like to applaud China for rallying the G20 group of countries around the Hangzhou Action Plan on the Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Let me turn now to some reflections on how we can achieve the SDGs and inclusive globalisation. First, we must exploit the synergies between goals. The 17 SDGs are interlinked. This means that progress on one goal will have positive effects on several other goals. As we are here at this prestigious learning institution, I will use the goal of quality education for all — SDG 4 — as a starting point.
Education is a universal right. It is the key to unlocking opportunities for all, so that everyone can enjoy a better life. Ensuring that all people can enjoy their right to education is a vital component in good governance at all levels — SDG Quality education, including technical and vocational training, will also help people to benefit from globalisation.
But we must ensure that education provides young people with the qualifications they need in an increasingly globalised labour market. This is crucial in order to prevent youth employment. So it is clear that the goal on education is also linked to SDG 8 on decent work and economic growth. And education for all girls and boys is obviously crucial for gender equality — SDG 5. Something that may be less obvious is the fact that quality education reinforces progress in health — SDG 3.
This is particularly true for girls. Research shows that the longer a girl attends school the better her health. The differences are significant.
Delaying her first pregnancy is one crucial factor. Moreover, if you educate a girl, she will take charge of her life, educate her children, contribute to progress in her community, and propel her nation forward. Education is truly a gift that keeps on giving. To assure you that what I say as an SDG Advocate tallies with what I do as Prime Minister of Norway, let me mention that my Government has doubled its funding for global education since it took office in At the G20 Foreign Ministers meeting in Bonn this year, Norway invited all G20 countries, including China, to join efforts to strengthen global funding for education.
Turning to my second point: We need to encourage innovation and innovative partnerships. Innovation made globalisation possible. As a result, the lack of financial resources continue to hamper progress towards sustainable development. In the industrialising Southern countries, the pressures of urbanisation, industrialisation and high growth have put additional pressures on the environment, concerns for which have remained low compared to the imperatives of growth.
Generally, in the South, there is a lack of progress towards sustainable agriculture or in phasing out the use of toxic substances although the North-to-South export of toxic wastes may be reduced by the extension of the Basel Convention. This erosion is mainly due to a wave of economic conservatism in many Northern countries and reduced concern in their political establishment for problems of developing countries. More seriously, in the North, the more aggressive commerce-oriented and trade- oriented approach of viewing developing countries as markets that need opening up and as potential rivals whose advantages should be curbed has replaced the other approach of viewing developing countries as disadvantaged global partners requiring and deserving assistance.
As a result, the 'development principle' and the 'development dimension' which hitherto had been recognised as the cornerstones in North- South relations, have been challenged and eroded, not only through the decline in aid, but also in the much greater reluctance to accord special treatment or advantages to developing countries in UN negotiations.
Of particular importance, the development principle has been eroded in North-South trade relations, especially at the WTO. The 'special and differential treatment' for developing countries has been eroded through the Uruguay Round. In the current on-going WTO negotiations, including on new issues, developed countries have sidelined recognition of the development needs and objectives of developing countries and insisted instead on equal treatment for both the weak and strong: This contrasts with the reaffirmation by political leaders of the world of the appreciation of the development rights and needs of the South, through the Social Development Summit ofand other UN conferences and resolutions.
These declarations and processes, which represent the spirit of international cooperation, are being undermined by the more legally-binding and enforceable rules of the trade system.Sustainable development in hindi - Environment and sustainable development - Class 11
Therefore, instead of allowing the South to have greater development space to facilitate their transition to having a better environment which was the UNCED understandingthere has been a significant narrowing of that space in the past few years. These problems had to be tackled at two levels: Although a small minority of developing countries, mainly in East Asia, were able to take advantage of external factors to experience high growth, a majority of developing countries continued to suffer from poverty and social problems, and in some countries the situation had worsened.
The external environment faced by many developing countries remained negative. The terms of trade for many developing countries continued to deteriorate, with the prices and demand for commodity exports weakening.
The debt crisis persisted. This continued to exert a large external drain of resources from developing countries. Resources for the state continued to dwindle in many countries, reducing their capacity to face the development challenges. Globalisation in trade and investments had uneven results, with few benefits and probably net losses accruing to many of the poorer developing countries.
Development policy options were further narrowed through the WTO Agreements and structural adjustment. The negative effects on the external environment have weighed heavily on many developing countries in the past five years. Many of them were unable to gather sufficient resources and strength to overcome their pressing social problems.
As a result, there was low or inappropriate growth, reduced social development expenditures, persistent or worsening poverty, higher unemployment and greater inequities.
The effects of liberalisation and globalisation and the clash of paradigms a Undermining of Sustainable Development Paradigm by the Free-Market Approach Perhaps the most basic factor causing the failure to realise the UNCED objectives was the countervailing trend of liberalisation and its brand of globalisation that has swept the world in recent years. The liberalisation 'free market' approach represents a very different paradigm.
It advocates the reduction or cancellation of state regulations on the market, letting 'free market forces' reign, and a high degree of rights and 'freedoms' to the large corporations that dominate the market. The state should intervene only minimally, even in social services. On the environment, instead of intervening in or imposing environmental controls, the market should be left free on the assumption that this would foster growth and the increased resources can be used for environmental protection.
This approach also sidelines concerns of equity, or the negative results of market forces, such as poverty and non- fulfilment of basic needs. It assumes the market will solve all problems. Extended to the international level, the paradigm advocates liberalisation of international markets, breaking down national economic barriers, rights to corporations to sell and invest in any country of their choice without restraints or conditions.
Governments should not interfere with the free play of the market, and social or development concerns for instance, obtaining grants from developed countries to aid developing countries should be downgraded.
The approach advocates a Social Darwinian philosophy of 'each man for himself, each firm for itself, each country for itself. The advocates of this approach want a free- market system where the strong and 'efficient' are rewarded, and the weak or inefficient may suffer losses but in any case should fend for themselves. The paradigm advocates competition, with prizes for the winners and without the supply of a cushion to compensate the losers for their loss.
Aid and special treatment for developing countries should be downgraded. In the past five years after Rio, there has been a dramatic clash of these paradigms in international affairs.
The paradigm of partnership and cooperation was represented by the United Nations series of world conferences, in which global problems relating to the environment, women, social development, habitat, and food were sought to be discussed and resolved in a framework of consensus-seeking.
It was recognised that the market left to itself could not solve the problems and would indeed be a hindrance, and that thus there were critical roles for governments, the inter-governmental community as well as for NGOs and citizen groups, to temper the market with social and environmental priorities and programmes.
The need to build the capacity of the weak and poor was accorded priority, and the role of aid and differential treatment for them was recognised. The conclusion of the Uruguay Round in December heralded a new era where multilateral trade agreements and negotiations would subject countries much more to the objectives of Northern governments advocating greater and wider 'market access' for their corporations. The Uruguay Round agreements of and the paradigm they represented turned out to be more powerful than the UNCED agreements and products of and the partnership approach which they promised.
Indeed, in the past five years, the liberalisation free-market paradigm, that gained prominence and pre-eminence, has undermined the sustainable development partnership paradigm, which has been sidelined in terms of importance. The market paradigm had strong means of implementation: In contrast, the partnership paradigm has been deprived of its main means of implementation, which are financial resources and technology transfer.
The main factor for the triumph of the market paradigm is the strong support and aggressive advocacy for it by the powerful countries, and their deliberate marginalisation of the partnership paradigm. Within these countries, the Commerce and Finance departments of government enjoy far greater influence than the Environment or Overseas Aid departments. This has contributed to the far higher priority given in these countries to national and private commercial interests vis-a- vis environment and development concerns.
With the higher status of the market paradigm, sustainable development concerns have been given lower priority. Paradoxically, this movement also precisely reflects the crisis being experienced by the representative bodies of most countries of western Europe, a crisis which seems to have as its decisive symptom a slump in election turnouts, expressing both growing dissatisfaction with the inadequacies of the representative system which distributes decision-taking powers to experts, very much on a technocratic basisand attachment to the fundamental values of democracy through the emphasis placed on the need to participate.
New forms of participation Centred on the distinction between representation and participation which is one of the principles on which our political systems operate, the crisis of legitimacy to which we referred above also reflects a crisis in the functioning of the system of political representation. Participation initiatives are pursued to overcome the dual delegation to those who have knowledge experts qualified through their skills and to representatives. This dual delegation is constantly increasing as politics becomes more professionalised.
Sustainable Development - Making Globalisation Work for People and the Planet
Yet how is such a difficult question to be resolved at neighbourhood, municipal, regional or national level? We shall take a look at some new forms of participation and the contributions they make in this problem area.
Participatory democracy has enjoyed new success in the framework of "proximity" activities, primarily in the context of municipal politics. The fundamental principle put forward is that of joint management of a town by the municipal council and local society. The idea that citizens must play their part in supervising public administration, because they are the first parties concerned, leads to the first structures for these participatory processes being set up.
We can say, on the basis of various examples 21that just about all of these processes follow the same pattern: The town is divided into sectors, with each sector covering a neighbourhood unit either geographical or symbolic ; b. Committees are set up on specific subjects, to evaluate problems, assess needs and consider possible solutions. The committees are elected by sector, and each neighbourhood is represented; c. Deliberations basically take place in two stages.
In the first, problems are examined and priorities identified jointly by local residents and representatives of the municipality. In the second, expenditure is assessed and work proposals are set down on paper; d. The draft budget is drawn up, and a vote is taken. These experiments are not wholly positive, and many disputes may arise between local authorities and councils or groups, not forgetting possible excesses and the danger of these intermediate institutions being to some extent used as instruments 22 by certain groups professionals, activists, local authorities and customer networks.
It is nevertheless important to emphasise as well that disputes need to be studied case by case. It is often the case that the suspicion of new arrivals felt by institutional players also gives rise to a process in which the logic of institutional policy conflicts with the unofficial policy of achieving a broadening of the decision-taking process. Essentially, participation is not set against authority, but involves access to the setting of collective priorities and the public validation of these.
These forms of participation are intended to give citizens an opportunity to form and to express an opinion about a technical subject requiring a certain level of competence, through a representative sociological consultation in a local, regional or national context.
The initial aim of these initiatives is to demonstrate and establish the representative nature of participatory practices, through the introduction of methods involving deliberation, enabling an opinion to be expressed which specifically validates the democratic aspiration to recognition of, and participation by, the majority.
The extreme complexity of the development of modern societies has led to the emergence of some very important highly technical questions, and especially of major consequences for each person in his or her own day-to-day life. Issues such as bioethics, the development of GMOs, the management of nuclear power, pollution and the environment are questions for which expert knowledge is, a priori, needed.
But although considerable knowledge is needed to be able to weigh up the implications of each of these issues, they also have a social, political, economic, or even ethical dimension which may be evaluated by non-specialists. The politicians responsible for these matters are usually aware of the positions on each issue of certain interest groups or activists, and opinion polls tell them about certain tendencies, but they are not able to assess actual opinion.
To this end, citizens' forums have introduced certain discussion and synthesising techniques enabling a group of "ordinary" citizens from all walks of life to prepare an opinion, on request, on any issue, however technical. This process for reaching a consensus is not intended to supersede the political decision-making process, but does enable the discussions to be broadened and made more democratic.
Another form of deliberation in the form of "citizens' juries" is also being developed in other countries. In Spain, an experiment of this kind is based on a strong group drawn by lot from people selected at random from the municipal registers. Their meetings last several days, and they receive expert assistance, information and documents to help them to find answers to a number of questions. A worthwhile aspect of this kind of initiative is for example, the particular attention paid to enabling all opinions to be voiced.
To do this, the group divides into several sub-groups, each with three or four members, and all the groups are given a hearing at the end. In some representative systems, referendums are traditionally recognised as a means of obtaining approval directly.
Numerous subjects are covered, ranging from airport construction and energy projects to the privatisation of public transport or state-owned businesses. The fundamental question in this context is that of the possibility of holding a referendum on a matter of public interest, bearing in mind that the referendum is subject to disagreements in political theory, having been associated with populist regimes which override institutional mediation and use political weapons against both representative methods and the work done by politicians in parliament.
Essentially, the forms of participation put forward here cannot change the political representation structures of the major political systems, but can point to the possibility of finding practical solutions at local level to the crisis of confidence in democratic institutions. World governance Towards a framework for world governance From the crisis of regulation by governments … In this setting, multilateral negotiation processes drag on indefinitely or fail to yield results; the agreements concluded remain on paper or simply state inapplicable general principles; and all the decision-making powers and influence remain in the hands of the most powerful.
The traditional framework for international relations is now out of date, crippled by a twofold crisis due to its lack of effectiveness and legitimacy alike. This traditional framework - historically termed the Westphalian order - is based on relations between nation states which are assumed to wield sole sovereignty, and are indeed sovereign, on their respective territories. Issues which are too broad for the government of a single country to handle are then dealt with under a system of inter-state relations: In the 20th century, however, the increasing number of non-state transnational players e.
As for specialist international institutions such as the International Labour Organisation and the World Bank, they have neither the mandate nor the resources, nor above all the legitimacy required to solve these global problems. Given this dual crisis of the old order, a new architecture based on an alternative vision of the world and world regulation is essential.
This will mark the shift to a framework for world governance. Unlike government, which is state-based and exercised in a particular area of sovereignty, governance may be defined as the array of representation systems, institutions, rules, procedures, social bodies, information systems and measurement methods which enables human communities to manage their different forms of interdependence and their integration into the biosphere in a peaceful and sustainable manner.
To cope with the challenges of globalisation, what is needed is essentially global governance capable of perceiving the complexity and interdependence of the issues to be addressed and seeking to resolve them through a comprehensive approach involving all the players concerned. A form of world governance is necessary for two reasons: This is an incentive to recognise the existence of basic common aims - sustainable development, peace, greater equality - and common principles including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, responsibility and solidarity.
The four main features of the new model of world governance are therefore: The first step is therefore to open up forums where all these people can get together, state their views, compare them and see how they conflict or converge as a prelude to jointly seeking solutions to global issues. All the parties concerned by a problem are invited to co-operate in solving it, including governments, international institutions, companies, non-governmental organisations and independent expert and monitoring bodies.
The distinction between public and private players must be dropped, since private bodies are also involved in and responsible for those of their activities that have an impact on the public arena. This does not mean that all the parties are on an equal footing, but that the accent is placed on a new approach based on partnership. A fundamental principle of world governance is therefore that all players should assume responsibility for their acts and decisions, thereby recognising that they are part of a human community and of the biosphere.
From this perspective, power is not simply a source of authority but also a source of responsibility: The parties take a concerted approach to each of the five stages in the regulatory process: Even where all the parties take part in this process, they are not all involved in the same way at every stage of the regulatory process, since they have widely differing capacities for action, responsibilities and powers de la Chapelle, A case in point: The environment lies at the heart of the debate on the renewal of world governance.
Firstly, international ecological regulation has been very ineffective. Multilateral agreements of which more than have been concluded in the past 30 years have had little impact: These agreements are also very disparate: Secondly, environmental issues should automatically be addressed from a global perspective.
Effects of globalisation on sustainable development after UNCED
The main issues currently concern public goods and heritage: Furthermore, these issues arise at global or regional level rather than locally and therefore call for solutions involving a wide range of partners and countries. Renewing world governance in the environmental sphere consequently entails reinforcing the international institutions in charge of environmental issues, asserting the need to protect the environment against purely economic processes and promoting a multilateral, partnership-based approach.
Many international organisations currently deal with the environment; they are largely powerless and do not reflect the importance widely attached to global environmental issues. As a result, many people are calling for the establishment of a World Environment Organisation WEOa single international environmental institution with substantial legal and financial resources. It would in particular need to have the authority to impose sanctions, together with a system for monitoring the environmental situation and the application of regulations and a judicial function for the settlement of disputes.
In addition, the ecological and economic spheres are becoming more and more closely interconnected. Firstly, economic operators pay increasing attention to environmental regulations - either in order to apply them by setting up codes of ethics, the Global Compact, etc. Secondly, environmental regulation increasingly resorts to economic and commercial instruments such as taxes, quotas and emission permits, so that it frequently interferes with international trade rules.
So there is an urgent need to ensure that environmental law is no longer subject to commercial law, as at present 25particularly by setting up an arbitration procedure for disputes with both environmental and economic components.
It is also essential to reassert the political will to implement environmental regulations, notably against economic interests. Lastly, a global partnership-based approach must be adopted to devise, frame, implement and enforce more suitable and more effective environmental regulations. In line with the model described above, this approach would involve governments, multinational firms in a more binding framework than that of the Global Compactthe World Environment Organisation, scientists, NGOs particularly for the framing and monitoring stages and private rating agencies, among others.
New forms of international solidarity? The international issues referred to in the first part of this paper compel us to return to a few basic aspects of globalisation.
Both the debates surrounding elections in west European countries and the scale of the disaster caused by third world debt demand that migration flows, poverty and the impossibility of paying and servicing the debt be considered as a single issue. Over the past few years the need to co-ordinate immigration control policies has become apparent in Europe, because most member countries have decided to restrict immigration and categorically refuse entry to immigrants.
The question is therefore whether such a policy can be pursued in the current social, economic and political context or, in other words, whether the area established by the Schengen Agreements is the place where national policies can be welded into a Community policy that addresses the cultural aspects of immigration as well as regional issues exacerbated by the steadily worsening social and economic situation. Posing the problem in these terms makes it clear that immigration cannot be viewed simply as the management of migrant entry flows in a stringent legal framework coupled with repressive policies.
The question of relations between migrants and nationals inevitably arises. Hence the increasingly important function assigned to technology as a means of masking the tasks that democrats now find distasteful. As a result, the gap between rich countries and the third world has never been so wide, and there have never been such huge numbers of refugees in the entire history of humankind.
Choosing to chart another course would probably mean upholding the cause of universal values by recognising, rather than denying, the existence of specific interests; in other words, working out a definition of the right of asylum that is not based on denying national identity, but on looking beyond it.