“Universal access to online education and telemedicine are technically possible within a year”, was one of the departing thoughts given by Jeffery Sachs, President of Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), to conclude ICSD 2020’s Plenary 3: Multilateral Financing of the SDGs: African & Asian Experiences. The major barrier in Sachs eyes: political will. Easy enough fix, right? This assertion, eye-popping on its face was even more so in contrast with the other speakers that were included in the Plenary. Amadou Thierno Diallo, Director of Global Practices, Economic and Social Infrastructure, Islamic Development Bank Group (IsDBG), provided an overview of recent strides undertaken in the realm of Islamic finance, and established a fundamental alignment of Islam and the pillars of sustainable development. Chief Nathaniel Ebo Nsarko, Executive Director, Millennium Promise outlined multiple initiatives throughout Africa that aligned with specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) from improvements in school lunches to secondary education bakeries. Bernard Woods, Director, Results Management and Aid Effectiveness Division (SPRA), Strategy, Policy and Review Department (SPD), Asian Development Bank, provided an honest perspective on the state of SDG implementation in the South Pacific, and the vast improvements needed to get the region back on track.
The common thread running through the challenges faced by these diverse areas of the world was not political will or access to capital, but institutional capacity. Islamic finance has been relegated to regional conferences and conventions. Amadou Thierno descirbed it as being largely ignored by the international community or written off as a boon for wealthy communities at the expense of the impoverished. His largest concern was international support and marketing geared to new investors. In his words, “the Islamic Development Bank does not simply want to be a bank for development but for developers”. Chief Nathaniel Ebo Nsarko prided himself on the individual programs that have been made in local communities, and rightfully so – it was one of the few examples of tangible impacts showcased throughout the Plenary – but acknowledged the need to increase individual country capacity to increase tax revenues if they wanted a fair shot at achieving the SDG’s by 2030. Bernard Woods began his section with a blunt statement: the South Pacific was not on target before COVID-19, and is much less so now. He showcased the miniscule amount of financing that comes from international aid relative to the total amounts that will be required to achieve SDG’s by 2030. Here was another instance of an inability to collect appropriate levels of tax revenue. Institutional capacity needs to be the focus.
This challenge reminded me of our forum posts and class discussions regarding National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). As a vehicle for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to outline immediate and urgent needs regarding anticipated climate impacts, many countries are focused on improvements to vital, life-sustaining areas like water infrastructure and food security, but embedded in those improvements is a need for institutional direction and community engagement. LDCs require investment and direction not just in their technical capabilities, but in their institutions that will be needed to sustain initiatives over time after initial international or private investment has been depleted.
Returning the concluding remarks of Mr. Sachs, I am sure that he understands this as a vital component of success in fully achieving the SDGs on the timeline outlined by the UN’s 2030 Agenda. I am sure that the intent was to end the discussion on a hopeful note and he was speaking in the context of specific projects. However, the question he was addressing was “how realistic is the 2030 timeframe?”. Given the nature of the question, and the commonalities discussed by the previous speakers, the focus on technological leapfrogging seemed detached from the broader conversation. He framed his political solutions through a United States-centric lens, and evoked the 1960’s space race as an example of what can be accomplished through human ingenuity and grit. It spoke to a larger problem of glossing over the specific and nuanced structural issues that are faced in the areas that SDG’s are designed to develop. Not mentioning institutional challenges in favor of a focus on technological capabilities when addressing a question on pragmatism is indicative of challenges faced in multilateral negotiations.
Leave a Reply