For many, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a proposal that was born in Rio + 20 and joined the post-2015 agenda which was already talking about the secretary general UN against the order of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, the idea of sustainability and objectives that apply to all countries came long before cooking in the mind of a Colombian.
In an interview with El Espectador , Paula Caballero, the head behind the ODS, explains how it was that “behind the scenes” of what is now one of the largest development bets worldwide. Currently, Knight serves as senior director of environment and natural resources of the World Bank.
Where does the idea of the ODS?
We are in a decisive and critical in terms of the definition of economic patterns, production and development time. It is clear that we can not maintain the same models and paths that have brought us to the current situation, with deep problems of inequity, resource degradation and climate change. On the eve of an historic conference as Rio + 20, the concern that arose was how to turn it into an opportunity to generate systemic processes or commitments, profound change. The agreed themes for Rio + 20 did not inspire. “Green Economy”, which was what he was going to negotiate, is a controversial and confusing term. an agenda that will motivate and inspire, it was a call to action for governments, communities, private sector, in short, all actors must join forces and achieve a real transformation was needed.
Why continue with the idea of goals?
Because the MDGs were a decisive tool to change the history of development. They gave visibility to important issues such as sanitation and poverty. Thus the proposal I made was based on the MDGs, but sought to incorporate economic and environmental dimensions without which social objectives in all its magnitude can not be achieved. It was necessary to include topics such as energy, cities, governance, food security and ecosystems.
How was the process by which the ODS came to Rio + 20?
the first person to whom I presented the proposal was Patti Londoño, Deputy Foreign Minister. She played a decisive role in all this because I instantly support and said: “Do what you need to work”. Later I received the support of Foreign Minister Maria Angela Holguin and President Santos. It was really a government proposal. The process itself, however, was long and hard, it was received with much skepticism and hostility. Change is never easy.
Why?
Many reasons, but some of the most important focused on a concern for the impact on implementation of the MDGs, culminating in 2015 were in 2011 and it was thought that the new proposal would downplay the MDGs. Many wanted to simply retread the MDGs; He spoke of MDG +. Another new aspect that generated serious concern is that for the first time spoke of a universal schedule, applicable to all countries. In a globalized world, with limited resources, development is not a process that is limited to a few countries, it is an agenda that involves all countries. It was a call to leave behind an agenda in the background patronizing, whereby “developing” are those who have to act, to move to an agenda of shared responsibility, in which all have to act. That was revolutionary.
How was the process by which launched this proposal to the world?
During the first half of 2011 I used every opportunity I had in international negotiations or consultations to socialize the proposal, while the was adjusting and tweaking. The first formal consultation was May 27, 2011, in the mission of Colombia in NY, with about 20 countries. It was met with skepticism. But since the end of August, in an informal consultation in Rio de Janeiro, the proposal began to come alive and many understood that it was the only possibility for the Rio + 20 had a concrete result. In Rio I introduced a second version of the proposal, which was endorsed by Guatemala. The following month he was formally presented at a meeting of the Cepal, and even though he had strong resistance, began to build a critical mass around it.
What then followed?
the executive secretary of the conference had set a deadline of 1 November 2011 to receive input from countries and stakeholders on the content of the draft that would be the basis for defining the outcomes of Rio + 20: the “zero Draft”. Colombia got enough countries and groups include the proposal of the ODS in its presentation and Secretary confirmed that the ODS would be in that document. It was an unforgettable moment for what until a few months branded impossible or absurd, had become reality. Three days later held the first international consultation on the ODS in the Foreign Ministry, and was begun an intense and ongoing negotiation process, consultations and presentations to develop the concept of the proposal and answer all the concerns that hung in its environment. Colombia presented a total of five concept notes, of which the last three were endorsed by one or two countries (Guatemala, Peru and the United Arab Emirates). We also organize five international consultations, always with external financing.
What was the most difficult to negotiate?
When we reached the finish line in Rio +20, he had already achieved consensus on the concept of ODS. That was an incredible achievement. We seek consensus around a “descriptive, indicative, preliminary and tentative” list of targets, but that was not possible. However, the most important issue at that time was the definition of a process after Rio. We knew that if a particular process is not remembered to develop the ODS, the International System could take years just in this task: how to negotiate the ODS. And that was the fiercest negotiations. Many of the G77, which is the trading block developing countries within which it operates in United Nations- Colombia insisted on a political process. Many others, including Colombia, sought a technical process, because what was negotiated was a set of goals, targets and indicators that would have the task of encouraging countries to change their development trajectories. They had to be relevant and useful targets for all ministries, such as Education, Energy, Transportation, Finance and Planning.
How the ODS were negotiated?
with great difficulty he managed to agree a figure that had never been used in the United Nations: one group with 30 seats, in which countries would be participating directly and not through major negotiating groups, but “open”. That is, all countries and groups or stakeholders might be present. The open-ended working group agreed at Rio was the key to the development of ODS. After Rio representatives at the United Nations took seven months to just define which countries would be in this group, which confirmed the fear we had had that if not defined in Rio would be almost impossible to agree a form below.
Finally, what achieved this group
it was an amazing group, for the first year was devoted to understanding the complexity of the issues in depth: food security, energy, sustainable cities, health, equity, deforestation, among others. They came and experts from capitals was a profound learning exercise for everyone. They are involving the private sector and civil society. It was a novel and very robust process that managed 17 goals together define the guiding development issues. First of all it was a process that generated belonging. Now the challenge will be to implement an agenda that calls for transformation processes in our development models.
No comments:
Post a Comment