Presentation delivered by Nicole Bidegain Ponte from Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) at the Side-event “How to hold the powerful accountable in the 2030 Agenda. Roundtable discussion on monitoring, review and SDG indicators” [1]
8th of March 2016, 1-3 pm
Baha’i International Community, 866 UN Plaza, New York
In the implementation phase of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development we need to tackle some gaps in the framework. On the one hand, there is a gap between the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the agreed targets to achieve them. On the other hand, there are gaps between the Goals/targets and the indicators to monitor their progress. Only overcoming these two types of gaps will we avoid the risks of simplification and distortion of the agenda. I would like to highlight some examples.
Risk of distortion 1: on policy space
One of the key global structural obstacles to realize women’s human rights is related to the financialization of the global economy. Macroeconomic policy frameworks and institutions can curtail gender equality and women’s human rights or on the contrary, promote them. For instance, feminist economists have shown how the costs of austerity measures, privatization, cuts in public expenditure and social protection policies have historically been and continue to be borne by women. Women’s unpaid care work acts as a stabilizer and shock absorber of the economic and financial crises. The SDGs do not explicitly recognize the link between women’s rights and the global economic governance and policies. However, some SDGs, especially in goal 17 can support the efforts to revert the financialization and create enabling conditions to realize women’s rights, especially in developing countries.
This is the case of target 17.5, which is dedicated ‘to respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development’. In practice, the question of policy space[2] highlights the contradictions and conflicts between international rules and domestic policies in the context of globalization. To respect, and even enlarge, policy space, it is important not only to realize the right to development but also women’s rights. For instance, countercyclical macroeconomic policies that are gender-sensitive can expand social public expenditure in critical areas for women, mitigate the impacts of food price speculation for small producers (many of whom are women), as well as protect female-intensive employment sectors and small-scale women producers from unfair competition by TNC’s.
However, the hard-won commitment to respect policy space can be totally distorted by monitoring the proposed indicator which refers to: “Extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of development cooperation” (Indicator 17.15.1, United Nations, 2016).
Risks of distortion 2: on partnership(s)
Another global structural obstacle for realizing women’s rights is related to the growing concentration of economic power in the hands of corporate elites. The increase of women’s labour participation has happened in a context of gender-based discrimination and segregation in labour markets. In certain context, gender wage gaps have contributed to boost competitiveness of export-oriented industries and therefore to economic growth (Seguino, 2000).
In this sense, it is important to highlight that governments agreed to achieve by 2030: full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men (target 8.5); and to promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation (SDG 9). However, in order to advance these goals, regulation of the private sector, especially transnational corporations, and a radical change in trade and investment rules are urgently needed. Unfortunately, Agenda 2030 not only does not provide commitments to overcome the lack of regulation of the private sector and the “global race to the bottom”, but instead endorses the private sector as a ‘development actor’ for the coming decades.
Therefore, the idea of a global partnership, which is based on the principle of international co-operation between developed and developing countries[3] has been distorted. Two targets promote multi-stakeholder partnerships explicitly (17.16 and 17.17)[4]. Several partnerships in key areas for women’s rights such as health, education and food (including the Global Financing Facility in support of Every Women, Every Child) were launched with no clear accountability mechanism attached. The indicators proposed are not bold enough to track partnerships, including issues such as conflict of interests, additionally and respect of human rights, gender equality and sustainable development standards. Moreover, indicator 17.17.1 fails to track actual disbursement of funds since it measures the “amount of United States dollars committed to public-private and civil society partnerships”.
Risk of simplification 1: on women’s rights and gender equality
Although Human Rights, including the right to development, are recognized in the preamble and in different paragraphs of the 2030 Agenda[5], it is not possible to identify a human rights-based approach into all the SDGs. For example, the goal of achieving gender equality and to empower all women and girls does not make explicit reference to their rights. However, some of the women’s rights are incorporated in some targets. This is the case of reproductive rights (target 5.6), rights to economic resources (target 5.a and 1.4) and labour rights, in particular for women migrants (target 8.8). It is important to highlight that indicators of target 5.6 are positive examples of monitoring the realization of women’s rights. For instance, 5.6.1 will track the “proportion of women who make their own informed decisions regarding sexual relations, contraceptive use and reproductive health care”. Another positive example is the indicator of target 5.4 that will track the “proportion of time spent on unpaid domestic and care work, by sex, age and location”.
However, other indicators of Goal 5 do not seem to capture the ambition of the targets and might have a potentially weakening effect. For example, the indicator to measure the end of all forms of discrimination against women and girls around the world (target 5.1) relates to whether or not legal frameworks are in place to promote equality and non-discrimination on the basis of sex. This indicator is unambitious since the existence of legal frameworks is not a sufficient condition to prevent discrimination. The evidence in Latin America is clear in this regard because the region was advanced in adopting new legal frameworks but rates of violence and discrimination remain high. Moreover, evidence shows that once the legislation is adopted, the main challenges are: access to justice, implementation of public policies and creation of institutions that can actually enforce and monitor its implementation (ECLAC, 2015). The key challenge is to measure substantive equality rather than formal.
Moreover, it is important to avoid that the “technical proofing” of the targets reduce them to only what is quantitatively measurable with the resources available today. As we learnt from the MDG’s experience, the achievement of women’s empowerment and gender equality goals cannot be measured only through minimum quantitative indicators. To monitor progress toward subverting structural inequalities based on gender requires collecting qualitative data that accounts for the transformation of gendered power relations. Moreover, there are other targets that can not be monitored with a narrow quantitative indicator. This is the case of the target on policy space and most of the Means of Implementation (MoI) targets that address global obstacles and spill-over effects of developed countries policies and institutions. The “technical proofing” argument should not be used to relegate its importance. Rather, a more comprehensive monitoring and review mechanism should be put in place to track the implementation of the so-called “do-no-harm targets” and “international responsibility targets” (Global Reflection Group, 2015). So it is key to have a systemic approach in the implementation, avoiding trade-off between targets and preventing negative spill over effects. Moreover, with this approach, positive synergies could also be assessed. For instance, it can be analysed how progress toward a more democratic global economic governance can contribute to reduce systemic vulnerabilities, inequalities among countries or respect policy space.
Finally, risk of simplification 2: water down commitments already made
Agenda 2030 is a common minimum floor. Governments should be free to implement higher and more ambitious targets. In the case of Latin America and the Caribbean, the Montevideo Consensus on Population and Development is already the agreed minimum floor[6]. It advances in practice a more ambitious and comprehensive agenda in relation to women’s rights and its links with sustainable development. So, this regional position should be the pathway to achieve the SDGs. In turn, the monitoring mechanism of the 2030 Agenda in terms of health and gender for the region must be aligned with the follow-up mechanism of the Montevideo Consensus and the Consensus of the Regional Conference on Women and not the other way round.
—–
References
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). (2015). Regional review and appraisal of implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly (2000) in Latin American and Caribbean countries (No. LC/L.3951). Santiago de Chile: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). Recuperado a partir de http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/37719/S1421041_en.pdf?sequence=4
Seguino, S. (2000). Gender Inequality and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Analysis. World Development, 28(7), 1211-1230. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00018-8
United Nations. (2002). Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for Development. Monterrey. Recuperado a partir de http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/monterrey/MonterreyConsensus.pdf
United Nations. (2008). Doha Declaration on Financing for Development: Outcome Document of the Follow-up International Conference on Financing for Development to Review the Implementation of the Monterrey Consensus. Doha, Qatar. Recuperado a partir de http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/doha/documents/Doha_Declaration_FFD.pdf
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (No. A /70/L.1). New York. Recuperado a partir de http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/L.1&referer=/english/&Lang=E
United Nations. (2016). Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (No. E /CN.3/2016/2/Rev.1). United Nations. Recuperado a partir de http://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/47th-session/documents/2016-2-IAEG-SDGs-E-Revised.pdf
[1]This presentation is based on Nicole Bidegain Ponte & Corina Rodríguez Enríquez (2016) Agenda 2030: A bold enough framework towards sustainable, gender-just development?, Gender & Development, 24:1, 83-98, DOI 10.1080/13552074.2016.1142227 and Bidegain, Nicole (2016 forthcoming) “La Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible desde una perspectiva de la igualdad de género y la autonomía de las mujeres de América Latina y el Caribe”, Santiago, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), en prensa.
[2] Policy space refers to how international agreements and institutions in areas such as trade, investment, finance and macroeconomic policies of systemically important countries restrict the ability of states to implement their own policies. It is the capacity and right of each government to evaluate the trade-off between ‘the benefits of accepting international rules and commitments and the constraints posed by the loss of policy space’ (Paragraph 14, Doha Declaration, 2008).
[3] See the Monterrey Consensus, Paragraph 4, 2002.
[4] Target 17.16 agrees to ‘enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships’. The word ‘complement’ might imply that states have the primary role, but is not explicitly said in the document. The Agenda 2030 refers to the revitalized global partnership as ‘participation of all countries, all stakeholders and all people’ (2), ‘bringing together Governments, the private sector, civil society (…) mobilizing all available resources’ (Paragraph 39 and Paragraph 60, Agenda 2030).
[5] See paragraph 35, 10, and 19, 2015.
[6] The Montevideo consensus on population and development and its Operational guide is a Latin American and Caribbean policy framework advances a human rights-based approach to sustainable development including sexual and reproductive health and rights and the eradication of all forms of discrimination and inequalities, and places it at the centre of development policies. Among many important advances, a clear definition of sexual rights was adopted.