This special issue on the Sustainable Development Goals and human rights developed from a workshop of the Economic and Social Rights Group at the Human Rights Institute at the University of Connecticut in early 2016. This was shortly after the United Nations General Assembly had adopted ‘Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’Footnote1 and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This now seems a somewhat distant, optimistic, and different political environment.
This is not to say human rights advocates were generally and universally satisfied with the 2030 Agenda, its goals, targets and monitoring mechanisms. Indeed, there was considerable disappointment that the SDGs had not reflected the advice provided by global leaders and grassroots activists to keep human rights central to the new development era.Footnote2 Irrespective, there was a sense that the SDGs were a unifying agenda, applicable to all countries, despite criticisms of being too vague and too numerous.Footnote3 There was hope that, with careful choice of indicators and appropriate measures of accountability, which were still unsettled at the time of adoption and remain so today, the Goals might bring real change, and actually reduce the rampantly increasing inequalities between and within most countries.
In the lead-up to the SDGs, the human rights community, along with civil society more generally, had engaged in the negotiations for the new development agenda at an unprecedented level, especially when compared to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs were developed at a technocratic level extracted from previous commitments,Footnote4 and the human rights community was a late-comer to the discussion. By the time human rights advocates engaged, they were left with the role of largely criticizing the MDGs for prioritising progress at an aggregate level without targeting the most marginalised populations and without addressing inequalities.Footnote5
For the SDGs, human rights NGOs and researchers, and other stakeholders sought to engage meaningfully throughout the process of developing, discussing and deliberating on the goals for a new more rights-based development era. There was plenty of opportunity for such engagement during a broad and long process including early thematic and country consultations,Footnote6 the Rio+20 negotiations,Footnote7 and the Open Working Group on the SDGs.Footnote8 Many NGOs were deeply engaged in the process, National Human Rights Institutions outlined what their position and role might be,Footnote9 and UN treaty bodiesFootnote10 and Special Rapporteurs sought to influence the process to keep human rights at the centre.Footnote11
Not even two years post adoption, the fanfare and optimism at the 2030 Agenda launching has waned. While ministers from nearly every state, both high- and low-income, embraced the SDGs enthusiastically at the UN Summit in 2015, the SDGs do not appear to be maintaining national interest in many of the better resourced countries since. For example, they were not election issues in the US and were referred to fleetingly and only by the Labour Party in the British election.Footnote12 The Goals, which after all, focus on sustainability, and acknowledge the risk posed to all and especially the poorest people by climate change (SDG 13), have not just been ignored by the US, but the science behind them denied. Similarly, the SDGs addressing gender equality (SDG 5) and sexual and reproduction health and rights (SDG 3.1, 3.7) have been dealt serious blows, with US funding cuts both domestically and internationally for sexual health services hurting the poorest women the most. This matters not only for the US but globally, because without support from high income countries the goal of leaving no one behind cannot be achieved.
While the world in September 2015 celebrated the commitment to sustainable development for all, the very notion of survival, let alone sustainability, is under threat as reflected by the Doomsday Clock published by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which has edged even closer to midnight.Footnote13 At two and a half minutes to midnight – the closest it has been since 1953 – it reflects that ‘the international community failed to come effectively to grips with humanity’s existential threats, nuclear weapons, and climate change’.Footnote14
Contemporary human rights crises, including climate change and refugee crises, demand vigilance and response, and could be seen to be of more immediate concern than the development goals of the 2030 Agenda. On the other hand, and without denying the immediacy of these concerns, sustainable development provides the framework for addressing all these challenges in an interconnected and comprehensive manner. It goes beyond piecemeal measures that only address the symptoms. Sustainable development as defined by the Brundlandt Commission 30 years ago is ‘development which meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.Footnote15 The 2030 Agenda is built on the dimensions of people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnerships. Making the connections and finding comprehensive solutions is complex – but that is the strength of having the 2030 Agenda grounded in human rights. International human rights law provides a scaffolding, and accountability mechanisms, that allow a systems-based and consistent response to sustainable development that can bring about transformative, structural change to reduce inequalities and challenge power imbalances. Because the world adopted the SDGs, they offer one of our best, contemporary global opportunities to oppose social injustices that human rights advocates can use as a tool.
Therefore, it is crucial that despite the urgent demands on the time, energy and resources of human rights NGOs, advocates and researchers, attention is not diverted away from the promises of the SDGs, and importantly, from the processes necessary to ensure that ‘no one is left behind’.
This special issue provides early critical reflections on the SDGs.Footnote16 Characteristic of the SDG deliberations were broad-based collaborations between grassroots activists, NGOs, think-tanks, academics and UN mechanisms, combining research, advocacy and policy-influencing. This special issue reflects these diverse voices.
It is too early to evaluate whether the SDGs live up to their potential and promise. Indicators and monitoring processes are still being developed, leaving a fair degree of confusion not just about the disaggregates required within specific indicators, but also about the indicators themselves. The first States have undergone voluntary review, and national strategies are still being drawn up, and very few countries have determined how and what indicators they will report on. It is an opportune time to reflect on these developments at a time where indicators, national strategies and review processes can still be influenced.
We identify two important themes arising from the papers in this issue: the first addresses the challenges within and between the goals, targets and indicators, that leave many of the SDGs frustratingly short of their promise, in particular with regard to leaving no one behind. In response to the MDGs’ failure to prioritise the most disadvantaged populations, one of the key demands of the human rights community for the SDGs became, and remains, a commitment to ensuring equality. The human rights community and others called for a stand-alone goal on equality, as well as equality being integrated within the sectoral goals and targets. Importantly, they also called for indicators to be disaggregated so inequalities could be monitored to ensure that human rights entitlements are progressively realised, and inequalities ultimately eliminated.Footnote17 The language of the SDGs makes this commitment to equality central. One of the key lines of inquiry addressed in the special issue is the critical interrogation of the extent to which the SDGs are likely to live up that promise.Footnote18
The second central premise of the articles in this special issue is that a focus on human rights can open spaces to keep the SDGs on task, and on the global agenda – bringing power to their promise. Accountability is a central theme in human rights analysis of development and social justice issues. If the SDGs are to be more than lofty global goals, it is necessary to have transparent and binding accountability processes and mechanisms in place. How such processes can be improved is the second central theme addressed in a number of articles in this special issue.
The issue starts with three papers that focus on different aspects of SDG 10 and the commitment to reduce inequalities. From this cross cutting SDG, the following four papers look at the translation of equality and accountability into specific sectors: health (SDG 3) and labour (SDG 8).
In one of the three papers examining SDG 10 on equality, Saiz and Donald observe its lack of alignment with human rights and note ‘imprecise language or distortions that could jeopardise implementation’. They suggest the Goal is ‘vulnerable to strategic neglect or even backlash, given that of all the goals it will arguably require the most profound and lasting changes to the “business-as-usual” economic and development model’. The authors suggest that human rights standards and tools could guide two crucial policy areas to reduce inequality: social protection and taxation. Importantly, they conclude that ‘human rights advocates do not have to sacrifice their priorities in order to engage with SDG implementation and monitoring; quite the contrary, the imperative is to inject precisely those priorities into these efforts.’
MacNaughton in her interrogation of SDG 10 looks particularly at vertical inequalities, those ‘inequalities of wealth, income or social outcome, including inequalities in health, education, housing and political power’. She finds that despite the overwhelming evidence of the negative impact of extreme economic inequalities, the SDGs fail to address them adequately. She cites target 10.1 which addresses economic inequalities and poverty reduction. It focuses on the bottom 40% of the population but does not address the disparity between this bottom 40% and the top 10% or the top 1%. MacNaughton puts a challenge to the human rights community: she calls for further interpretation and development of human rights norms. She argues human rights fail to address vertical inequalities, and thus are not setting limits on the ‘rising gaps between rich and poor’. The global adoption and endorsement of the SDGs provides the urgency and rationale to take up this challenge.
Winkler and Satterthwaite turn to the indicators in the SDG framework, arguing that these metrics pegged to targets are not just technical, but political, and hugely influential. Indicators determine what data will be gathered, what we will know about inequalities and ultimately ‘what matters’ in the implementation of the SDGs by concentrating effort and attention. The authors put a particular focus on race and ethnicity as inherently related to processes of power and marginalisation and find that the SDG indicator framework to date fails to address these two key dimensions of discrimination, and therefore cannot translate the commitment to ‘leave no one behind’ into reality. They acknowledge the limitations of existing data and concerns over the risks of such data collection, but conclude that with political will much greater collection and analysis of disaggregated data is feasible.
Chapman’s article applies the test of human rights standards to SDG 3 targets, and finds them lacking. The article focuses on the health rights of children; sexual and reproductive health and rights; the underlying determinants of health; achieving universal health coverage; and access to affordable essential medicines. She finds SDG 3 has largely failed in integrating human rights into its targets. For example, rights-based approaches make individual autonomy and decision-making central to sexual and reproductive health, but, Chapman states, ‘the reproductive health targets in the SDGs refrain from taking a rights-based approach, focus on a technical approach, and do not address underlying structural issues impeding women’s right to equality and their ability to control their own lives’. Chapman laments the lack of rights-based approaches within the SDGs, and fears their absence will leave the most vulnerable and disadvantaged behind.
Williams and Hunt focus on a key challenge confronting global governance for health and SDG 3: accountability. They use a tripartite conceptualisation of accountability guided by the experience of the Commission on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children’s Health (COIA) and then explore whether the agreed SDG 3 indicators promote the collection of data that could demonstrate health rights entitlements are being respected, protected and fulfilled. They identify gaps in the SDG indicators, especially around human rights principles of participation and quality of health care. Any monitoring of SDG progress demands data and the authors find data are frequently absent in countries and communities most ‘left behind’. Furthermore, they challenge suggestions that Big Data could fill these statistical gaps, because such claims ignore the realities of poor information systems and the digital divide. Williams and Hunt emphasise the human rights obligations of international assistance and cooperation to build the capacity of national statistics offices to make accurate data available to track SDG progress, but note this is not by itself accountability.
Invisibility is explored by Davis in her paper on global health monitoring and the politics of data in the context of HIV and SDG target 3.3. Current data often leaves out key populations who are invisible due to stigma and criminalisation. Davis discusses the paradox of invisibility reinforcing invisibility. Political leaders in many countries deny the very existence of key populations such as men who have sex with men, while individuals and communities themselves prefer to stay invisible and uncounted in contexts where their behaviour is criminalised due to fears of persecution and violence. While these power dynamics are difficult to change, Davis demonstrates how advocates and community-based organisations are beginning to interrogate and challenge the politics of data. As part of measuring progress towards the ambitious SDG 3.3, key populations are demanding that studies be more inclusive, ethical, and attuned to their human rights.
Finally, Frey turns her attention to SDG 8 on Economic Growth and Decent Work – a combination she finds perplexing and fraught. In her paper, Frey critically examines the two conflicting visions of development: a market-centred business approach, informing the economic growth side of the goal, and the rights-based approach that focuses on decent work for all. Rather than resolving the conflict between these visions, the SDGs have merged them and make the realisation of SDG 8 dependent on economic growth. This, explains Frey, confuses ends and means. However, she acknowledges that the Goal still includes important levers for human rights advocates to demand accountability for realising decent work for all.
The collection of articles in the special issue alludes to the complexity and richness of the 17 Goals and 169 targets. While focusing on a few select Goals,Footnote19 the articles point to underlying recurring themes, in particular around equality, participation, and accountability. These are human rights principles without which implementation of the SDGs will not achieve their goal to ‘leave no one behind’.
The SDGs are the result of political negotiations and compromise.Footnote20 On the downside, that means that they are far from perfect, ripe with inherent contradictions and gaps. On the upside, they have been negotiated and adopted by all UN member States representing a global commitment. As each of the articles identifies, the SDGs bring a global focus to inequalities – within and between countries, and across all sectors, and with an agenda that is universal in scope. In contrast to the MDGs, the SDGs apply to all UN member States, in the Global South and the Global North alike.Footnote21 They require all countries to reduce inequalities, even where absolute deprivation is low and/or small pockets of people experience persistent marginalisation.
Human rights advocates achieved a lot in SDG negotiations: from the overall promise of ‘leave no one behind’, to references to human rights in the Declaration, to many of the targets which implicitly reflect human rights language. The challenge now is to keep the ongoing engagement of the human rights community to ensure that human rights guide the implementation of the SDGs so that their promise is translated into reality and governments are held accountable for their commitments, especially to the most discriminated against, marginalised, impoverished and vulnerable communities.
The articles identify leadership opportunities in human rights engagement in SDG processes. First, although the goals and targets are finalised, the indicators and monitoring frameworks are still being developed. Human rights principles can guide these decisions, so that ‘invisible’ populations are counted, and national statistics offices are supported to gather data that measure and reflect human values. Second, human rights can guide the implementation of the SDGs and inform policies. The slow uptake of SDG national plans and strategies is providing increased space and opportunity for human rights advocates to engage with the processes and influence national priorities. Finally, human rights instruments have an immense potential to strengthen accountability.Footnote22 Human rights mechanisms could monitor SDG commitments, by combining both frameworks, and drawing on their mutual strengths.
At this moment in global politics, the SDGs provide a much needed space to address issues of human dignity and equality. These goals are not framed as being part of international human rights law, but they attempt to achieve a more equal, peaceful and sustainable world. Importantly, they apply to all countries, and while weak at this stage, there is some monitoring in place. The critical engagement of human rights can further inform SDG plans and programmes with the principles of equality, participation and accountability to help fulfil the promise of leaving no one behind.
Notes on contributors
Inga Winkler is a Lecturer at the Institute for the Study of Human Rights at Columbia University and the Director of Undergraduate Studies of the Human Rights Program.
Carmel Williams, PhD, is a Senior Research Officer, Human Rights, Big Data and Technology Project, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex.
Notes
1 UN General Assembly, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York: UN, 2015).
2 High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, Report, A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development (New York: 2013); Post-2015 Human Rights Caucus, Human Rights for All Post-2015: A Litmus Test (New York: 2014).
3 See for example, William Easterly, ‘The SDGs Should Stand for Senseless, Dreamy, Garbled’, Foreign Policy, September 28, 2015, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/28/the-sdgs-are-utopian-and-worthless-mdgs-development-rise-of-the-rest/ (accessed July 12, 2017).
4 Jan Vandemoortele, ‘Making Sense of the MDGs’, Development 51, no. 220–7 (2008): 221.
5 United Nations, Claiming the Millennium Development Goals: A Human Rights Approach (New York & Geneva: UN, 2008), 9.
6 United Nations Development Group, The Global Conversation Begins, Emerging Views for a New Development Agenda (New York: UNDG, 2013), http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/english/global-conversation-begins-web.pdf (accessed July 12, 2017).
7 United Nations, The Future We Want, A/Res/66/288, September 11, 2012.
8 Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/owg (accessed July 12, 2017).
9 Steven Jensen, Allison Corkery and Kate Donald, Realizing rights through the sustainable development goals: The role of national human rights institutions, Briefing paper about the Sustainable Development Goals and human rights – and the role of national human rights institutions (Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2015).
10 Joint Statement of the Chairpersons of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, January 18, 2015, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15505&#sthash.y5QacpyZ.dpuf (accessed July 12, 2017).
11 Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, If Rio+20 is to Deliver, Accountability Must Be at its Heart, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/SP/BNSustainableDevelopment.pdf (accessed July 12, 2017).
12 Labour Party Manifesto 2107, For the Many, Not the Few May 2017, p. 122.
13 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 2017, http://thebulletin.org/timeline (accessed July 12, 2017).
14 Ibid.
15 United Nations, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, A/42/427, August 4, 1987.
16 Gender & Development has published a special issue on the SDGs in March 2016: http://www.genderanddevelopment.org/page/current-issue (accessed July 12, 2017). The Health and Human Rights Journal has published an extensive series of blog posts on the SDGs that provide interesting insights: https://www.hhrjournal.org/2015/09/sdg-series-what-might-the-sdgs-mean-for-health-and-human-rights-an-introduction-to-the-series/ (accessed July 12, 2017).
17 United Nations, Statement by 17 Special Procedures Mandate-Holders of the Human Rights Council on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, Grounding Development Priorities in Human Rights: Incentives to Improve Equality, Social Security and Accountability, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Food/Post2015JointSubmission.pdf (accessed July 12, 2017).
18 See also Katja Freistein and Bettina Mahlert, ‘The Potential for Tackling Inequality in the Sustainable Development Goals’, Third World Quarterly 37, no. 12 (2016): 2139–55; Edward Anderson, ‘Equality as a Global Goal’, Ethics and International Affairs, June 10, 2015.
19 For a more comprehensive exercise, offering a spotlight on each SDG, see Reflection Group on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Spotlight on Sustainable Development (2016).
20 For a critique of the final draft of the goals and targets prior to adoption see Thomas Pogge and Mitu Sengupta, ‘The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as Drafted: Nice Idea, Poor Execution’, Washington International Law Journal 24, no. 3 (2015): 571–87.
21 See further Malcolm Langford, ‘Lost in Transformation? The Politics of the Sustainable Development Goals’, Ethics & International Affairs 30, no. 2 (2016): 167–76; for a more in-depth discussion, Graham Long, ‘The Idea of Universality in the Sustainable Development Goals’, Ethics & International Affairs 29, no. 2 (2015): 203–22.
22 Kate Donald and Sally-Anne Way, ‘Accountability for the Sustainable Development Goals: A Lost Opportunity?’, Ethics & International Affairs 30, no. 2 (2016): 201–13, 207 et seq.; Nadja Filskov, SDGs and Human Rights Monitoring, Guidance for National Implementation (Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2015); see also Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Snapshot: The SDGs at the Human Rights Council (March 2017), http://globalinitiative-escr.org/snapshot-the-sdgs-at-the-human-rights-council-march-2017 (accessed July 12, 2017).