Kapok: Aiming higher

Reference documents and generic resolutions adopted by the United Nations are usually dismissed by critics as either too broad, too generous or too normative, and sometimes the three together. Then they are often simultaneously considered rather weak when it comes to binding effects and even weaker when considering enforcement. Of course, there are exceptions, especially when peace, security, trade and sometimes international justice are concerned, but more often than not timing and whether or not powerful states get involved remain crucial and can prove either incapacitating or, on the contrary, expediting.

Yet, when it comes to global concerns — in particular the protection of the environment, but not only! — there are no better institutions than UN agencies to come up with eloquent and insightful perspectives. Such is the case with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that succeeded the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015. MDGs were broader and less numerous — 8 goals with 21 targets, whereas SDGs comprise 17 goals to be achieved by 2030 — but marked a turning point in the UN drive to be more results-oriented and multi-dimensional as well as inter-related in its approach to development — the United Nations Development Programme stresses that “often the key to success on one will involve tackling issues more commonly associated with another.”

Reviewing whether or not the claim that MDGs had been the “most successful anti-poverty movement in history”, analysts concluded in 2015 that even though it was quite an overstretch to proclaim “mission accomplished”, crucial progresses had indeed been made: the number of people living on less than $1.25 had been more than halved even though the same ambition for people suffering from hunger was not fully realized; net enrolment rate in primary school had reached 91% (not fully universal, but pretty close); two-thirds of developing countries had achieved gender parity in primary education; child mortality rate as well as global maternal mortality had dropped by about 50% but had failed to drop by two-thirds; number of new HIV carriers had fallen by 40%, even though the spread had not been reversed as promised; but then halving the proportion of people without access to clean water had been achieved five years in advance and overseas development aid to developing countries had increased drastically by about two-thirds over the period.

There is thus hope for the SDGs, and reading reports from numerous Non-Governmental Organizations and International Organizations on a regular basis, I can testify to the fact that the renewed and more ambitious goals for the next decade have permeated all kinds of institutions, and help create a new consensus on what needs to be done.

Labor conditions and employment — a subject dear to my heart — are now covered by the standalone Goal No. 8 in the SDGs whereas they use to be minimalistically embedded and split inside the goals to eradicate poverty and achieve gender parity under the MDGs. The full name of the new goal actually resonates like a program in itself as the ambition is to “promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.” Under one goal stand some 10 targets, to which are appended 17 indicators that will allow policy-makers and citizens to assess the progress made towards the goal. And besides the usual GDP growth or unemployment rate, one finds the latest concerns related to the worrying spread of urban informal employment, all forms of discrimination affecting hourly earnings, fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries with a breakdown by gender and place of origin (migrants), and even the level of national compliance with labor rights (freedom of association and collective bargaining) based on the International Labor Organization conventions.

Quite interestingly, this goal also comprises a recommendation to “devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products,” an objective that the Macao Government Tourism Office could easily make a requirement — why not even for the renewal of casino licenses — in order to make the ambition to become a “World Centre of Tourism and Leisure” slightly more meaningful for the good people of our SAR.

Published in Macau Daily Times on May 24, 2019

Kapok: Killing them not so softly

True: United Nations agencies or “bodies” can be confusing, especially when their names are long — the more specialized they are the longer the name — and the way they are designated in the mainstream press only refers to their acronym. There is the IPCC on the one hand, and the IPBES on the other, with the latter sometimes being characterized as the former “on biodiversity”—how helpful is that?!? Indeed, the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and this is the one organization we most often heard about as the unprecedented warming of planet earth is seen as the root cause of all our environmental challenges, present and future.

The IPCC’s work provides scientific evidence about and policy recommendations on how to deal with these challenges to its 195 member states. It is the IPCC, which was founded in 1988, that warned us last October that efforts to limit global warming “well below 2ºC” above pre-industrial levels over the century would not be enough, contrary to what we thought in 2015, and that the new threshold not to cross was 1.5º C in order to prevent a grilling amplification of heat-waves, a sudden destabilization of the marine ice sheet in Antarctica, the irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet, and an alarming rise of mean sea level across the globe. 

The consequences would be dreadful for human societies and the urgency is here and now: CO2 emissions have to be reduced by about 45% at the horizon of 2030 and reach net zero — carbon neutrality — by 2050!

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is more recent — it was created only in 2012 — and, as the name indicates, is focused on the footprint human activities have on biodiversity and ecosystems across the world. Governments — 130 member states altogether — support the action of the IPBES, but just like the IPCC, its different roles are grounded in expertise bringing together scientists, NGOs as well as businesses and industries. It is well-known for its “assessments”, among which certainly the most influential to date has been its report on “Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production” and ground-breaking trend it triggers in the global fight against pesticides since it was published in 2016.

Now, the plenary session of the IPBES just convened for two weeks in Paris in the UNESCO building and released on May 4th a short version of its huge report on the unprecedented and dangerous decline of nature because of human activities. The most quoted and conscience-striking fact highlighted in that “summary for policymakers” being that 1 million species of plants and animals — out of a total of 8 million, including 5.5 million insects — are “threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history.”

The report also indicates, just like the IPCC report from October, that “global goals for conserving and sustainably using nature […] cannot be met by current trajectories, and goals for 2030 and beyond may only be achieved through transformative changes across economic, social, political and technological factors.” The constant reminder of the 2030 horizon deriving from the 17 Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015.

What is meant by “transformative changes” is pretty complex, although the executive summary makes it very clear that these should follow four key principles of governance: ‘integrative’ governance to ensure policy coherence and effectiveness; ‘inclusive’ governance approaches through stakeholder engagement and the inclusion of indigenous peoples and local communities; ‘informed’ governance for nature and nature’s contributions to people; and finally ‘adaptive’ governance and management. Any piece of policymaking should thus be implementable and implemented across the board, by all and for the benefit of all, based on facts and assessments and enabling locally tailored choices that can then be erected as guidelines for best practices by all.

But then, the report concludes distressingly that a “transformative change can expect opposition from those with interests vested in the status quo,” a disheartening warning not quite mitigated by the somewhat naive assertion that “such opposition can be overcome for the broader public good.” Reminds you of anywhere?

Published in Macau Daily Times on May 10, 2019