The Global Goals | Diplomatic Courier | September 2017 Edition

DIPLOM ATICOURIER.com

A Global Affairs Media Network VO L UME 11 | ISSUE 5 | SEPTEM BER 2017

GLOBAL GOALS THE SOLUTION FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS IS IN FRONT OF US

PEOPLE

PLANET

PROFIT

THE VALUE OF INDIVIDUAL LEADERSHIP TO ADVANCE THE SDGs

HOW CAN WE TRANSFORM SOCIETIES FOR GOOD?

THE BUSINESS CASE FOR GLOBAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

THE FUTURE OF WORK

MODERATOR: Christine Lagarde, Managing Director The International Monetary Fund PANELISTS: Jim Clifton, CEO, Gallup Sara Horowitz, Founder & CEO, Freelancers Union Jeremy Johnson, Founder & CEO, Andela James Manyika, Chairman, McKinsey Global Institute

NEW ECONOMY TALKS Organized in collaboration with The International Monetary Fund October 11-12, 2017 MODERATOR: Ana C. Rold, CEO & Publisher The Diplomatic Courier SPEAKERS: Louis Richardson, Chief Storyteller & Global Portfolio Marketing Professional, IBM Watson Customer Engagement Carol O’Donnell, Director, Smithsonian Science Education Center, Smithsonian Institution Scott Hartley, Author “The Fuzzy and the Techie” James Manyika, Chairman, McKinsey Global Institute

To learn more or to RSVP, please contact: KCannock@imf.org | Use code: diplocourier

KPMG supports the Global Goals for Sustainable Development KPMG works to lift people out of poverty, build resilience, and help ensure sustainable economic growth. kpmg.com/IDAS

© 2016 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. NDPPS 612252

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m

Contents VO L UME 1 1 I ISSUE 5 I SEPTEM BER 2017

06 I Editor’s Note:

How Can We Transform

Societies for Good?

By: Ana C. Rold

08 I The Solution For the

Sustainable Development

Goals Is in Front of Us

By: Andrew Mack

12 I In Search of Resilient

and Sustainable Cities

By: Peter Edwards

16 I The Nexus of Governance

and Sustainable

Development Goals

By: Rima Kawas

18 I The Language of the

Sustainble Development Goals

By: Charles Crawford

20 I Unlocking Global Action

on Mental Health

By: Patrick J. Kennedy, Husseini Manji & Garen Staglin

22 I The Value of Individual

Leadership To Advance

the SDGs

By: Erika Veberyte

24 I The Business Case For

Global Sustainable Development

26 I It’s Time For An Explicit

U.S. Plan On Domestic

Financing for Development

By: Emily Foecke

30 I What’s Trending In Global

Education Diplomacy?

By: Nicole Goldin

34 I Language Rights Need

to Be at the Center of

Global Policy

By: Akshan de Alwis

38 I African Solutions to the

Continent’s Health Crises

By: Uju Okoye

By: Samantha Stafford

Masthead Publishing house Medauras Global

COVER STORY Andrew Mack

publisher & ceo Ana C. Rold

un correspondent Akshan de Alwis

Editorial Advisors Andrew M. Beato Sir Ian Forbes Lisa Gable Mary D. Kane Greg Lebedev Anita McBride

DC EDITORS Michael Kofman Paul Nash Bailey Piazza Winona Roylance

Creative Director Christian Gilliham director of social media Madeline Terry

Edition CONTRIBUTORS C. Naseer Ahmad Akshan de Alwis Charles Crawford Madeline Bielski Peter Edwards Emily Foecke Nicole Goldin Rima Kawas Patrick J. Kennedy Husseini Manji Arun S. Nair Uju Okoye Mario Ottiglio Bailey Piazza Richard Rousseau Garen Staglin Erika Veberyte

EDITORIAL ASSISTANTS Samantha Stafford Jacqueline Christ senior photographers Michelle Guillermin Sebastian Rich

PUBLISHING. Diplomatic Courier magazine is produced by Medauras Global LLC, an independent private publishing firm. The magazine is printed six times a year and publishes a blog and online commentary weekly at www.diplomaticourier.com.

PRINT. Print issues of Diplomatic Courier average 80-100 pages in length. Individual and back issues cost $10.00 per issue (plus S&H). Student rates are available to both part-time and full-time students with proof of school enrollment. New print issues of Diplomatic Courier are published and mailed in January, March, May, July, September, and November. Subscriptions commence with the next issue.

EDITORIAL. The articles in Diplomatic Courier both in print and online represent the views of their authors and do not reflect those of the editors and the publishers. While the editors assume responsibility for the selection, the authors are responsible for the facts and interpretations of their articles.

PERMISSIONS. Authors retain all copyrights to their articles. None of the articles can be reproduced without their permission and that of the publishers. For permissions please email info@medauras.com with your written request.

letters to the editor/editorial submissions Editors@diplomaticourier.org advertising/sponsorship/sales Info@medauras.com website/apps support ITsupport@medauras.com mailing address 1660 L Street, NW, Suite 501 Washington, DC 20036 download the app for free

ISSN. The Library of Congress has assigned: ISSN 2161-7260 (Print); ISSN 2161-7287 (Online).

ISBN: 978-1-942772-01-9 (Print); 978-1-942772-02 (Online).

LEGAL. Copyright ©2006-2017 Diplomatic Courier and Medauras Global. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication can be reproduced without written consent of the publishers.

All trademarks that appear in this publication are the property of the respective owners.

Any and all companies featured in this publication are contacted by Medauras Global and the Diplomatic Courier to provide advertising and/or services. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this publication, however, Medauras Global and the Diplomatic Courier magazine make no warranties, express or implied in regards to the information, and disclaim all liability for any loss, damages, errors, or omissions.

CONTACT. Mailing Address: Diplomatic Courier, 1660 L Street, NW, Suite 501, Washington, DC 20036, United States of America. Fax: 202-659-5234. E-mail: editors@diplomaticourier.org.

ART/PHOTOGRAPHY/ILLUSTRATIONS. In order of appearance: Cover Photo by “Godslar” on Unsplash; page 6, photo by Joyce Boghosian; page 12-13, photo by Steven Wei on Unsplash; page 14, photo courtesy of Singapore-ETH Centre; page 36, illustration by Minna Sundberg; page 41, photo courtesy of TCG. All other images and photos by Bigstockphotos.com.

05

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m

Welcome VO L UME 11 I ISSUE 5 I SEPTEM BER 2017

Ana C. Rold Publisher & CEO

How Can We Transform Societies for Good?

From Davos in January to New York this month, 2017 has already seen its fair share of global summitry. The backdrop: weary global publics are rejecting globalization and looking inward. Starting with Brexit in the United Kingdom and following with the election of President Donald J. Trump in the United States, the very countries that founded the world’s preeminent organizations after 1945 are now rejecting what helped make them dominant in the first place. The NATO summit and the G7 and G20 meetings earlier this summer cemented the notion that there is a growing divide between allies.

In the 20th century, two books cast their shadows over the future of the human race: one was George Orwell’s novel 1984, which depicted a horrific mind-controlling totalitarian state; the other was Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, which represented an engineered abundance and conformity, yet still totalitarian. The latter, seems not so distant a future.

Mind boggling advances in technology have created abundance and accessibility. Yet, they have also created triviality and over-consuming and spending. On one side, we have a world of consumers that don’t want for anything. On the other, extreme poverty still reigns in parts of the world despite our best efforts to eradicate it. Although Brave New World is set in the future, it deals with contemporary issues. Although it was written in 1931, it is as relevant in its lessons today as it was then.

Sales for dystopian novels were at an all-time high this year, prompting essays comparing the classics to our world today.

For more than a decade, the editors and writers at Diplomatic Courier, have been concerned with the state of the world. We have been equally concerned with our future: The World in 2050. Our series of global summits over the years have tackled Diplomacy; Philanthropy; the Global City; Jobs and Education; and much more. We don’t profess to be fortunetellers. Rather, we embrace the skills, practices, and behaviors of futurists. In the process, we’ve convened some of the world’s foremost strategic thinkers to prepare us for the world we want. And we ask: do we want a Brave New World of abundance— not exactly a utopia but a world where the advances in technology help everyone, not just those who own or invent them? Or, are we doomed to pass on a 1984-dystopianlike world to our children—one riddled with fear, horror, war, and scarcity?

Reading the news headlines, it is easy to see which world we are headed for. Geostrategic struggles; cyberwar; fast-spreading devastating diseases; poverty, and war reigned large on our news feeds since the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

And we have been quick to offer commentary on how we’ve failed. But the SDGs, have galvanized support like no other time in history. The Global Goals have recruited everyone to solution-making. We don’t expect government heads to solve the biggest problems humanity faces; we have found that every single individual is empowered to be a solutionist. And our cover story, penned by my co-solutionist Andrew Mack, says just that: the solution for the SDGs is in front of us, because it is us. ● SEPTEMBER 2017 06

PRESENTS

THE WORLD IN 2050 A FORUM ABOUT OUR FUTURE

TO LEARN MORE VISIT:

WWW.COCREATE.WORLD

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m

COVER STORY SDGS

The Solution for the Sustainable Development Goals Is in Front of Us

By Andrew Mack

SEPTEMBER 2017 08

CROEV FE RU G S TEOERSY SDGS

09

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m

COVER STORY SDGS

I

n 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were introduced, establishing 17 ambitious “Global Goals” from ending poverty to improving health and reducing inequality. The SDGs were designed to finish work that began under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) initiative introduced in 2000, a program credited with helping lift a billion people out of extreme poverty, cutting child mortality by half, and combatting HIV/AIDS. There is great enthusiasm for the SDGs—true “solutions” for many long-term issues seem within our grasp. However, it is increasingly clear that if we are to fulfill the promise of the SDGs we will need to radically change our frame of reference. Where in the past we have looked at progress with a macro lens—based on big actors and big solutions—success for the SDGs will almost certainly depend on our ability to develop and promote decentralized, small-but-scalable, localized solutions.

Why? Because in a very real sense, for the SDGs we are the goal, and we are the solution.

WE COME FROM A BIG PLACE For the last 50 years or more our focus in development has been on large-scale progress: finding the next green revolution, creating the next large foundation or initiative to cure disease, or the next large infrastructure project to provide connectivity. Steeped in academic excellence, the model had the developing world as a taker of knowledge and “capacity building”.

Experts from large institutions like the World Bank and United Nations mobilized large budgets and defined the terms of trade, hosting conferences and creating nomenclatures that few outside of true insiders could understand.

In the name of our collective success, the model called for collective action, though historically this mostly meant action by big collectives. And under the model, good men and women did good— and mostly big—work.

If each U.S. citizen replaced chicken with plantbased foods just one meal a week, the carbon dioxide savings would be equivalent to taking 500,000 cars off U.S. roads.

But times have changed. Many global south nations now have plenty of their own “experts” and solutions are coming from centers outside of London, Paris, and Washington.

More knowledge can be shared more easily with the proliferation of internet, cellphones and other technology. At least as importantly, it is clear across the world that many regular citizens no longer trust the experts, and often feel belittled and even manipulated by a system that describes them in distant terms, as “beneficiaries” or “stakeholders”.

They—we—don’t connect with data they can’t touch that seems foreign and complicated. The situation is not bleak: looking at just three of the SDGs we can see how progress is being made with smaller starting solutions. But sustainability depends on a much deeper engagement of the broader population.

CONSIDER SDG2: ENDING HUNGER AND CREATING SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE Current funding for large-scale famine relief is by nearly all measures inadequate and donor fatigue is rampant. By 2050, the world will have to feed over 9 billion people, a 60% increase in yield from current production. Meanwhile, one third of all food produced annually is lost or wasted according to the FAO—an annual $1 trillion loss at retail value.

The existing food system is centralized, while smallholder farming—the livelihood of 1.5 billion people—struggles economically. As the average age of farmers worldwide climbs toward 60 years of age, SEPTEMBER 2017 10

we need to engage citizens to make agriculture more viable and attractive, especially for youth, while tackling the enormous food loss and waste in the current centralized food system.

And we can do this with smallbut-scalable approaches to increase farmer education, productivity, and distribution. A single farmer in Burkina Faso was able to develop a local solution to improve water usage and increase soil fertility in West Africa, sharing results largely through informal farmer networks, and creating results large enough that they can be seen from space. New networks like Farmerline in Ghana share ag extension information seamlessly through technology, helping farmers build and share knowledge and create a community of over 200,000 users—all for a budget around $1 million. And other agtech solutions like Twiga, Hello Tractor, and Agromovil are helping improve delivery, putting more food on the table and more money in the pockets of small farmers. In each case, the tech and innovation is crucial, but the network of users and the data they generate as participants is the key.

CONSIDER SDG8: GROWTH AND DECENT EMPLOYMENT Despite the astounding economic progress of the past few decades, half of global wealth is still held by 1% of the world’s population and economic inequality appears to be worsening in many parts of the world. Mechanization and Artificial Intelligence is putting pressure on employment around the world while past development means more

CROEV FE RU G S TEOERSY SDGS

people in more places are living longer, healthier lives—keeping them in the workforce longer. Large-scale employers—whether government or large companies—are unable to fill the gap in employment. With over 125 million Africans slated to age into the global workforce in the next decade, we need new, decentralized approaches to reach the broadest audience—and we need them soon.

As in agriculture, decentralized approaches like entrepreneurship training and microfranchising may be the best—or the only—solutions for employment and growth.

Microfranchising provides a platform for people with energy and ambition to “employ themselves” and helps provide service to markets that larger companies might not. Microfranchises like Living Goods provide opportunity for agents who go door-to-door to extend healthcare services in Uganda.

Training programs like Udacity seek to build technical skills in small bits that fit the decentralized market, offering nanodegrees—small, professional courses—to thousands around the world. And the advent of blockchain and the Internet of Things technology show the power of decentralized approaches, breaking barriers to trust and contracting that have stifled opportunity to this point for those not “connected” in the current economic system. In all cases jobs, training, and trust are being built in decentralized ways around citizens.

FINALLY, CONSIDER SDG13: CLIMATE Nearly all scientists globally are in agreement about the facts: our

current patterns of consumption and pollution are unsustainable and border on the suicidal. Air is unbreathable in Beijing and trash fills the streets of many developing nation capitals. Still, despite the agreement around statistics, we have taken limited action. The global public is mostly out of the conversation leading to worry, but not urgency.

Big investments in legacy technologies create significant opportunities for political capture in countries large and small. Regulation is neither quick- or large-scale enough to address the challenges. At the same time, regardless of the extent of human responsibility for climate issues, it is clear we are a contributor to the mess.

And yet we have the power—in a decentralized way—to make big changes. If each U.S. citizen replaced chicken with plant-based foods just one meal a week, the carbon dioxide savings would be equivalent to taking 500,000 cars off U.S. roads. We could reduce the over four metric tons of plastic waste that enter the ocean every year—but we need to do it together: cross-border legislation would be unenforceable and wouldn’t stop the cause… which is us. We can see the power of committed individuals—without big institutional backing—to make change and create awareness as it did in Brazil, which despite actual opposition from numerous governments, lowered its deforestation rate by 71% between 2004 and 2016, mostly through the efforts of one man: Antonio Vicente.

The list could go on… The facts show that—as just one example— investments in girls’ education benefit any society that chooses to invest,

Progress on the SDGs will depend on small-but-scalable solutions, devised by individuals around the world with the creativity and local knowledge to drive change.

11

but progress on the SDG around improving the lives of women and girls will only be sustainable through decentralized action, as most political structures around the world remain dominated by men. Entrenched political interests still dominate conversations in most nations around energy, education, and the pursuit of peace.

TO BUILD SDG SUSTAINABILITY, ITS TIME FOR US TO BE THE MEASURERS It’s not enough to decentralize delivery and discovery. We need to decentralize measurement as well.

People everywhere need to see and touch progress and they don’t have the time or resources to devote their lives to it like experts do. And yet we need their participation, their savings, and their collaboration. To get this sustainability, we must also find ways to involve them in the measuring progress—measuring their own progress alongside our progress as societies. The data we all generate and work to gather is data we will all believe. It is data we will all be invested in. And through this process we can build a new, better dynamic where together we participate in building decentralized progress, measure it for ourselves, and where ultimately, we’ll be prompted to take more action.

We have made great progress in the last 50 years relying on the big.

But the time for decentralization has come. Progress on the SDGs will depend on small-but-scalable solutions, devised by individuals around the world with the creativity and local knowledge to drive change.

The experts will remain important, but they can only do so much. The solution for SDGs is in front of us— because it is us. ●

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Andrew Mack is Principal of AMGlobal Consulting, a specialized Washington, DC-based consulting firm that helps companies and NGOs do more and better business in Emerging Markets.

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

IN SEARCH T OF RESILIENT AND SUSTAINABLE CITIES By: Peter Edwards

he UN’s’ 11th Sustainable Development goal (SDG) is to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. The essential context for this goal is the extraordinary demographic revolution now underway, with ever more people living in cities. By the year 2050, the estimated world’s urban population will have grown by 3 billion, which is equivalent to building one new city of a million people every 5 days for 30 years. In practice, however, most of these new urban dwellers will be accommodated through the expansion of existing cities, many of which are growing very rapidly. Indeed, by 2030, the world is projected to have 41 mega-cities with more than 10 million inhabitants.

Is the 11th SDG attainable? Most rapidly growing cities in the developing world confront huge problems of poverty, malnutrition, and inadequate infrastructure. Even prosperous cities of the developed world face challenges of growing inequality, crime, traffic congestion and environmental pollution. However, there are also reasons for optimism; as Rees and Wackernagel (1996) have argued: “Cities as presently conceived are inherently unsustainable, yet cities are the key to sustainability.” Indeed, cities SEPTEMBER 2017 12

as diverse as Curitiba and Copenhagen have shown remarkable creativity in finding innovative solutions to these challenges of an urban lifestyle.

It is clear that new ideas and knowledge will be needed to achieve the 11th SDG; and here universities have a major role to play. A recent report, “Making Sense of the New Urban Science,” describes how the world’s leading universities have embarked upon a “building boom for urban research” (Townsend, 2015). “Since 2005, more than a dozen new labs, departments and schools have been launched with a common purpose— to pursue deeply quantitative and computational approaches to understanding the city.” One of those new institutions is the SingaporeETH Centre, a collaboration between ETH Zurich, as well as other Swiss and Singaporean universities, funded primarily by Singapore’s National Research Foundation. The Centre sees itself as a cross-cultural, crossdisciplinary research platform for major research programs related to global sustainability.

The Centre’s first research program, the Future Cities Laboratory (FCL) that launched in 2010, produces knowledge and ideas to help cities develop sustainably. Its second

S P E C I A L R E P O RT

program, Future Resilient Systems (FRS) that began in 2014, aims to make interconnected urban infrastructure systems—such as information and communication technologies, electricity and transport systems— more robust and resilient. Highly multidisciplinary, both programs involve close collaboration with stakeholders to develop practical solutions to real-world problems.

The Centre’s research has four main areas of focus. The first is to increase scientific understanding of cities, as the essential basis for making them more sustainable and resilient. As Geoffrey West, former director of the Santa Fe institute remarked, we “desperately need a serious scientific theory of cities—relying on underlying generic principles that can be made into a predictive framework.” The FCL focuses especially upon the ‘metabolism’ of cities, studying them as complex systems characterized by stocks and flows of resources, including energy, water, capital and information.

The FRS, on the other hand, relies heavily upon complexity theory, studying urban infrastructure systems as complex socio-technical systems composed, not only of engineered structures, but also of the people who make up the subsystems of users and operators.

Technology is the second area of focus. FCL researchers have developed new systems for air-cooling that use around half as much electricity as conventional systems. The new systems need less space for ducting, making it possible to construct buildings with fewer materials. The diverse research at the Singapore-ETH Centre reveals many other opportunities for new technologies, for example in reducing traffic congestion, diminishing the urban heat island effect, re-using waste materials, recycling nutrients in sewage and improving air quality. Perhaps the most important technologies are those that reduce dependence upon a very large infrastructure, and enable implementation in small towns and even in rural areas. For example, “green roofs” planted with vegetation can be used to reduce storm-water runoff, and “blue roofs” achieve the same effect using various kinds of flow controls to regulate and retain water. The water retained by these structures can be used directly for purposes such as garden irrigation, flushing toilets and recharging aquifers. Using “greywater” in this way not only reduces the demand for clean water—by as much as half for residential versus commercial buildings—but also reduces the amount of wastewater

13

that must be conveyed and treated. As these technologies develop, we will see many more buildings equipped with their own treatment plants for recycling both water and nutrients, and therefore able to operate more or less independently of centralized water services.

Design is the third area of focus, as an essential step in translating scientifically sound solutions into environments where people can live and work. The design component of the research focuses on quality of life— wellbeing, comfort, convenience, security and satisfaction—and sharpens the discourse about the kind of urban future we want.

Digital technologies shape a new urban science by providing not only huge sources of information, but previously unthinkable analytical power. As a final focus area, the Centre develops ways to manage and use big data. At the heart of FCL is a sophisticated digital laboratory, “Value Lab Asia,” with state-of-the-art tools for modeling and visualizing 3-D and multi-dimensional data. In addition to being an essential research tool, this laboratory also provides an important means for engaging with practitioners.

Architects and planners, for example, can visualize the changing plumes of heat swirling around buildings as wind

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

speed and direction changes, and explore how new designs might affect a city’s heat balance. Transport planners can simulate the city’s traffic streaming through the streets, and test the effect of traffic flow by adding a new bus route or providing motorists with more information about congestion.

Through its programs, the Singapore-ETH Centre explores new ways of conducting academic research that contribute to the goal of making cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. Nevertheless, the road is not easy. Researchers have to leave the relative comfort of their own discipline and collaborate with people with different sets of knowledge and approaches.

Continually challenged by questions that most academic researchers do not have to face, such as, “How far should one depart from one’s own field of expertise to meet the wishes of stakeholders? How much effort should be devoted to implementation as opposed to research? To what extent should one advocate particular solutions rather than remaining academically neutral?” Perhaps the biggest challenge, though, is to translate promising research into practice. Most researchers have

little experience in the potential applications of their discoveries, while developers are understandably reluctant to try out untested technologies. The Centre therefore works closely with industry and government agencies to develop prototypes and demonstrators for testing and refining new ideas in “living labs”.

Despite these challenges, the overall balance is very positive.

The Centre maintains constructive relationships with government agencies and industrial partners throughout Southeast Asia, and the trans-disciplinary approach has paid dividends in ensuring that the research remains focused on realworld needs. Furthermore, students who receive their training within these programs benefit from working in a unique environment that strengthens their skills in communicating across disciplines, across sectors, and across cultures.

Perhaps the most encouraging of all, the Singapore-ETH Centre’s work receives strong affirmation and interest, not only from senior policy makers and leaders of industry, but also from the public at large. ●

SEPTEMBER 2017 14

“Perhaps the biggest challenge, though, is to translate promising research into practice.

Most researchers have little experience in the potential applications of their discoveries, while developers are understandably reluctant to try out untested technologies.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Peter Edwards is Director of the SingaporeETH Centre, which manages two major programs: the Future Cities Laboratory and Future Resilient Systems. He is professor of Plant Ecology at ETH Zurich and an adjunct professor in the Asian School of the Environment at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore.

collaboration | innovation | technology | you

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

THE NEXUS A OF GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT By: Rima Kawas

s the development and diplomatic communities gear up for the UN General Assembly, its attention will inevitably turn to the progress—or lack thereof— on reaching the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). While the SDGs address a variety of issues and challenges, the promotion of governance—and particularly anticorruption measures—is arguably the ultimate key to sustainable development.

But what is governance, and how should it be attained? SDG 16 defines it as “the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, the provision of access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable institutions at all levels.”

In other words, improving citizencentered governance, in which citizens are placed at the heart of government decision-making.

Without this focus, governments will continue to miss core milestones that are central in achieving other SDGs. If government officials do not consider the needs of citizens when it comes to education, food, urban planning and infrastructure policy then government will constantly miss the mark in achieving real progress to address citizen concerns.

SEPTEMBER 2017 16

Opaque government decisionmaking and limited government accountability are the underlying issues of subpar development outcomes.

The provision of public services such as clean water and public safety is a core function of a legitimate government. To this end, strong institutions must be established and government processes streamlined in order for citizens to have the easy access to government.

In order to tackle the root cause of these issues, it is imperative to focus on improving government interactions with citizens and ensuring citizens have the ability to hold government accountable. If governments don’t take this role seriously, challenges like eliminating poverty and improving education will not be addressed in an effective and sustainable manner.

Sounds simple, right? Of course, it’s not exactly that straightforward.

Governing is tough—and it should be tough. It entails balancing the demands of a variety of stakeholders with many different views. If governing is easy, that is a sign that the government is not engaging with citizens.

Citizens have varying interests and needs. Recognizing this challenge is imperative to ensuring that the relationship between a government

S P E C I A L R E P O RT

and its citizens rests on a foundation of trust. While it’s easy to yield to the temptation to simply blame politicians and pronounce the government useless, citizens must also uphold their end of the bargain. To this end, citizens must reflect upon how they are attempting to solve problems in their own communities, and whether they are holding government to account in an effective way, or simply giving in to pessimism without taking action.

There are a number of relatively simple ways that citizens can hold government accountable and be part of the solution: attending town hall meetings, joining local government committees or proactively engaging their elected officials. Even in closed and closing societies, information technologies offer opportunities for citizens to monitor government actions. Civic engagement should also take place outside formal democratic channels through bodies such as school boards or housing associations, where corruption also flourishes, and where citizens have an opportunity to gain “small-p” political skills that are transferable to the local and national levels.

Another key hurdle to citizencentered governance is the lack of transparency and accountability

“Until principles of democratic governance such as increased transparency and accountability are adopted by governments, attempts to achieve true sustainability will be little more than band aids on a serious wound.” which both creates and results from corruption. Crooked practices can permeate all levels of government and manifest in a variety of forms, from petty bribery to grand corruption.

Corruption stymies democratic development, corrodes public trust and responsiveness to citizens’ needs. The impact of corruption is felt throughout society, hindering the participation of citizens in government, reducing the quality of service delivery and impeding economic development.

In order to correctly combat corruption, it’s vital to understand not just where it exists, but where it has the potential to arise. This approach was the impetus for the

17

International Republican Institute’s (IRI) Vulnerabilities to Corruption Assessment tool (VCA)—a mechanism which engages reform-minded political leaders, civil society and citizens in the process of identifying and addressing weaknesses in government processes that leave the system susceptible to corruption. The tool is grounded in the belief that if government and citizens are aware of these vulnerabilities, they can better combat corruption and improve accountability to and engagement with citizens.

Improving government processes to spotlight corruption will help in achieving sustainable development.

Until principles of democratic governance such as increased transparency and accountability are adopted by governments, attempts to achieve true sustainability will be little more than band aids on a serious wound. ●

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Rima Kawas is the Director of Governance and Collaborative Learning at the International Republican Institute (IRI). Prior to joining IRI, Kawas had extensive experience working in both the private and in the public sectors, working in both city and state government, including as a Senior Policy Advisor to former Governor Tim Pawlenty.

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

THE I LANGUAGE OF THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS By: Charles Crawford

n September 2015 the UN General Assembly proclaimed (UNGA resolution A/RES/70/1) the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs).

Right in the preamble, the UNGA resolution asserts that “eradicating poverty … including extreme poverty is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement (sic) for sustainable development … bold and transformative steps are urgently needed”. The word ‘poverty’ occurs 29 times in the resolution, not least in SDG Goal One (end poverty in all its forms everywhere). The word ‘wealth’ only three times. The word ‘rich’ not once.

What if in fact the way to end poverty ‘urgently’ in the 783 weeks between September 2015 and September 2030 is for a few ‘Western’ corporate behemoths (Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple) and some fast-growing Asian conglomerates to help myriad small businesses simply to ignore governments, and help the world’s people link up on their own terms?

Wait. 783 weeks to 2030? That’s not long. Can anything on a scale that matters for global poverty be achieved in such a short period?

SEPTEMBER 2017 18

The answer is a resounding yes.

Look at how China and India have changed over the past 30 or so years.

Significant proportions of all the poor people on Earth live in these two huge countries: how they tackle development has a strategic impact on global development numbers.

Back in 1990 both countries had large poor populations subsisting on an average of less than $400 per person, per year, but with India’s GDP per capita a clear notch ahead of China’s. Since then China has soared ahead towards $8,000 per person, with India trailing at some $1,500 per person. These two countries had roughly equal (and equally modest) total GDPs in 1990. China’s is now hurtling beyond $11 trillion, while India has passed only $2 trillion.

China’s accelerating advantage has taken place in the past 15 years or so—in just 750 weeks! Wealthcreation on this scale and pace is quite unprecedented in human history.

It sets a formidable operational and philosophical example to other governments on what works, or not.

How has that miraculous Chinese development happened? Could it be down to the liberating effects of what might loosely be called ‘capitalism’?

Where poverty drags on, what

S P E C I A L R E P O RT

exactly is happening or not happening, and why?

Note too that China’s growth creates lots more ‘global inequality’.

But isn’t inequality an inevitable if not beneficial part of development?

When one country or region forges ahead and gets richer, doesn’t the embarrassment of falling behind incentivise other regions to accept that their policies aren’t working and try a lot harder?

A startling example of sustained state-sponsored stupidity is the contrasting development outcomes achieved by Singapore and Cuba over long decades. In 1960 both were very poor islands. Singapore’s per capita GDP is now $50,000 per head. Cuba’s per capita GDP stagnates well below $10,000.

This UNGA resolution glosses over such dreary realities to win support from all the word’s governments, be they good, or adequate, or appalling. It accordingly is a sprawling text of nearly 16,000 words: 6,400 words of introductory language; 266 words giving in summary form the 17 SDGs themselves: 5,276 words elaborating on targets/ themes for each SDG; and 3,758 rambling words on implementation.

The dubious word ‘stakeholders’

gets in 13 times, closely followed by the no less shifty expression ‘civil society’ (10 mentions). The useless tautology ‘in order to’ appears 17 times.

‘Corruption’ appears twice. ‘Regulation’ twice. ‘Deregulation’ or ‘privatization’— not at all. ‘Clean energy’ two mentions; ‘nuclear energy’ no mentions.

The text sinks under hundreds of turgid pseudo-Latinised noun forms ending in –tion: desertification, implementation, adaptation, mitigation, risk-reduction, poverty eradication, sustainable industrialization, and so on. And it even drifts into hippy-style babble:

“WE REAFFIRM THAT PLANET EARTH AND ITS ECOSYSTEMS ARE OUR COMMON HOME AND THAT ‘MOTHER EARTH’ IS A COMMON EXPRESSION IN A NUMBER OF COUNTRIES AND REGIONS.” Conclusion? It’s understandable (given the political sensitivities) that the SDGs don’t point out specific successes or not-so-successes. Yet the tone of the SDGs is depressingly old-fashioned. Far too much control; far too little liberation.

SDG Goal 8 assumes that

19

‘employment’ can be ‘full’ for ‘all’.

Back in real life, robots and automation and AI are transforming everything in our lives around the world. Will future generations look back on ‘jobs’ as a baffling example of poor information technology?

Above all, in too many countries corrupt state structures supported by inept international ‘development assistance’ are the main obstacle to development. Where in the SDGs is the praise for the pell-mell technologyled private creativity that in Asia and now across Africa is setting millions of people free from the blundering state bodies that for decades have been holding them back? ●

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Charles Crawford CMG is an award-winning speechwriter. He worked for 28 years in the UK Diplomatic Service including three postings as British Ambassador to Sarajevo, Belgrade, and Warsaw before starting a private consulting career in communication technique.

He is the author of Speeches for Leaders, available worldwide in Kindle format and in print in North America.

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

UNLOCKING T GLOBAL ACTION ON MENTAL HEALTH By: Patrick J. Kennedy Husseini Manji, MD Garen Staglin

he global burden of mental illness—both in human suffering and economic loss— is catastrophic and rapidly growing.

Mental health conditions affect more than one third of the world’s population, and they result in nearly $1 trillion in lost economic productivity. However, while passionate leaders in international organizations are working tirelessly on this issue, enhanced support from the world’s top economies and leaders would greatly strengthen global mental health efforts, providing committed leadership, wide-reaching coordination, and dramatically increased funding that mental health requires.

In the recent past, focused global initiatives spearheaded by the G7 or the G20 have proven effective, unlocking $100 million in funding for Alzheimer’s research and $4 billion to improve stability in the Middle East. Leaders and nations belonging to these groups have the resources and leadership to drive meaningful progress on pressing challenges—and few challenges are as pressing as mental health.

SEPTEMBER 2017 20

A silent issue of our times, mental health is inexorably linked to economic and social development.

World leaders clearly laid out this concept in 2015’s Sustainable Development Goals, which includes the target of promoting mental health and well-being for all. Two years later, we stand at a critical turning point. For the first time in human history, suicide is the leading cause of death in girls ages 15-19; a once unimaginable statistic that has become a tragic reality. In families, communities, and societies, mental illness takes a devastating toll that is only growing worse. In economic terms, the annual cost of mental illness is projected to more than double from $2.5 trillion in 2010 to $6 trillion in 2030. Yet, existing programs are often underfunded or fragmented, stigma continues to restrain individual and collective responses, and there remains an overwhelming need for a well-funded, sustained, and global response.

A serious commitment by global leaders would provide such a response. To be effective, world leaders would need to develop a strategic framework that focused

S P E C I A L R E P O RT

on the two key levers—sustainable funding and stigma reduction— which are the core of the many diverse mental health initiatives that can provide the greatest potential benefits: First, and above all, sustainable funding is needed to reflect the complex economic burden of mental health conditions, which cause enormous health care costs and drain workers’ and businesses’ productivity. Sustainable funding would help to bolster access to mental health care and at the same time encourage a strong, actionoriented scientific research agenda to accelerate progress on innovative mental health treatments. This package could include a framework for multi-sectoral collaboration and new policy incentives to attract sustained research investment.

Simultaneously, stigma reduction must become a fundamental priority for key stakeholders and society overall. Currently, stigma remains a primary cause of untreated mental illness, and funding, research, and policy advances will only have an effect if individuals are empowered to seek information and care.

“In families, communities, and societies, mental illness takes a devastating toll that is only growing worse.

In economic terms, the annual cost of mental illness is projected to more than double from $2.5 trillion in 2010 to $6 trillion in 2030.”

Therefore, a comprehensive new effort should engage schools, universities, and workplaces to combat stigma across age groups.

Three-quarters of mental conditions manifest before age 24—a critical phase when young adults transition into the workforce—making this population a key focus. And in the workforce, a recently released report found that mental disorders are the single largest cost driver for many employers; highlighting the urgency of workplace anti-stigma campaigns.

Innovative approaches to fighting stigma could also help vulnerable populations, including native communities, refugees, economically disadvantaged individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, and veterans.

21

Humanitarian, social, and economic imperatives demand action from global leaders on mental health.

Individuals and families are suffering.

Economic costs are soaring. Lives are being lost.

While existing efforts are important, greater commitment, coordination, and funding are needed. A commitment by world leaders would not only greatly enhance support for those heroes already passionately working to address this crisis—it would also help to create new synergies and prompt urgent international action.

Global leaders should unite around a new strategic framework to generate sustainable funding, fight stigma, and transform mental health worldwide. ●

ABOUT THE AUTHORs The Honorable Patrick J. Kennedy is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives and the nation’s leading political voice on mental illness, addiction, and other brain diseases. Husseini K. Manji, MD, is Global Head, Neuroscience at Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development.

Garen Staglin is Co-Founder and Chairman of One Mind and Co-Founder, President, and Trustee of One Mind Institute

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

THE VALUE OF W INDIVIDUAL LEADERSHIP TO ADVANCE THE SDGs By: Erika Veberyte

hen the world leaders adopted the Millennium Development Goals in 2000, among the eight core goals were women’s empowerment and gender equality. By 2015—the target date for achieving the Goals—it was clear that progress had been slow. Did the pre-existing baseline inequalities or declarative statements, rather than action-oriented work, prevent progress? From a gender perspective, it was both. However, baseline inequalities were often overcome by determined actions of motivated individuals. These individuals live among us, and are today’s leaders who are driving the work to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Transforming our world by 2030 and achieving seventeen Sustainable Development Goals will involve more than simple advancement on 169 targets of the new universal Agenda. It will require every individual to act and contribute their skills to promoting the Goals. Selima Ahmad, a successful business woman, 2014 Oslo Business for Peace Awardee, and Founder of Bangladesh Women’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BWCCI) is one of such leaders. Her individual actions are furthering the progress towards the Sustainable Development SEPTEMBER 2017 22

Goals through tackling gender inequality.

As a business owner, Selima recognizes the importance of creating a business that is a responsible world citizen, and produces a positive social impact for the benefit of all members of society. Since founding BWCCI in 2001, she has empowered more than 9,000 women into business. Going beyond the basics of offering technical training, she has provided financial backing to women. This, in turn, has afforded income-generating activities, and today these women entrepreneurs are creating employment opportunities for others.

Additionally, Selima has stood up for her fellow women entrepreneurs by facilitating the establishment of the first public rent-free venues.

Today, these public venues offer women micro-entrepreneurs the possibility to display and sell their products across Bangladesh.

Furthermore, she established a hotline offering legal consultations, which provides continuous support to women who are treated unfairly by the government and private institutions simply because of their gender. Additionally, Selima built a strong coalition of business organizations, which successfully

S P E C I A L R E P O RT

lobbied for a separate allocation of funds within the national budget to support the development of women-owned businesses. As a result, the government of Bangladesh has created a special fund, which today is collateral-free and with low-interest rates.

Stella Famumbod is also one of the many leaders around the world who are changing the plight of women and girls in their countries. She Heads the InterFaith Vision Foundation Cameroon (IVFCam) and has been vital in the passage of gender equality laws. A widower herself, she ensured that the Metta Charter on Widowhood established equitable inheritance and custody rights for widows upon their husband’s death. This meant that widowers in Cameroon would be able to remain in their family homes after their husband’s death, rather than be thrown into the street with their children.

Today, Stella is leading the work to build a National Women’s Caucus. It aims to coalesce 106 female Cameroonian leaders serving in office, including Senators, Deputies, Mayors, Ministers, and women’s non-profit organizations. Its goal is to create a common platform across the entire country that engages women in decision-making at all levels

of governance. Stella believes that through coordinated action, an effective women’s caucus will be able to further the respect for human rights and gender equality, thus strengthening democracy in Cameroon.

Realizing that democracy is impossible without equal opportunities for women and men in political decision-making, two Ukrainian women launched Gender Monitoring of Ukraine Parliamentary Elections in 2012 and 2014. Maria Alekseyenko, Chair of the Board of the Women’s Consortium of Ukraine and Larysa Magdyuk, Independent Gender Expert, wanted to draw public’s attention to the lack of women in politics. In addition to providing an overview of political party electoral agendas and candidates’ lists, they also analyzed the media coverage of candidates from a gender perspective. Moreover, they offered recommendations for enhancing women’s role and participation in the political life of Ukraine. Ultimately, through Gender Monitoring of Elections, they aimed to raise the overall public awareness of equal opportunities for both genders—in elections and beyond.

Evidence shows that gender equality is not only a moral imperative,

23

it makes economic and political sense. Women and men bring different experiences to constructing a prosperous and inclusive society.

Understanding that leadership is the ability to inspire others, these and many other women leaders are motivating us to act. Action is what will bring the biggest breakthroughs during today’s period of uncertainty and global challenges. The fact that G7 members are focusing on the Sustainable Development Goals during their 43rd meeting in Italy this May, elevates the importance of individual action and its ability to transform the world into environmentally conscious, economically sound, and gender inclusive place to live. ●

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Erika Veberyte has 20 years of experience in international relations and global development.

She has served as national security adviser to the Speaker of Parliament and President of Lithuania during Lithuania’s accession to the EU and NATO; as a senior Lithuanian diplomat in Washington, DC; most recently led the Women’s Democracy Network.

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

THE I BUSINESS CASE FOR GLOBAL, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT By: Samantha Stafford

t should not come as a surprise that improvements in international sustainable development cannot stem solely from government intervention.

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well as their predecessor, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), both ambitiously sought to promote solutions by involving several global actors.

With the SDGs, the private sector has embraced the responsibility in advancing the global goals like never before.

In order for any of the 17 SDGs to be realistically achieved, or for serious progress to be made by 2030, the involvement of non-governmental actors is essential. An approach sufficiently supported by the private sector is more likely to succeed than a governmental approach on its own.

The SDGs require action on every level of society and government regulations and contributions alone are not pervasive enough.

According to a 2016 Brookings report, private investments and financial flows have drastically increased over the past two decades.

Official Development Assistance (ODA), donated by governments now accounts for just 10% of financial flows; private flows comprise the remaining 90%. Furthermore, a Sustainable SEPTEMBER 2017 24

Development Solutions Network (a Global Initiative for the UN) Report explains that the SDGs compel a global partnership, one in which states must coordinate and cooperate with multinational businesses in order for the SDGs to be realistically achieved.

Although the success of this multifaceted approach is hard to concretely measure just yet, certain assessments (such as the statement from the World Bank Group’s Vice President on Development and Finance) suggest that the private sector must contribute more for the SDGs to be reached.

The private sector’s importance as an actor in the global sphere is increasing while the power of the nation-state is declining—and has for some time now. We live in a world where a company can command more financial capital than an entire country’s GDP (Apple’s finances surpass two-thirds of countries’ GDP).

About 50 percent of assets (under management) worldwide belong to the largest banks, and it is an unwritten requirement for large businesses to shed their national ties and embrace global value chains. In many cases, the private sector recognizes and takes advantage of its international ties and financial power in comparison to the state, whether avoiding country tax

S P E C I A L R E P O RT

“Although the UN proclaims that progress has been made towards certain SDGs, it is hard to measure and even harder to attribute the changes to specific actors.

And certain stakeholders believe that no significant progress has been made at all.”

laws by moving capital overseas, or explicitly attempting to override the government’s agenda, as hundreds of companies did in forming the “We Are Still In” campaign in response to Washington’s withdrawal from The Paris Agreement.

Developing the SDGs and adopting them in 2015 involved the private sector; the private sector forms the financial backbone of the state, and the financial sector itself is becoming more global and less national. In essence, it was smart for the establishment and adoption of the SDGs to be a truly global process (including state governments as well as the private sector), because corporate power and influence is increasingly global and unconfined by state borders. As previously mentioned, the private sector possesses a significant portion of the world’s wealth today. That is one reason why, as former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said during a UN Forum, “I am [we are] counting on the private sector to drive success.” The inclusion of the private sector as a stakeholder of the SDGs is practically a necessity.

But is the private sector willing to foot the bill post-2015? Despite its status as the most flexible financial muscle in the global economy today, so far it looks like the private sector

is reluctant to throw many punches regarding sustainable development.

This is somewhat unsurprising; such progress in terms of global development supported by the private sector has never happened before.

Judith Rodin, former President of The Rockefeller Foundation, notes an issue facing the private sector in recognizing that, “while there are many pathways forward to achieve the SDGs…business as usual is not an option,” and not nearly enough to tackle the funding gap. In essence, the SDGs require businesses to consistently go out of their way for the greater good. But are businesses today really structured to look out for the greater good?

The short answer is not really, but they can be. It depends on the adoption of a new business strategy: shared value. According to Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer, if businesses reinvented their purpose as creating “shared value,” the private sector could create value in a way that also benefits society. Social success alongside company success, because social success would be part of the company’s new bottom-line.

The current approach to creating value in business is focused on short-term financial achievement; however, it is the opportunity for consistent financial achievements over time that has the most power to ensure a company’s survival and long-term success.

And the time to change is now.

Consumers are becoming frustrated with businesses, and the capital system in general (as can be seen by the recent wave of populism across the globe).

Furthermore, consumers are becoming increasingly well aware of their purchasing power. A Cone Communications report shows that 90% of people surveyed would boycott a company if they discovered that the company was using dishonest or irresponsible business practices, and 84% already search for products and judge them based on their responsibility.

25

Although the UN proclaims that progress has been made towards certain SDGs, it is hard to measure and even harder to attribute the changes to specific actors. And certain stakeholders believe that no significant progress has been made at all (according to research from the Overseas Development Institute and a recent Globescan/ Sustainability Survey). Despite the UN’s 2016 Sustainable Development Goals Report, which highlighted small signs of progress, more action is needed to reach the vast majority of goals by 2030. During the High Level Political Forum, one UN representative notably said, “leave no one behind” (a key component of the SDGs meaning the SDG targets must be pursued for everyone), “isn’t something that will happen by everyone just repeating that phrase again and again at the UN.” Perhaps the SDGs are too broad and ambitious for progress to be accurately and extensively measured only about two years in. Regardless, a large part of the disputable lack of progress is due to a seemingly intractable problem: what is good for society as a whole is not always perceived as good for business (whether or not that may be true).

According to the aforementioned Globescan/Sustainability Survey, businesses primarily support SDGs when they see an opportunity to align business interests with those of broader society. To accomplish this, businesses need to reevaluate the social environment and their consumer base, and embrace the concept of shared value. The business case for promoting international development relies on the active realization and alignment of business and society’s objectives. And businesses should strongly consider realigning, if they want a future society full of healthy and financially secure people to buy their products and services. ●

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

IT’S TIME FOR O AN EXPLICIT U.S. PLAN ON DOMESTIC FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT By: Emily Foecke

nly 25 percent of births were registered in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in 2014, which has led to high numbers of undocumented citizens. As of late 2015, many civil servants were being paid with cash from suitcases carried from Kinshasa. Yet, despite the country’s anemic administrative capacity, the DRC may be expected to dramatically increase its contribution to development financing. In the world’s poorest countries like the DRC, where “financing for development” means the provision of basic public services, the concept of increasing domestic financing for development (DF4D) can seem grossly disproportionate to reality.

DF4D has long been a talking point in international development, but doubts about the future of U.S. foreign aid have made increased DF4D all-too-plausible for developing countries absent prior strategic planning. Two critical steps should be taken in the face of the haphazard budget cuts to foreign assistance proposed by the Trump administration.

First, U.S. lawmakers and bureaucrats in various agencies—including the State Department, Department of Defense, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)— SEPTEMBER 2017 26

responsible for funding and implementing international development efforts should acknowledge the challenges to increasing DF4D from developing countries. They should be explicit in explaining why countries like the DRC are not ready to dramatically increase their financial contributions for development and emphasize the humanitarian disaster that would result from expecting increased DF4D too soon. Second, they should lay out a realistic timeline for the United States to work towards increased DF4D. They may find valuable traction with the Trump administration if they approach dialogue on U.S. funding for international development from this angle.

There are major differences in current levels of DF4D between developing countries. Most middleincome and emerging countries already self-finance most of their development. The capital for DF4D in developing countries comes from sources including tax revenues, non-concessional loans, bond markets, and private external financing like foreign direct investment. Some of the most common ways to increase DF4D are by improving tax collection, broadening the tax base, curbing excessive granting of tax exemptions, increasing national savings to improve

S P E C I A L R E P O RT

“in many fragile and low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa, foreign aid makes up over half of all external financial inflows.

These countries also face the highest barriers to putting increased DF4D into practice because of low capacity in key institutions and problems including graft and weak enforcement mechanisms.”

creditworthiness, and stimulating private investment through publicprivate partnerships.

However, in many fragile and low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa, foreign aid makes up over half of all external financial inflows. These countries also face the highest barriers to putting increased DF4D into practice because of low capacity in key institutions and problems including graft and weak enforcement mechanisms. In the DRC, for example, efforts to improve tax collection have been hamstrung by tax collector fraud, missing taxpayer data, and low confidence in how tax revenues will be spent.

The United States can develop a clear framework and plan to build up DF4D based on an understanding of these challenges. In countries that are already self-financing most of their development, U.S. official development assistance (ODA) should be primarily comprised of specialized aid to close the gap between domestic and foreign financing. Aid-for-tax administration, for example, currently receives only 1 percent of development funds.

However, such specialized aid can drastically increase a country’s public finances by targeting its ability to collect, regulate, and spend taxes.

Countries that fall into this category should be given a target date by which they would cease to be eligible for U.S. ODA. This would create a credible incentive for governments to commit to needed reforms to boost DF4D. The building of institutional capability should be the top priority for U.S. international development efforts in fragile, low-income countries where a majority of financial inflows come from foreign aid. A U.S. plan to increase DF4D in such countries should boost the amount of ODA funneled to local actors and institutions rather than to projects run by foreign organizations that often create parallel administrative systems instead of building on government systems. While disbursing aid in such a way could risk exposure to corruption, it is one of the most effective ways to build institutional capability for DF4D. Focusing U.S. ODA on local actors and institutions is necessary to strengthen local capacity to autonomously carry out the administration of the state. This will allow countries to move towards self-financing more of their development.

Most developing countries have a full portfolio of donors, including the United States, that makes up the gap between DF4D and full financial needs.

27

DF4D is therefore an issue for all donors of foreign assistance. For example, there remains a $2.8 trillion annual funding gap between necessary financing to achieve global development goals—notably the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—and current levels of aid assistance provision. No donor countries have the political mandate or means to fill that gap with increased foreign assistance. Therefore, the international community faces the same need as the United States to responsibly shift the development paradigm to more DF4D. Rather than drastically slash budgets, it is time to explicitly communicate a responsible and realistic plan to eventually draw down foreign financing for development. ●

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Emily Foecke is the International Development Fellow at Young Professionals in Foreign Policy (YPFP). She is also a Research Assistant with the Center for Global Development in Washington, DC. Emily earned her Master of International Affairs in 2016 from the University of California-San Diego, where she concentrated on international development policy.

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

IS UNIVERSAL W BASIC INCOME THE ANSWER TO AUTOMATION? By: Bailey Piazza

hether epidemic or enhancement, a clear trend has swept the globe: robots seem to be replacing the jobs formerly held by hardworking humans. According to one report, U.S. factories on average employ about two robots for every one hundred employees. Meanwhile, in Korea approximately five robots join the ranks of every one hundred workers. As these numbers continue to escalate worldwide, the market expands and the cost to implement machines plummets. While this speaks volumes to the increased global development and innovation in technology, the rapid computerization of jobs has resulted in about 57 percent of the world’s jobs to be at risk of extinction. This means people with narrow/focused skillsets and little education will be forced out of employment with slim opportunities to find careers elsewhere in the same field. While increased automation points to the manufacturing industry as the most significant victim, the problem extends into the elimination of jobs in other sectors. Ninety-seven percent of farm laborers and fast food cooks will have their jobs at risk of extinction. Seventy-nine percent SEPTEMBER 2017 28

of truck driver jobs are at risk, as well as 80 percent of construction laborer jobs.

“Ninety-seven percent of farm laborers and fast food cooks will have their jobs at risk of extinction. Seventynine percent of truck driver jobs are at risk, as well as 80 percent of construction laborer jobs.”

A society without work (and thus an earned income) will continue to drive down the median income, as it has for the past 16 years by approximately three percent. This causes the socioeconomic gap to increase and inequality and polarization in the world’s societies to skyrocket.

Among the flurry of solutions gaining traction recently are proposals for some form of a universal basic income (UBI). Those proposals can take a variety of forms, including universal grants, a negative income tax (NIT), or a type of wage supplement. The case for replacing the current welfare system with a guaranteed national income is

S P E C I A L R E P O RT

intriguing. It promises an anti-poverty effort that is simple and transparent, that treats recipients like adults by eliminating the current complex paternalistic system, and that has a better set of incentives when it comes to work, marriage, and savings. In theory such an income could be set high enough that no citizen would live in poverty.

But what sounds good in theory tends to break down when one scrutinizes the implementation.

There appears to be serious tradeoffs among cost, simplicity, and incentive structure. According to the Economist, a country the size of the United States would need to raise collected taxes that go into GDP by nearly 10% to pay every child and adult about $10,000 per year. While noble in theory, the universal basic income could be exceptionally costly, costing just the U.S., for example, an approximate $4.4 trillion.

Costs aside, another downside of implementing such a policy is its potential impact on productivity, the labor force, and human purpose.

Making it possible to live without working for a wage will discourage citizens from obtaining long-term security in the job market. Work is

also one of the few defining aspects of most societies and to make it obsolete would have both productive and social repercussions. In many cultures across the globe, one’s career defines oneself. A profession breeds sharper skill and a sense of purpose in the universe. Without the need to learn and adapt to new skills, what will humanity do to fill the void? Some argue a technological renaissance will emerge, granting humans the opportunity to shed their financial stresses and enjoy the limitless capabilities of the automation age.

However, a guaranteed income could mean the collapse of social mobility with no means of promotion, locking people in a social class with no means to escape—The American Nightmare.

“a guaranteed income could mean the collapse of social mobility with no means of promotion, locking people in a social class with no means to escape— The American Nightmare.”

While the UBI is a plausible solution for a future crisis, versions of a UBI are already being implemented. The

29

Netherlands, Kenya, and Namibia have made the trial list. In 2016, The Netherlands launched a program that would give it’s citizens $980.

Also in 2016, a $30 million program funded by GiveDirectly gave an unconditional monthly benefit to 6,000 people in Kenya. In 2008, OtjiveroOmitara, a Namibian village riddled with high crime and poverty rates, launched a pilot program that provided every resident of the village with a basic monthly stipend. The money was collected from church groups, NGOs, and labor unions. Since implementation childhood malnourishment dropped 32 percent, the poverty rate dropped by 18 percent, and the crimerate plummeted by 36 percent. In addition, the average income earned outside of the stipend increased 29 percent.

While the trials show positive results, there is still much to be determined before a universal basic income can be applied to America and the rest of the international community. The future of an automated labor force and machinedriven economy poses many woes and wonders for the world. Now is the time to prepare for, discuss, experiment, and carefully co-create our future world. ●

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

WHAT’S W TRENDING IN GLOBAL EDUCATION DIPLOMACY By: Nicole Goldin

hile education has for years been at the forefront of the global development and social agendas, its place on the diplomatic agenda has arguably been less prominent. As such, ’Education Diplomacy’ is an idea whose time has come. Similar to the successful use of diplomatic initiatives to address global concerns such as health or financial inclusion, ‘Education Diplomacy’, is an emerging approach to bring public and private stakeholders together in dialogue, partnership and negotiation to advance policy solutions that promote inclusive, equitable and quality learning outcomes for the world’s children and youth.

As I discussed earlier this Spring on a panel at the Institute of the Center for Education Diplomacy, we need to act fast to serve this largest generation of young people in human history.

Global economic, demographic, social, cultural, political and technological trends are rapidly shaping our lives in dramatic ways. The “how” and “what” of learning and earning has arguably never been more dynamic, and the consequences for education diplomacy arguably never so stark. Of course, no two classrooms, schools, local contexts are exactly alike. However, these macro global trends do have several shared SEPTEMBER 2017 30

micro implications worth exploring.

The positive impacts of education —especially for girls—on health, economic growth, governance, inequality and peace outcomes are well-proven. Despite progress, particularly at the primary level, hundreds of millions of children and youth—mostly girls—remain out of school, do not complete secondary education (much less obtain any vocational or higher education) or do not leave education with the competencies and knowledge to get a job. In fact, today’s youth are experiencing the greatest unemployment crisis in recent history; resulting in part from unprecedented skills gaps. In the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Goal 4 asks nations to “Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning.” As we seek to advance education and learning, we must acknowledge that while education drives development, global trends and development drive education.

So, what’s happening? In terms of trends, population is certainly a factor.

We are living in the peak youth era, with more than half the world’s population under 30. While parts of the world are aging, most low and middle income and emerging market

S P E C I A L R E P O RT

“globalization, rapid urbanization and massive migration (including those forcibly displaced by humanitarian crises, wars, or natural disasters) impact educational needs and what children and youth will have to know to succeed in learning and life. Two thirds of the world’s citizens will live in cities by 2050.”

countries will remain young for decades. Africa alone will be home to more than 450 million youth aged 15-24—nearly double the current cohort—by 2050. This means education systems need to plan for scale to absorb an ever-growing headcount. It also means that the pace at which workers will join the labor force is unlikely to slow down for some time. In fact, the World Bank reports that over the next 10 years at least, 5 million new jobs a month need to be created to absorb new entrants. At the same time, globalization, rapid urbanization and massive migration (including those forcibly displaced by humanitarian crises, wars, or natural disasters) impact educational needs and what children and youth will have to know to succeed in learning and life. Two thirds of the world’s citizens will live in cities by 2050.

Technological trends are also glaring.

The impact of the digital age on education can be seen as two-fold.

Mobile, internet, gaming, blockchain and other technological hardware and software are the basis for new teaching platforms, educational delivery, credentialing or student engagement.

In addition to affecting how kids may learn, technology is also affecting what kids should learn. With the rise of more

advanced manufacturing and the spread of mobile apps, the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence (AI), the skills and competencies that made one successful in yesteryears are no longer enough in many parts of the world. And the pace of change may be faster than even the skeptics (like me) care to admit.

These forces are also giving rise to another macro trend with implications for education: the changing nature of work. The shortage of jobs means people are entering the informal sector, engaging in self-employment or taking an entrepreneurial path.

At the same time, online or digital work, and entrepreneurial needs and aspirations, supported by the diffusion of technology and innovation, has given rise to gig and sharing economies and taskbased or micro work. Globalization means marketplaces, commerce and work are both local and global.

What does this all mean in terms of education diplomacy, particularly in low and medium countries where the significant majority of the world’s children and youth live?

There are five policy initiatives education diplomats and stakeholders could prioritize:

31

1. Consolidate the gains made at the primary level, promote transition to and completion of secondary education and expand access to vocational or higher educational opportunities, especially among girls.

This means increasing financing for secondary, vocational, tertiary education, and ensuring that schools and systems are responsive to the needs of all children and youth.

Education diplomats should also pursue policy and other instruments— such as cash transfers—to incentivize and increase the value proposition of schooling (especially for young women). It also means investing in teachers and teacher training, as well as in capacity and infrastructure of education systems towards scale.

2. Engage the private sector and make education and training more responsive to trends and relevant to the ‘glocal’ job market to reduce the skills gap and smooth the education to employment pathway. For example, as urban economies are more service oriented, social and soft skills as well as vocational and professional skills are even more requisite for success.

As markets become further integrated and international, and as more children and young people are on the move,

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

“for those whose schooling is cut short by poverty, early marriage, conflict, or disaster, second chance programs and out of school learning opportunities should be put in place.”

language skills, resilience and multicultural fluency are increasingly important along with strong fundamentals in literacy and numeracy and technical competencies. To succeed in an increasingly digital world facing the Fourth Industrial Revolution, STEM competencies of science, technology, engineering and math are now must-have. Finally, for those whose schooling is cut short by poverty, early marriage, conflict, or disaster, second chance programs and out of school learning opportunities should be put in place.

3. Expand experiential, entrepreneurial and leadership education. Children and youth are increasingly likely to end in roles, livelihoods or jobs that require soft life and citizen skills (such as teamwork, grit and communications) as well as applied, business and financial skills (such as customer or client service, marketing, accounting and planning).

This could come in the form of curricula reform, even at the secondary level, to introduce civics, leadership content and require such practical skills-based and entrepreneurial education (as was recently done in Rwanda); or in training teachers in more experiential, student-centered

pedagogies that move away from rote passive instruction to a more active learning experience. Similarly, education diplomats should activate young people’s voice and agency in the educational process to better understand and be responsive to what and how they want to learn; promoting retention and results.

4. Leverage—but not rely on— technology and digital tools.

Education in the 21st century could be a radically different experience because of technology. “EdTech” as it’s known opens up a world of possibilities including for example MOOCs, eBook integrated curriculums, cost-effective apps or games that offer interactive and animated content in native languages. At the same time, technology cannot fix all problems of schools and systems. In addition to digital divides, there are also challenges and risks associated with the diffusion of technology, whether you are in the Ukraine, Uganda or the U.S.—including for example infrastructure or the amplification of inequality.

5. Ensure education diplomacy actions are data-driven and evidenceinformed. Because we cannot manage what we do not measure, efforts should SEPTEMBER 2017 32

be made to support countries to strengthen evaluation, assessment and advanced metrics for learning outcomes. To be most effective, we need more information and data on the extent to which students are learning not just participating. And, we need to better understand with rigorous evaluation what policies, programs, and technologies work (or don’t work), why and under what conditions.

Nelson Mandela inspired the belief that “education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” In these uncertain times, we need education diplomacy that both appreciates global trends and is grounded in local realities to unlock this potential. We need education diplomats at all levels—and in all roles—to come together in partnership to ensure the world’s three billion children and young people receive the education they want and deserve.

If they succeed, so might we all. ●

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Nicole Goldin is a consulting expert in international development, global trends and youth affairs; as well as Adjunct Professor at George Washington University and Senior Associate (non-resident) of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

SAVE THE DATE

GLOBAL TALENT SUMMIT ZURICH, SWITZERLAND | 20 JANUARY 2018 TO RSVP VISIT: GTS18.SPLASHTHAT.COM

ETH Zürich / Gian Marco Castelberg

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

LANGUAGE L RIGHTS NEED TO BE AT THE CENTER OF GLOBAL POLICY By: Akshan de Alwis

anguages, with their complex implications for identity, communication, social integration, education and development, are of strategic importance for people and planet.

Yet, due to globalization processes, they are increasingly under threat, or disappearing altogether. When languages fade, so does the world’s rich tapestry of cultural diversity.

Opportunities, traditions, memory, unique modes of thinking and expression—valuable resources for ensuring a better future—are also lost.

More than 50 percent of the approximately 7,000 languages spoken in the world are likely to die out within a few generations, and 96 percent of these languages are spoken by a mere 4 percent of the world’s population.

Only a few hundred languages have genuinely been given pride of place in education systems and the public domain, and less than a hundred are used in the digital world.

Cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue, the promotion of education for all and the development of knowledge societies are central to UNESCO’s work. But they are not possible without broad and international commitment to promoting multilingualism and SEPTEMBER 2017 34

linguistic diversity, including the preservation of endangered languages.

While the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has signed an agreement with the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) to measure global citizenship and sustainable development education, the persistent marginalization of mother languages worldwide is threatening Goal 4 of the UN for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The Agenda 2030 includes seven targets in Goal 4 that aims to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”.

The seventh target—Goal 4.7— obliges the international community to ensure that in the next 15 years “all learners (would) acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development”.

S P E C I A L R E P O RT

UNESCO relates global citizenship to the empowerment of learners to assume active roles to face and resolve global challenges and to become proactive contributors to a more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive and secure world.

But the chances that Goal 4.7 would be achieved are rather bleak unless adequate steps are taken urgently.

The reason can be deduced from some important data released by the UNESCO on the occasion of the International Mother Language Day, celebrated annually on February 21.

According to a new paper by UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report (GEM Report), 40% of the global population—the combined population of China, India and the United States—does not access education in a language they understand.

Economic linguists—those that study the economics associated with language policy—have noted that the immediate and long term economic benefits of mother tongue education out-weigh the cost when compared to not implementing mother tongue education policy.

UNESCO also points out that more than 50 per cent of about 7,000 languages spoken in the world are

likely to die out within a few generations, and 6,720 of these languages are spoken by a mere 4 per cent or 296 million, slightly less than the population of Indonesia. “Only a few hundred languages have genuinely been given a place in education systems and the public domain, and less than a hundred are used in the digital world,” says UNESCO. The GEM Report titled ‘If you don’t understand, how can you learn?’ argues that being taught in a language other than their own can negatively impact children’s learning, especially for those living in poverty.

Marking the Mother Language Day last year, UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova underlined the basic principle of children learning in a language they speak. “With a new global education agenda that prioritizes quality, equity and lifelong learning for all, it is essential to encourage full respect for the use of mother language in teaching and learning, and to promote linguistic diversity. Inclusive language education policies will not only lead to higher learning achievement, but contribute to tolerance, social cohesion, and, ultimately, peace.”

The study finds that learning improves in countries that have

35

invested in bilingual programs. In Guatemala, students in bilingual schools have lower repetition and dropout rates. They also have higher scores in all subject areas. Children in Ethiopia who participated in bilingual programs for eight years improved their learning in subjects across the curriculum, says the document.

According to the paper, countries with colonial histories often find that shifting to bilingual education is complicated, as can be seen in many Latin American contexts that continue to use Portuguese, or Spanish, or in many Francophone African countries, where French remains the predominant language of instruction.

The GEM Report’s World Inequality Database on Education (WIDE) shows that this trend seriously hampers students’ chances of learning.

In Côte d’Ivoire, for example, 55% of grade 5 students who speak the test language at home learned the basics in reading in 2008, compared with only 25% of those who speak another language.

In Iran, 80% of grade 4 students who did not speak Farsi at home reached the basics in reading, compared with over 95% of Farsi speakers.

In Honduras, in 2011, 94% of grade 6 students who spoke the language of

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

“More than 50 percent of the approximately 7,000 languages spoken in the world are likely to die out within a few generations, and 96 percent of these languages are spoken by a mere four percent of the world’s population.

Only a few hundred languages have genuinely been given pride of place in education systems and the public domain, and less than a hundred are used in the digital world.” instruction at home learned the basics in reading compared to 62% of those who did not.

In Turkey in 2012, around 50% of poor non-Turkish speaking 15 year olds achieved minimum benchmarks in reading, against the national average of 80%.

In multi-ethnic societies, including Turkey, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Guatemala, the paper shows that imposing a dominant language through a school system – while sometimes a choice of necessity – has frequently been a source of grievance linked to wider issues of social and cultural inequality.

Aaron Benavot, Director of UNESCO’s GEM Report says language can serve as a double-edged sword.

“While it strengthens an ethnic group’s social ties and sense of belonging, it can also become a basis for their marginalization. Education policy must ensure that all learners, including minority language speakers, access school in a language they know.”

The paper offers key recommendations to ensure that children are taught in a language they understand: 1. At least six years of mother tongue instruction is needed so that gains from teaching in mother tongue in the early years are sustained.

2. Education policies should recognize the importance of mother

tongue learning. A review of 40 countries’ education plans finds that only less than half of them recognize the importance of teaching children in their home language, particularly in early grades.

3. Teachers need to be trained to teach in two languages and to understand the needs of secondlanguage learners. Teachers are rarely prepared for the reality of bilingual classrooms, including with inclusive teaching materials and appropriate assessment strategies. In Senegal, only 8%, and in Mali, only 2% of trained teachers expressed confidence about teaching in local languages.

UNESCO Director-General Bokova emphasized that “mother languages in a multilingual approach are essential components of quality education, which is itself the foundation for empowering women and men and their societies”.

With this in view, UNESCO’s Education 2030 Framework for Action, a road-map to implement the 2030 Agenda, encourages full respect for the use of mother language in teaching and learning, and the promotion and preservation of linguistic diversity, noted Bokova.

“Multilingualism is essential to drive these objectives forward—it is vital for success across the 2030 Agenda, regarding growth, employment and health, as well as sustainable SEPTEMBER 2017 36

consumption and production, and climate change,” she added.

Bokova assured that UNESCO brings the same focus to advancing linguistic diversity on the Internet, through support to relevant local content as well as media and information literacy.

Through the Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (LINKS) programme, she said, UNESCO is highlighting the importance of mother and local languages as channels for safeguarding and sharing indigenous cultures and knowledge, which are vast reservoirs of wisdom.

When it comes to the SDGs and the law, language considerations are paramount. SDG 16, which calls for “peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institution at all levels,” implies that an individual’s rights guaranteed under Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be incorporated into the SDGs regardless of the language spoken by an individual. Yet the SDGs do not address language services such as translators and interpreters necessary to ensure that already disenfranchised speakers of minority or foreign languages are not burdened with ensuring adequate and fair representation under the law. ●

SPONSORED

CONCORDIA AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda provides a terrific opportunity for cross-sector collaboration to create positive impact. While government has been successful in outlining a visionary mission for global development, businesses have the unique ability to bridge the capacity gap to reach the impact and scale necessary to meet the Sustainable Development Goals. Partnership between sectors, at both the global and at national levels, is vital in creating an effective strategy and successfully implementing it to achieve the SDGs.

CO N CO R D I A A M E R I C A S S U M M I T I N B O G OTÁ | F E B R UA RY 2 0 1 7 As the first signatory of the SDGs, Colombia has proven interest in and dedication to achieving these landmark goals. Indeed, both Colombia’s National Development Plan and the Inter-Agency Commission for the Preparation and Effective Implementation of the Post2015 Development Agenda deeply integrate the UN goals into their strategy and framework. At this Summit, participants discussed Colombia’s future development in a global context by highlighting how partnerships can address issues such as: agriculture and food supply, healthcare, education, gender equality, climate and energy, economic growth and inequality, infrastructure and urbanization.

This dialogue served as a precursor and idea incubator for Global Partnerships Week in March 2017 in Washington, D.C.

G L O B A L PA R T N E R S H I P S W E E K | W A S H I N G T O N , D . C . | M A R C H 2 0 1 7 The U.S. Department of State, in collaboration with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Concordia, and PeaceTech Lab, kicked off Global Partnerships Week (GPW) by convening the third annual gathering of partnership builders from governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, and corporations for a one-day forum. This event brought together partnership practitioners and leaders to engage in discussion on common challenges and best practices, identify new partnership opportunities, and coordinate on collaborative solutions. GPW focused on the role of partnerships in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals.

CO N CO R D I A E U R O P E S U M M I T I N AT H E N S | J U N E 2 0 1 7 Concordia | Europe highlighted the potential for effective collaboration between businesses, governments, and nonprofits in addressing the region’s greatest challenges. This Summit in Athens, Greece addressed topics including the refugee crisis, the Sustainable Development Goals, regional security, Brexit, and the future of the European Union. Private sector leaders acknowledged the need for companies to embrace the SDGs as part of their business strategy if tangible progress is to be made in achieving the goals.

CONCORDIA ANNUAL SUMMIT | SEPTEMBER 2017 Taking place in New York City during U.N. General Assembly, Concordia’s 2017 Annual Summit will continue conversations from Bogotá, Global Partnerships Week in Washington D.C., and Athens about the role of cross-sector collaboration in achieving the SDGs. A Strategic Dialogue will convene public, private, and nonprofit leaders for an intensive look at innovative financing solutions to achieve the SDGs. Additional plenary sessions will focus specifically on Goal 4: Quality Education, Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy, and Goal 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, all through the lens of multi-sector partnerships.

37

D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

AFRICAN T SOLUTIONS TO THE CONTINENT’S HEALTH CRISES By: Uju Okoye

he outbreak of the Ebola virus in West Africa in 2014 set the world’s nerves on edge. At the height of the epidemic, as the numbers of dead seemed to be rising exponentially, fears rose that this virus could be the “big one”, the one that breaks loose of its quarantine and goes global. Thankfully that didn’t happen - although nearly 12,000 people lost their lives, the outbreak was largely contained in Liberia, Sierra Leona and Guinea. And now that Ebola has resurfaced in a secluded region in the Democratic Republic of Congo, claiming four lives and infecting several dozen, the world is jittery again. But is there really cause for concern?

The DRC is battling with its eight Ebola outbreak and there are no signs for far that the virus could spread out of control. In fact, what made the West notice the 2014 outbreak was that it appeared in densely populated regions of the continent, with strong trade and travel connections to Europe and the US. Indeed, despite being known since 1977, when a Belgian scientist identified the virus in the DRC, almost no research was directed towards it – that is, until Western countries started admitting Ebola patients in their hospitals. Now, a plethora of vaccines

SEPTEMBER 2017 38

and treatments are in development, and the World Health Organization is ready to start trials in the affected Bas-Uélé region and nip the virus in the bud.

This new Ebola outbreak provides the first real-world scenario in which to test a vaccine developed by pharmaceutical giant Merck. Initially touted as a major breakthrough after early trials seemed to result in a 100 percent success rate, that claim has recently been thrown into question following a report by the US National Academy of Medicine. The panel of scientists tasked with peer reviewing the trial that had been conducted in Guinea disputed the methodology used, concluding that the vaccine’s effectiveness “could in reality be quite low”. Since the vaccine has yet to receive the World Health Organization’s regulatory approval, the findings are significant.

Nevertheless, the Global Alliance for Vaccine and Immunization, known as Gavi, announced last week that it was making 300,000 emergency doses of Merck’s vaccine available in case of a large-scale outbreak in DRC. And it’s not the only one in the pipeline. Apart from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson and the Russian government

S P E C I A L R E P O RT

have also developed vaccines that have shown promise during animal testing and are now progressing to human trials (GSK and Johnson & Johnson) or awaiting market approval (in Russia’s case).

Welcome as this rush to find a vaccine for Ebola is, it does underline a depressing truth: for Big Pharma, it only became profitable to do so once the virus began to threaten rich Western countries. GlaxoSmithKline may dispute this and point to an altruistic desire to do good behind their decision to develop a loss-making vaccine against Ebola. But overall, the tendency for pharma companies to favor developing expensive drugs for lifestyle diseases that predominantly affect rich Western countries is undeniable.

According to James Surowiecki writing in The New Yorker a study by the WHO found that “of the more than fifteen hundred drugs that came to market between 1975 and 2004 just ten were targeted [tropical] maladies” like Dengue fever or Chagas disease which kill more than half a million people a year. While Surowiecki recommends incentivizing drug makers to focus more on these forgotten diseases by offering

prizes for breakthroughs, others are looking to see whether people living in regions most affected by these diseases can be empowered through training and investment to lead the charge against them.

A report by McKinsey showed that Africa’s pharma industry grew from just $4.7 billion in 2003 to over $20 billion in 2013 and is estimated that by 2020 it will be worth somewhere between $40 and $65 billion. By fostering research and development of the drugs needed to combating diseases closer to where they are needed most, patients may stand a better chance of benefitting. This will require sustained investment in both human capital in the form of researchers, specialists, practitioners and nurses as well as the physical infrastructure required to get medicines to patients.

And progress is slowly being made.

For example, Rusal, an aluminum company, invested $10 million in Guinea to open a microbiological research center trial, which helped trial an Ebola vaccine. More than 300 pharmaceutical companies have manufacturing sites in Africa, many of which rely on local companies and employ local researchers.

39

Initiatives like H3Africa, which funds the work of African scientists researching the genomic and environmental causes of health issues affecting the continent, are leading the way in providing local responses to local issues. Mobile phone technology has allowed Africans overcome poor travel infrastructure by enabling them to access services more quickly online, a model which is now being adopted by the pharmaceutical industry. In Sudan, for example, some 27,000 health workers use a mobile system called mTrac to report on medicine stocks around the country. In Kenya, pharmacists send surveys to patients by text message and use the results to draw a map of what medicines are needed where and then distribute them accordingly.

While DRC’s new Ebola outbreak may be hogging the limelight for now, we should not lose track of the fact that if the West is really serious about improving Sub-Saharan Africa’s access to healthcare, building on the ground infrastructure should be paramount.

Otherwise, as epidemics keep happening and people keep dying, that “big one” will only be a matter of when not if. ●

SPONSORED EDITORIAL

IT IS TIME FOR THE UNITED NATIONS TO RECOGNIZE A SOVEREIGN TAIWAN; END DECADES LONG HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS By: Neil Hare

A

s the delegates of the United Nations (UN) gather in New York this week, it is critical to remind them of one of the world’s greatest and longest lasting injustices —Taiwan is not recognized by the UN and the global community as a sovereign nation. It is time to remedy that situation.

On October 25, 1971, the United Nations voted to admit mainland China’s government, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as a member and expel Taiwan’s government, the Republic of China (ROC), despite the fact that the ROC had been a member of the UN since its founding in 1945.

The PRC also assumed the ROC’s position on the UN Security Council.

This vote, which the United States opposed, also led to Taiwan’s isolation and exclusion from many other important international organizations.

From 1993-95, Taiwan attempted to be recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN. They referred to the models of East and West Germany and North and South Korea as examples to follow. The UN, however, was unmoved by these arguments and rather stuck to the notion of the “One China” policy, and refused to consider Taiwan’s motions.

In 1996, Taiwan took a lower profile approach and argued it was against SEPTEMBER 2017 40

UN resolutions to exclude Taiwan and its 23 million people from UN activities over the sovereignty issue.

They bolstered this argument with the fact that the PRC had no governing authority or policymaking power over Taiwan. Taiwan kept on this track for the next decade, but again, the UN rejected this argument.

In 2007, Taiwan shifted to a bolder stance and requested full membership in the UN as a sovereign nation.

Then UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon rejected the membership application claiming Taiwan was “an integral part of the People’s Republic of China.” The United States quickly responded by stating that it did not share this position, however, it did not clearly state how it viewed Taiwan.

Since then, Taiwan has gained some limited participation in international bodies such as the World Health Organization, but not the UN itself.

Despite not being recognized by the UN and most countries in the world today, Taiwan is one of the globe’s strongest economies and a close ally of the United States. It is the 11th largest economy in the world, the 5th largest economy in Asia, and produces $285 Billion in exports annually. Taiwan is a leader in the technology, defense, and

SPONSORED EDITORIAL

telecommunications industries with a GDP of $1.1 Trillion.

Taiwan’s great allegiance with the United States and economic strength has, perhaps, never been more important than right now as North Korea’s saber rattling is impacting all nations of the world in some manner. The United States recently approved $1.4 billion in arms sales to Taiwan. This importance demands a seat at the table for Taiwan along with the members of the UN to have its voice heard.

The Taiwan Civil Government (TCG) is an education and advocacy group founded in 2008 by successful

businessman Dr. Roger Lin, and is having its voice heard in Washington and around the world. TCG’s mission is to educate the global community about the history of Taiwan, the human rights violations currently imposed upon the Taiwanese people, and the need for meaningful change.

Specifically, TCG argues the people of Taiwan are suffering human rights violations in opposition to international law and the United Nations Charter, including the following: • The UN Charter states that its purpose is “[t]o develop friendly relations among nations based on respect

for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. . .”

• Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

• Article 7(6) of the 1961 Convention articulates the basic international norm that a person shall not lose their nationality if such a loss would render him stateless.

“Without these freedoms and protections, the people of Taiwan will remain stateless, and with no internationally recognized government.

“We have been living in political purgatory for more than 70 years, and immediately deserve the right to a nationality of our choosing,” Dr. Lin stated. That change begins with membership in the UN. For more information on the Taiwan Civil Government please visit www.taiwancivilgovernment.com. ● About the author and Disclosure: Neil Hare is President and CEO of Global Vision Communications, a Washington DC-based PR and marketing agency. Materials distributed

by Global Vision Communications on behalf of the Taiwan Civil Government. Additional information is available at the Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

41

Global Workforce Readiness

Navigating a Changing World: Building Talent with Global Experience

Is your organization prepared?

Register Today: generationstudyabroad.org #IIESummit2017 | #generationstudyabroad

Renewable energy source.

Life-sustainer.

International border.

At APCO, a global communications consultancy, we dive below the surface of every issue to understand the currents swirling around it.

It’s why our clients trust us — and know that we truly understand their

stakeholders as well as the complexity of their operating environment.

With our collaborative and agile nature, we’re driven to go deeper to uncover opportunities and solve our clients’ multifaceted challenges.

Distinct Perspectives. Deliver Impact.

See how we help clients make an impact at apcoworldwide.com/our-work.