The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) was a global framework of development goals that produced “the most successful anti-poverty movement in history.” and served as a basis for the development of the SDGs (Millenium Development Goals). To illustrate the successes that the MDGs produced, the United Nations released a report after the framework’s fifteen year timeframe was complete. For example, the percentage of the global population in developing regions that lived on less than $1.25 per day decreased from nearly 50 percent to a total of 14 percent, within the framework’s timespan from 1990 – 2015 (Millenium Development Goals). In addition, the global population of people who are undernourished in developing regions decreased by 50 percent (Millenium Development Goals).

While the MDGs were an excellent launching point for global strategic development frameworks, the SDGs offer a broader range and higher number of topics. While there are many similarities between the MDGs and the SDGs, such as eradicating poverty and ending world hunger, the SDGs particularly expand upon the theme of environmental sustainability. While the MDGs only had one goal specifically dedicated to sustainability, the SDGs have multiple goals focused on water resources, consumption and production patterns, and sustainable oceans and cities. In addition, the SDGs have more of a focus on inclusivity and accessibility than the MDGs. The SDGs mention the word “inclusive” six times and “for all” another six times in the titles of the goals alone, and the SDGs additionally have more references to persons with disabilities than the MDGs.

Global strategic frameworks such as the MDGs and SDGs are important because they provide a cohesive set of goals that can be adopted and implemented around the world. These frameworks also have concrete vision that provides clarity when working with big-picture, abstract ideas. It is also beneficial that the frameworks provide timelines, which adds both a sense of urgency and a reference point to measure successes. Some of the possible limitations of these frameworks are that the number and expansiveness of the goals could potentially be overwhelming, as they address issues in multiple levels of society and each have a relatively broad focus. In addition, countries could have reservations as to which goals they want to follow, and not work towards every goal. However, despite the potential limitations, global strategic frameworks are a key institution in  facilitating international collaboration. These frameworks are particularly important for issues such as sustainable development, that impact every corner of the world. When the SDG framework timeline ends in 2030 and a new set of United Nations development goals are released, the new set of goals would ideally follow the trend that the SDGs took after the MDGs and continue to become even more inclusive in the future.

Resources:

Click to access MDG%202015%20PR%20Global.pdf

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainabledevelopmentgoals

Yesterday during class, we discussed intersectionality within the context of international development, specifically in regards to the identities of individuals or groups of people and its implication on policy making.

Continue reading →

Moving Forward in Inclusive, Sustainable Development

The simple fact is that the world’s global, grand challenges cannot be solved overnight.  As a result, maintaining inclusive, sustainable development is truly a process that can be accomplished to varying degrees in the short-time, medium-term, and long-term.  For many, this process is codified in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the infamous set of 17 goals that will carry the international development community into the year 2030.  With (almost) the first five years of the SDG-era behind the world, where does international development stand and what can the world look forward to, both leading up to and beyond 2030? Continue reading →

Recently, I had the opportunity to participate in a diversity and inclusion training focused on the theory of Intersectionality.  This particular theory of identity was one that moved to the forefront in studying identity, as it conceptually makes the most sense to me.  I often envision identity as a set of moving plates that shift, rotate, and replace one another within a given context. For example, my identity as a woman shifts to the forefront in my male-dominated workplace.  However, that same identity transitions into the background as my identity age is brought forward in the context of my five-year master’s program.

Continue reading →

This blog post discusses the importance, and often lacking presence, of intersectionality in development policy.

Intersectionalities are incredibly important in all areas of study, particularly studying disability and when planning to create disability policy. Intersectionality is studying the crossing of different (often marginalized) social identities. Intersectionality can be visualized as a Venn diagram, with each identity being a big circle and the complete identity of a person being the place where all these individual identities meet. It is important to view topics with an intersectional lens as various forms of social categories are never seen in a vacuum, but are interwoven together. Focusing on just one identity when trying to solve or better an issue neglects the numerous other factors that add to disenfranchisement and impede progress. However, despite the innate nature and undoubted importance of intersectionality, intersectionality is overlooked in the creation of policy, particularly international policy.

[1]

Looking at the Major Groups Framework, for example, there are nine major groups: women, children, farmers, indigenous people, local authorities, businesses, civil society, and worker and trade unions. While the intentions of the nine major groups were well-intentioned, created in order to represent the key actors sectors of society, distinguishing 9 specific groups allows little room for multiple identities. Additionally, it creates an atmosphere where an individual who may prescribe to many of these identities may have to separate their complex identity and prescribe to just one in order to have representation [2]. By ignoring intersectionality, it completely nullifies the idea of inclusive sustainable development. Inclusive for one group, may not be inclusive for another. One reason why intersectionality is sometimes overlooked in international policy is that often global strategic frameworks must create targets, goals and evaluative methods for such large and complex issues that less prevalent identities get forgotten.

However, there are examples of international frameworks that focus on intersectionality, particularly the Sendai Framework. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction focused on 4 priorities for action and 7 global targets [3]. The Sendai Framework was complex in the sense that it did not simply focus on the homogenous group but delved into specific plans to aid niche groups and vulnerable communities.

It is important that intersectionality is not a topic that is discussed after the fact and then added into to programs or policies. Intersectionality is an innate part of each person’s identity and should be taken into account constantly during the creation of policies and frameworks to ensure addressing all challenges are met between various stakeholder groups.

[1] http://www.taapinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/newsletter/TAAPTuesdayNewsletter-11222016.pdf

[2]https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/majorgroups.html

[3] https://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/sendai-framework

Intersectionality refers to how marginalized identities overlap and interact with one another. It creates an understanding of how intersections of these identities create challenges for those people who experience them. In class we discussed that recognizing that intersectionality exists and is real has an important impact on inclusive sustainable development. Recognizing that these intersectionalities exist make them and the people that experience them more visible which is integral to inclusivity. It also has the potential to, and should, inform policies and strategies related to the Sustainable Development Agenda so that they are taking into account and including intersectionality.

The United Nations Major Groups Framework is something that I discussed in my blog post about the High Level Political Forum (HLPF). I mentioned how this framework which informs the Major Groups and Other Stakeholders High Level Political Forum Coordination Mechanism is a positive thing because members of disadvantaged groups such as women and indigenous peoples are given a voice in the HLPF. However, it is important to note that the Major Groups Framework is not perfect, and while it does have the intention of giving a voice to disadvantaged groups, there is still work that needs to be done especially as intersectionality is concerned. For example, women are a group that are marginalized, and it is important for them to be included in the conversation on sustainable development. However, women with disabilities are grouped into this category and there is therefore not enough visibility given to them because the focus is on women’s issues in general.

As we discussed in class this week, the Major Groups Framework is not sufficient in addressing intersectionalities that exist amongst people who hold multiple marginalized identities. Therefore, there should be a strategy to get the major groups framework to take on intersectionality. The argument that there should be a separate coalition to address intersectionality is a strong one, and I believe that this is an essential step to giving intersectionality the attention it deserves. This goes back to the discussion we had in our first class about Grand Challenges- the grand challenge of disability and development cannot be overcome without collaboration and inclusion of all.

Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Disaster Risk Management (DRM) are both essential to minimizing adverse effects from disasters. DRR is a systematic approach to identifying, assessing and reducing the risks of disaster, while DRM involves the application of these DRR policies and strategies in order to prevent new disaster risks, reduce existing disaster risks, and manage residual risks. As we discussed in class, it is imperative to implement inclusive DRR and DRM. Inclusive DRR and DRM take into consideration the needs of all inhabitants of an area when it comes to a disaster. It is especially important in times of disaster that those who are most vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, are being accounted for and that there is a plan to keep them safe.

The United Nations has held three World Conferences on Disaster Risk Reduction every. The most recent conference was held in Sendai, Japan in March 2015. At this conference, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 was adopted. This framework outlines seven targets and four action priorities to prevent new disasters and reduce existing disaster risks, and “aims to achieve the substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries over the next 15 years.” (Sendai Framework) This Framework is one of the most inclusive global frameworks on disaster risk reduction, and the conference itself is seen as a ‘gold standard’ for an accessible UN conference.

The Dhaka Conference on Disability and Disaster Risk Management was held from the 12^th to 14^th of December 2015 to identify concrete actions to take to launch the Sendai Framework and ensure that persons with disabilities are able to participate and contribute meaningfully in all its processes. At this conference, the Dhaka Declaration on Disability and Disaster Risk Management was adopted, which recognized that “disability is part of human diversity and person This diversity and varied requirements need to be considered in all aspects of Disaster Risk Management (DRM).” This declaration is such an important one because it acknowledges the need to consider persons with disabilities in disaster risk management and reduction processes. This is especially relevant and necessary as climate change continues to pose great disaster risks; and persons with disabilities are predicted to be disproportionately affected by it as they make up 20 percent of the population of the poorest people in the world (Dhaka Declaration).

Works Cited

Sendai Framework: http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291

Dhaka Declaration: http://www.cbm.org/article/downloads/131683/Dhaka_Declaration_on_Disability_and_Disaster_Risk_Management.pdf

Urbanization is occurring rapidly around the world, as 60 percent of the world’s population is estimated live in urban areas, according to the United Nations World Cities Report in 2016 (UN). Therefore, it is increasingly important that cities are inclusive of persons with disabilities, who make up an estimated 15 percent of the world’s population (Chan and Zoellick 2011). An inclusive city is an urban community with attitudes that value everyone. Inclusive cities consist of accessible infrastructure so that persons with disabilities can have full access to all the amenities and experiences of the cities that every other citizen does. It is so important that cities are inclusive because it is a fundamental human rights issue; persons with disabilities have the right to full and equal access and enjoyment.

The United Nations Human Settlements Programme, also known as UN-Habitat, is the United Nations agency for human settlements and sustainable urban development. It is currently active in over 70 countries, with projects aimed at addressing issues related to housing problems and slum growth. The United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development happens every 20 years. Habitat III was the third, and it took place in Quito, Ecuador from October 17-20, 2016. The New Urban Agenda was the outcome document for the Habitat III, in which the Quito Declaration on Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements for All states in part:

“We share a vision of cities for all, referring to the equal use and enjoyment of cities and human settlements, seeking to promote inclusivity and ensure that all inhabitants, of present and future generations, without discrimination of any kind, are able to inhabit and produce just, safe, healthy, accessible, affordable, resilient and sustainable cities and human settlements to foster prosperity and quality of life for all” (Habitat III).

I believe that the Quito Declaration in the New Urban Agenda reflects the shift in the international community towards inclusion of persons with disabilities, and is a huge and important step towards inclusive sustainable development. With rapid urbanization occurring, it is essential to ensure that cities are not only sustainable in order to protect the environment, but also inclusive so that all inhabitant can enjoy equal access and opportunities. While there is still much work to be done before all cities are inclusive, I think the New Urban Agenda is huge step in the right direction.

Works Cited

Chan, D. M., & Zoellick, M. R. B. (2011). World Report on Disability (p. 24).

Habitat III. (2016). Retrieved from http://habitat3.org/

2016. (2016). World Cities Report 2016. Retrieved from http://wcr.unhabitat.org/

Development is a contested concept, which has been conceptualized in many different ways throughout history in the international community. Sumner and Tribe argue that there are three discernable definitions of development: a process of change; short to medium-term outcome of desirable targets; and a “post-modernist” definition which views development as a social construct that does not not exist outside of discourse (Sumner and Tribe 2008).

Amartya Sen, in his book “Development as Freedom,” steered development away from a western approach and that the only way to think about development is economic growth or GDP- he argued that the economic component is not the only thing that matters. Sen defines “Development and Freedom” as the freedom to make decisions; countries with more freedom to make decisions are more developed (Sen 2000). Sen’s conceptualization is one that I gravitate towards the most, because there are so many different factors that play into freedom. Therefore, I believe that Sen’s conceptualization of development as freedom provides a better measurement of development than just looking at economic growth.

Amartya Sen argues that development can be seen as “a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy,” which is a different view from many who see development in economic terms, such as the growth of GNP. He mentions the removal of “major sources of unfreedom” (Sen 2000) that development requires, such as poverty and tyranny, which say more about the development of a country because a country can be economically developed but still have oppressive governments. Sen’s argues that freedom is not only one of the main ends of development, but also one of its principal means. Therefore, the freer people are, the more they can contribute to the development of a society, because they will live longer and more productive lives.

The United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Report, which was established in 1990, was influenced in part by Sen’s work. This report discussed a new framework of development: the ‘Human Development’ or ‘Capabilities Approach’ (Sumner and Tribe 2008). Sen focuses on the capabilities approach, which considers the opportunities or freedoms people have to exercise the agency to live a life they see as meaningful. The capabilities approach to development is one that I believe is essential to the grand challenge of inclusion of persons with disabilities, because persons with disabilities must be afforded the means and opportunities to live their life just as a person without disabilities does.

Works Cited

Sen, Amartya (2000). Development as freedom.

Sumner and Tribe (2008). International Development Studies.