by

Efficacy of Global Frameworks

We have discussed a number of documents, conventions, and agendas in class that makeup the international framework. The MDGs, the SDGs, the CRPD, and the New Urban Agenda are all examples of international commitments that frame the direction in which the international community wants certain interest areas to take. Ideally, this framework should act as a guide to implementation. The combination of all of these documents, especially areas in which they intersect, are meant to direct individual countries toward policies that will help to meet the goals established by the international agenda. This is why signing and ratifying international documents is so important – completing these actions is a gesture of the individual countries’ leadership demonstrating to the international community that they will try to incorporate provisions of the international document in their respective domestic policy.

That being said, one of the common critiques of the international development framework is that it ignores context and promotes a one-size-fits-all approach. This is one of the many critiques of the MDGs that Deepak Nayyar points out in his article, “The MDGs after 2015: Some Reflections on the Possibilities.” It is easy to understand why a critique like this is made upon first reading the MDGs – the eight goals are broad and lack specificity. However, development is not a static process. In the ever-evolving world, we become more aware of development challenges and we collectively welcome more and better solutions to overcoming them. What is more, the MDGs were simple, but this provided for each country to decide for themselves the best way to implement them. In this way I argue against the critique that the global framework for development lacks context. Quite the opposite – the general sweeping goals allow each participating country to decide what policies they need to adopt in order to achieve the goals.

I do not mean to argue that the MDGs didn’t have room for improvement, however. Many societal groups that could benefit from development policies weren’t ensured that their leaders would act on their behalf. There were also a number of key global issues that were not addressed, such as access to energy and urban planning. The MDGs weren’t perfect – but the framework did not end there. The international community is continuously improving the global framework. The SDGs have since built upon the initiatives of the MDGs and incorporated a number of details that were previously lacking from the global framework.

by

Efficacy of Global Frameworks

In the past number of years, much has been made about the efficacy of global frameworks. Nowhere is this more important than in the debate surrounding the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs, which were established in 2000, sought to expand and improve development throughout the world through 8 goals. These goals included achieving universal primary education, reducing child mortality, eradicating extreme hunger and poverty, and ensuring environmental sustainability. While certainly admirable goals, the SDGs are not without their own criticisms. First and foremost, the MDGs have received criticism because although these goals were slated for completion in 2015, many of them were not reached. These shortcomings were attributed largely to the breath of the goals expressed and the lack of concrete plans associated with each goal. There were also very few monitoring or follow-up mechanisms associated with the goals. The MDGs also received criticism for not paying enough attention to vulnerable sub-groups including indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities.

However, the debate surrounding the efficacy of the global frameworks expands beyond the MDGs. Even with the relatively recent introduction of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), critiques about the feasibility and monitoring of the goals have already begun to emerge. Some say the goals still do not address certain vulnerable sib-groups adequately. However, the SDGs do also represent an attempt by international community to respond to the criticisms of the MDGs. The SDGs have a much more complex series of goals and targets than the MDGs contained. The SDGs also sought to speak more directly to vulnerable sub-groups including indigenous groups and persons with disabilities than the MDGs. They also speak more directly to cross cutting issues such as gender disparities and environmental degradation.

However, despite the criticisms extended to global frameworks both past and present, they still play an inarguably critical role in international governance. The SDGs, MDGs, and other international agreements and meetings such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), shape how the international community perceives, talks about, and addresses critical issues. While they may not be as efficient as some would hope, they do still guide international policy in a positive direction and address valuable issues that might otherwise not be addressed. For example, while MDG goal 2 —achieving universal primary education— was not met by 2015, illiteracy rates did decrease rapidly throughout the world. This demonstrates that while not 100% effective global frameworks do play a critical role in addressing important international issues.

 

by

Intersectionality in Sustainable Development

According to The Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID), “Intersectionality is a tool for analysis, advocacy and policy development that addresses multiple discriminations and helps us understand how different sets of identities impact on access to rights and opportunities.” Historically, white men have benefitted most from society (at least in the US) and all others have been substantially disadvantaged in a variety of ways. While societies have become substantially more progressive and inclusive, many people are still vulnerable and disprivileged from having a higher quality of life. This is largely in part because because people live multiple, layered identities that are rarely considered in their entirety. This is to say that often “vulnerable” people are generalized into larger groups but their personal overlap among those categorizations goes unrealized or ignored. For example, the UN developed “Major Groups and other Stakeholders” (MGoS) to better engage and incorporate specific sectors of society into sustainable development initiatives. These nine sectors of society are: women; children and youth; indigenous peoples; non-governmental organizations; local authorities; workers and trade unions; business and industry; scientific and technological community; and farmers. While this is a positive effort in achieving wider participation and consideration on global issues, it clearly falls short. For one, Persons with Disabilities are terribly ignored in this framework and they make up 15% of the world population. Moreover, intersectionalities are not supported by these groupings and thus people who carry several of these identities (which is the majority of populations) are forced into dividing their needs and thus identity. For example, a female, indigenous farmer would have to reach out to three major groups and explain how each aspect of her identity was discriminated or disadvantaged by certain policies, rather than how her problems have been a consequence of a combination of these identities and how she could be better assisted overall. This is not a inclusive nor sustainable way to achieve inclusive sustainable development. Instead, there needs to be a bottom-up approach and a wider framework for acknowledging and aiding members of more than one identity and how those identities simultaneously produce oppression. This not only illustrates how policies, programs, and services in one aspect of life are inevitably linked to others, but also provides a greater understanding of how various identities impact overall levels of opportunity, development and access to rights (AWID).

AWID: https://lgbtq.unc.edu/sites/lgbtq.unc.edu/files/documents/intersectionality_en.pdf

Major Groups: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/majorgroups/about

by

The USA vs. Digital Divides

The United States of America has been at the forefront of the construction and deployment of the internet. We have also been a world leader at generating the content for it. Our country as filled the internet with everything from the complete works of Shakespeare, to an accessible way to obtain free healthcare. The United States of America has been a leader in digitization of government accessibility, and the rest of the world needs to catch up. This includes the international community. Our history of breaking internet boundaries extends from the original ARPANET through all of today’s advanced mobile phone networks. For decades, American engineers, consumers and companies have paved the way for advances in networking and computer applications. Today, nearly every American can access the Internet to some degree. The United States is actually numerically the world leader in scope of availability of advanced wireless broadband Internet services, such as 4G LTE. Unfortunately, the benefits of this long torrent of access to technology has been distributed unevenly. Millions of Americans still do not use the many services that the internet offers with any frequency or regularity. Research shows that there remains significant inequity in both Internet usage and the quality of access. This difference in access has come to be known as the “digital divide”. This deficit of access is felt worst among older, less educated, and less affluent American populations. Regionally, rural parts of the country that tend to have fewer choices and slower connections.

Closing the Divide has the potential to increase productivity and open paths to improving the quality of life of an individual or a whole population. President Obama has made expanding broadband Internet access a relatively higher priority in the past few years. Since 2009, federal government investments in closing the Divide have led to the deployment or enhancement of well over one hundred thousand miles of computer network infrastructure in the United States. In that same time, forty-five million Americans have adopted broadband internet. The President’s internet initiative titled ConnectED aims to connect virtually all American students to highspeed broadband in their classrooms in the next two years. In January of 2016, the President announced several other policies that his administration planned to take to ensure reliable broadband to more Americans at a decreased cost. These included efforts to promote community-based hardware for improving broadband and a call for State and local governments to strike down “short-sighted regulations that restrict competition”.

Inclusive Education
by

Inclusive Education

Goal 4 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is: “Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning”. At this point in time, it seems that the promise of education for development would be obvious. However, there still remain huge disparities across the globe that prove otherwise; one leading case being the lack of access to education for persons with disabilities (PWDs). Of the 11 references to disabilities in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, two are in SDG 4. The first is to “ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities” and the second is to “build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all”. These mentions are extremely important in combatting negative stereotypes that continue to marginalize PWDs and to better ensure future participation of PWDs who have time and time again been excluded from the decision-making process.

Inclusive education, or should I say exclusive education, is a topic I first really came in contact with when I was in Nairobi. I interned with an organization that provided physical therapy to children with disabilities living in informal settlements. The organization wanted to expand their services to address a huge issue for these children and their families: most of them were not in school. There were several reasons for these children not being in school, but the leading factors were that school staff felt PWDs did not have need for education or that the students would hinder the education of other, non-disabled students. For the children that were enrolled in school, they were put in the wrong classes and/or not given the appropriate instructions. For example, one child I worked with who had cerebral palsy was obviously able to speak and I witnessed his improvement in the short few months I was with him, but his mother informed me that his teachers made no attempt to develop this skill with him. This frustrating example is one of many similar stories around the world.

While inclusive education does put additional demands on school systems that may already have little resources to begin with, it is unfair to say who does or doesn’t deserve the right to education. Additionally, as with many other areas, making education inclusive does not hurt anyone else and instead usually has benefits for the population as a whole. Finally, inclusive education must be at the forefront of development measures as it is one of the, if not the, best ways to ensure participation for PWDs so that future development agendas are truly inclusive in all areas.

 

 

 

by

Multi-Stakeholder Governance

Multi-stakeholder governance can be defined as a multi-actor approach to internet governance. The concept of multi-stakeholder governance came into existence as countries and multinational corporations grappled with the concept of the governance of the internet. How the internet should be governed and even if internet governance should occur has, in recent years, been a topic of fierce debate. However, multi-stakeholder governance has emerged to a solution to the issue. In our increasingly globalized and interconnected world, multi-stakeholder internet governance is more relevant than ever before.

As explored in class, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is one means in which the strategy of multi-stakeholder governance is utilized. As explained on its homepage, the IGF is a, “Multi-stakeholder platform that facilitates the discussion of public policy issues pertaining to the internet.” The IGF, hosted by the United Nation Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), plans to will meet December 6th– 9th of this year in Jalisoc, Mexico. One group that participates in the IGF is the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN is often presented as an experiment in international governance. ICANN is interesting because it prescribes to international regime theory. That is, it believes that there are actors other than states that can influence international relations. While ICANN does contain a Government Advisory Committee (GAC), it is only a small part of the group and not a major actor. Strategies such as those implemented by ICANN and the IGF have become increasingly important as different entities vie for control over different aspects of the internet.

There are also many outside conferences that have sought to establish multi-stakeholder governance on the internet. The NETmundial conference, which met on April 32nd and 24th of 2014 in São Paulo, Brazil, explored the idea of multi-stakeholder governance. In fact, the NETmundial conference website describes the conferences as a, “Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance.” The meeting, which was organized by CGI and Dilma Rousseff, established a tentative framework for multi-stakeholder governance.

I believe that internet governance will continue to be an issue for many years to come. As the internet expands and permeates many different aspects of our lives, questions about who should govern the internet and how the internet should be governed should be governed will continue to become increasingly pertinent. By addressing this issue now, the international community can avoid some undue tensions in the future.

 

by

The Digital Divide(s)

These days it is difficult to imagine our world without the Internet. Since the invention of the Internet in 1989, Internet usage has increased tenfold. The Internet is now an integral part of everyday life for many individuals. While it may seem that a majority of the world has access to the Internet, this is far from the truth. For example, when conducting research for my capstone project, I discovered that out of Timor-Leste’s 1.2 million people population, a mere 14,030 individuals have access to the Internet from their homes.

While information and communications technologies (ICTs) grow rapidly, large portions of society remain largely disconnected from the Internet, thus perpetuating the digital divide. The digital divide refers to the difference in individuals who have access to information and communications technologies (ICTs) and those who do not. The digital divide describes the patterns of unequal access to information technology based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, geography, and broadband and bandwith access. The various types of digital divides have large implications in the movement toward inclusive sustainable development.

The MacBride Commission report, “Many Voices, One World,” published in 1980, under UNESCO, highlighted the imbalances between developed and developing countries in respect to information capacities, particularly relating to the media. As a result of its’ findings, UNESCO, promoted the establishment of a New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) to address imbalances of the media and the unequal access to information and communication.

In “Falling through the Net“, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), discovered a significant digital divide among the “haves” and the “have nots” in the United States. According to “Falling through the Net”, “Minorities, low-income persons, the less educated, and children of single-parent households, particularly when they reside in rural areas or central cities, are among the groups that lack access to information resources” in the United States. Despite the increasing prevalence of ICT’s in the United States, large disparities still exist.

The MacBride Report “Many Voices, One World,” and “Falling through the Net” emphasize the importance of equal access to ICTs. However, in bridging this gap, emphasis must not solely be placed on access to Internet, but on the capabilities of Internet access. As we spoke about in class, important considerations must include – how much information can flow through the pipe, is there access to broadband Internet, is there access to broadband remotely, and how much bandwith is available. The movement toward bridging the gap must not only focus on providing the infrastructure, but focusing on what can be done with the infrastructure provided.

In order to achieve inclusive sustainable development, it is essential that universal service of information and communications technologies be achieved. The success in achieving universal service of ICTs is dependent on innovation, investment, and multistakeholderism. For example, incentivizing the private sector to get involved in bridging the digital divide is highly important. Encouraging competition and investing resources is also vital to bridging the digital divide.

by

ICTs and Universalizing Important Information

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development focuses on enabling effective decision-making with extra attention paid specifically vulnerable groups and populations that have historically faced a significant impediment to development. These groups include  women (SDG target 5.5), developing countries, including African countries, least developed countries, land-locked developing countries, small-island developing States and middle-income countries (SDG target 10.6). Additionally Sustainable Development Goal 16.7 aims to “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels”.  Goal 16 in general focuses on providing information for decision-making and emphasizes that, in sustainable development, everyone is a user and provider of information considered in the broad sense. That includes data, information, experience and knowledge. The need for information arises at all levels, from that of senior decision-maker at the national and international levels to the grass-roots and individual levels.

Maybe the most obvious place in which information freedom should be prioritized is in the specific context of private international law. Private international law can best be accessed by a population that has access to individuals with expertise in private international law. This United Nations summit “WSIS” was created to help integrate the “multi-stakeholder platform aimed at addressing the issues raised by information and communication technologies through a structured and inclusive approach at the national, regional and international levels” The organization expands on the purpose of the forum by describing their ideal society where people are free to create, access, utilize, and share information. This is an admirable ideal for which to work, but in today’s global society, this information they discuss is some form of intellectual property. At some point the organization may be so successful that information can flow as freely in as many directions as possible, but now the generation or examination of this information is governed by patent laws, the use of the information is governed by contract laws, the security of the information is governed by the laws of search and seizure, and the logo for the conference itself is protected by copyright laws. An organization that seeks to ease the legal bindings around information in a multi-stakeholder, international group simply has to consider several dimensions of private international law. This group literally cannot fully succeed without some significant progress made towards SDG 16 and towards the lowering of the information barrier that prevents the producers and users and seekers of this information society from safely engaging in it. People around the world cannot use this information in a legal way without understand what is and is not legal.

by

Disability-Inclusive Education

Persons with Disabilities are often neglected from equal opportunity initiatives and face discriminatory policies and prejudices in their daily lives (Rieser). This is a particularly prevalent problem within educational institutions, where in many places, children with disabilities are sent to institutions and thus segregated from mainstream schools, or are excluded from getting an education all together. According to the 2011 World Disability Report, approximately 93 million children live with a disability (about 5% of the world’s population) (UNICEF). Because of this there needs to be significant attention placed on inclusive education, specifically in regards to curriculum content, teaching methods, and materials, so that disabled students are able to fully participate in schools and receive quality education (Rieser). Disability-inclusive education is an approach to education that acknowledges the special educational needs of students with disabilities, without excluding them from educational environments and opportunities. Students with disabilities spend most if not all their with with non-special needs students, rather than be separated into other classrooms or sent to “special” schools. This approach recognizes the inherent right to every child to have equal opportunities to learn, and adapting classroom settings to meet their needs along with everyone else’s. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) partnered with Global Initiative for Inclusive Information and Communication Technologies (G3ICT) to create a model policy to facilitate the implementation of the UNCRPD. The purpose of this joint effort was to document and distribute a template to better assist UNESCO Member States in effectively utilizing ICTs for all students, but particularly learners with disabilities. Furthermore, its intention was to promote the establishment of policies that strive to achieve inclusive education across all educational sectors and settings (G3ICT Model Policy for Inclusive ICTs in Education for PWDs). In order to achieve quality education for all learners, as mandated by SDG #4, it is imperative such models are put into place so that inequities are diminished and schools are truly inclusive educational institutions. Individualized services and approaches to learning must be offered for all students, including those with disabilities.

by

SDGs and HPLF: Acronyms for Progress?

The Sustainable Development Goals, often referred to as the SDGs, are a set of universal goals designed to meet the urgent environmental, political, and economic challenges of our world today. To quote UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, “The… Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are our shared vision of humanity and a social contract between the world’s leaders and the people. They are a to-do list for people and planet, and a blueprint for success.” Composed of 17 goals and 169 targets, the SDGs were designed to wipe out poverty, fight inequality and tackle climate change over the next 15 years. They seek to fill the gaps left by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and address the conditions that have remained, worsened, or arisen since the MDGs were put forth. To clarify, sustainable development is a development buzzword that can be interpreted by many people in many different ways. The best definition by my standards is that as put forth in the 1987 Bruntland Report that says,

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:

  • the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
  • the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”

The High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) is the UN’s attempt at ensuring the inclusion is so wishes, but continually fails, to support. As described by the UN, the HLPF is the “central platform for the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the [SDGs]…”   While this marks a great step towards more participatory decision-making in UN agendas, the HLPF still has several flaws that need to be address if the UN really wants the SDGs and their other work to truly be inclusive. The main challenges, to be brief, have mostly to do with the prevailing bureaucratic nature of UN conferences that benefit those with resources and experience in this arena.

The Sustainable Development Goals will continue to serve as a guiding framework in global development for the next 14 years and the HLPF will continue to meet regularly to assess and discuss the ongoing successes and failures of the SDGs. While it is easy to criticize and point out the flaws of these processes, it is important to still recognize the potential positive change that these transformations in agendas and policy-making could contribute.