by

Grand Challenges

The UN Grand Challenges are defined as “technically complex problems that have stubbornly defied solution.”  These challenges are large, complicated issues that have been plaguing society for years, and take an enormous amount of effort to begin to solve.  The needed solutions are often interdisciplinary in nature, and require not only strong effort, but collaboration from many different stakeholder groups.

While different organizations have different definitions, the general consensus is that problems like providing clean water, increasing literacy rates, finding cures to cancer, solving hunger, and solving AIDS comprise some of the world’s “Grand Challenges.”  Many agree that these goals are ambitious, but are achievable after a lot of collaboration.

Development practitioners have come to the consensus solving these problems will require non-traditional actors to step in, including people from the fields of science and technology, since the problems are so complex in nature.  In my opinion, this approach has fostered communication between many different stakeholders and fostered innovation, leading to discoveries that may not have been previously made.

Branscomb explains this idea using cancer research as an example.  He says this disease is a long-term and pervasive issue, and through slowly chipping away at the problem from different angles they have made discoveries and improvements in multiple sectors, such as genetics, surgeries, and more.  He says if the research done were narrower and focused in scope, and did not look at the problem from a holistic standpoint, progress may have been slower.

The UN is one of the most important stakeholders that has contributed to work on the Grand Challenges.  They drafted the Millennial Development Goals in 2000, which include: eradicating extreme hunger and poverty, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combatting HIV/aids, Malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, and developing a global partnership for development.

A huge improvement made since then in working on such Grand Challenges was learning to include persons with disabilities.  Around 15% of the world’s population lives with a disability, and the MDGs hardly addressed that problem.  The 2015 SGDs are much more inclusive, and have worked to give everybody a seat at the table of development in the hopes of speeding up the process.

by

Persons With Disabilities as a “Major Group”

In my blog post on the SDGs and HLPF, I mentioned that they claimed to be the most inclusive and interactive UN conference and explained why this was not in fact the truth as it heavily excluded persons with disabilities through the use of the major groups framework. As discouraging as that truth is, hope, opportunity and true inclusion arose from Habitat III and the development of the New Urban Agenda.

A “smart city” is defined, as a city that is sustainable and recognizes everyone’s equal right to it, meaning that a city should allow for equal access to all to enjoy the full benefits of the city such as through accessibility. While most UN documents would stop here, defining this statement alone as inclusion, the NUA takes it further, explicitly stating that with 15% of each country’s population living with a disability, a city should be fully accessible in order to be smart and sustainable. In a huge success for persons with disabilities, the NUA includes fifteen references to persons with disabilities including an entire standalone paragraph on their inclusion in cities.

In addition, the most important step the NUA takes for persons with disabilities is in introducing them as a “major group”, allowing for full participation in the monitoring and implantation of the NUA. “Major group” is in quotes because persons with disabilities were not named as a tenth group but still, introduced under the title “other stakeholders” allowing for their direct involvement along groups like the aging and elderly, another group making up a large population of the world and in need of representation. From this exciting and important inclusion, the Persons with Disabilities Partner Constituency Group (PWD-PCG) and the Disability Inclusive Development (DID) Collaboratory were formed as a platform for a network of stakeholders to organize for representation under the NUA.

With this exciting right to participation and a dramatic increase in access to the discussion through the extension of a metaphorical seat at the table comes the responsibility to organize and participate. While this can be overwhelming and difficult to do, the DID Collaboratory provides a crucial platform for doing so and even with the challenges, this increase in access, participation, and representation is what the disability community has long advocated for.

Above all else, the main takeaway from the NUA is the power of individual stakeholders coming together to represent true inclusion. With this inclusion, we are one step closer to achieving truly inclusive and as a result, sustainable development.

 

by

Visibility, Validation, Inclusion & Implementation

The overarching framework for inclusive education is SDG 4, the goal to “ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning” by 2030. More specific to our continued commitment to education inclusive of persons with disabilities is Article 24 of the CRPD. Article 24 reads that “States parties recognize the rights of persons with disabilities to education” and outlines a set of standards for meeting this goal such as ensuring that students with disabilities are not separated from their peers on the basis of disability and that equal and inclusive education begins at the primary level continuing on for the rest of a person’s life whether through traditional or trade/skill-based education.

Signed and ratified by 168 countries, the CRPD is a significant success for the disability community, specifically in the area of education with regards to the clear and extensive rights extended by Article 24. However, in many countries, such as South Africa, which ratified the CRPD in 2007, where 70% of students with disabilities are out of school entirely, international agreement and legislation are just the first steps with a significant amount of work still needed to “make the right real.” There are three steps that are crucial to making the right real: visibility, validation, and inclusion/implementation. In South Africa, visibility made possible by organizations like Disabled People South Africa allowed for validation through the passing of the CRPD and The White Paper on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a national policy, validating the experiences of persons with disabilities and essentially validating the truth that persons with disabilities should and will be treated equally.

South Africa has stopped at the last and most difficult step of inclusion and implementation, allowing the rights outlined in official policy to translate to the everyday lives of persons with disabilities. In order to achieve equal education as promised by SDG 4 and the CRPD, Article 24, South Africa must outline a plan for implementation that includes persons with disabilities at the forefront of the process. A model for such implementation can be found in Finland, another signatory to the CRPD and a country with one of the most inclusive education systems in the world.

Similarly to South Africa’s White Paper, Finland passed the Basic Education Act, extending similar rights to education. In doing so, the Finnish government also outlined a plan for its implementation in collaboration with persons with disabilities, introducing required teacher trainings, building accessibility requirements, increasing funding to special resources, and most importantly, noting that public authorities must hold the school system accountable, creating regular checkups on these standards for inclusive education.

In developing a similar model of accountability, South Africa and governments like it who have yet to see true education inclusion, have the opportunity to see success through inclusion and implementation.

by

When Intersectionality Isn’t Enough

The SDGs, a framework for sustainable development built out of the 2030 Agenda hope to achieve no poverty, zero hunger, good health and well=being, quality education, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry innovation and infrastructure, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities and communities, responsible and consumption, climate action, improved life below water and on land, peace, justice and strong institutions, and partnerships for the goals for all people by 2030.

The goals and their targets are optimistic and necessary for an improved, more sustainable world. If we collectively reach the outlined targets and with them, the goals, our planet and the life on it will certainly be happier and healthier. The High Level Political Forum designed to oversee the goals illustrates where some people and groups are excluded from the goals. The High-Level Political Forum claims to be the “most inclusive and participatory forum in the UN” in that it addresses a vast array of issues pertaining to all people and will meet every four years. However, this is not quite true.

The HLPF works under the major groups framework, allowing the nine major groups (women, children, farmers, indigenous peoples, local authorities, businesses, civil society, workers, and trade unions) to establish and maintain connection mechanisms to work together to ensure broad and balanced participation across regions and groups. At first glance, this appears to put the “inclusive” in inclusive sustainable development. Upon closer analysis, it becomes clear that this framework isn’t truly inclusive at all. With only nine major groups allowed in the highly politicized process of who gets to be involved and which organizations and individuals within the major groups get to be represented, people are left out of discussion on issues that directly impact them and an opportunity to advocate for themselves.

While they are able to participate under the clause of “other stakeholders,” one of the most important groups excluded from the major groups framework is persons with disabilities. The World Bank estimates that 15% of every country’s population is living with a disability. For such a large population with unique challenges and abilities, representation in the SDGs and HLPF (where it is currently notably lacking) is crucial and the common argument that representation as a major group is not necessary because of intersectionality across groups is not strong enough.

The HLPF platform allows for limited representation of the wide array of issues each major group faces. As a result, major groups tend to focus on issues that impact the totality of the group with little room for other needs. For example, a woman with a disability would have a difficult time finding representation of her needs as a person with disability among the “women” major group who may be focusing on issues related to sexism. Additionally, the same argument could be made (and as easily negated) for the other groups. For example, the women group may include farmers, making the group unnecessary. Certainly, intersectionality plays a key role among each group but it isn’t enough to rule out an entire major group.

We have since seen an exciting increase in participation allowed for persons with disabilities as a stakeholder group with the introduction of the NUA but the main takeaway is still that development is not truly inclusive or sustainable if it does not include an active role for persons with disabilities and the large portion of the population they make up.

by

Grand Challenges as an Invitation

Based on a series of definitions across UN documents, government statements, and proposals by organizations to solve them, Grand Challenges are best defined as “multidimensional, multi-stakeholder, multidisciplinary longer-term problems without clear solutions.”

In name alone, Grand Challenges have the potential to feel overwhelming, like unsolvable problems that loom over us as a society but when we breakdown the meaning, there is potential for something so much more. While “grand” does signify something imposing in size, its definition also includes the word “magnificent.” “Challenge,” which feels like a synonym for problem is actually defined as ‘a call to take part or an invitation to engage in a contest.” In exploring these definitions, it becomes clear that we do not have to see the issues of our time as looming problems but rather, we can see them for what they are, an invitation to take part in a collaboration, in the solving of a difficult but magnificent challenge.

Grand Challenges frame ending Climate Change or finding a cure for the Zika Virus into an opportunity for collaboration on these puzzles across fields, groups, and differences. In exploring Grand Challenges of the past like the development of faster technology for connection among people or vaccines for illnesses like Polio, we are reminded of how achievable these goals are when viewed through this framework.

Even more exciting is the fact that we are seeing inclusion in these challenges at a rate faster than ever. Through the CRPD, we see a notable shift in development strategy, a pillar of Grand Challenge solutions, to take into account intersectionality. Under the umbrella of disability inclusive sustainable development, one of the biggest Grand Challenges is inclusion and implementation of rights granted through policy but not yet in practice.

Organizations across the world have come together to address this Challenge, again marking the value of multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder, multi-dimensional involvement and problem solving. One of the biggest answers to this specific Grand Challenge is the use of UN ESCAP’s Incheon Strategy out of the CRPD’s call to “make the right real.” Developed and advocated for by persons with and without disabilities for persons with disabilities, the Incheon strategy increases monitoring and reporting of rights at the regional level, allowing for policy and practice specific to the needs of the region. Through the collaboration promoted by the Grand Challenges framework, similar strategies can be adopted across the world in response to the need to “make the right real.”

 

by

Digital Divide(s)

With the revelation of the “missing link” by the Maitland Commission Report, immense concern arose for the staggering differences in access to telecommunications across the United States. This was intensified with the creation of the internet and faster, easier, global communication possibilities. In the late 1990s, the NTIA (National Telecommunications & Information Administration) determined there was a significant division between Americans that use the internet, the “haves,” and those that do not, the “have nots” (“Falling through the Net”). This dichotomy is referred to as the  “digital divide,” but it is not as clear a division between two groups as it may sound. There are evident divides between rural and urban areas, young and old age groups, certain racial and ethnic groups, and variances among education and income level. There are also many different ways in which people may be disadvantaged or unable to participate in the digital world. This can include differences in quality of digital connections and devices, the availability of technical assistance and training, and/or subscription-based content. Currently, the most widely discussed issue within the “digital divide” is the availability of quality access at an affordable cost (“Falling through the Net”). The policy driven programs of the NTIA emphasize this need to expand broadband Internet access and adoption in the United States. This also entails ensuring that the Internet maintains and improves its capabilities for continued innovation and economic growth. Increasing the spectrum of internet users is vital step in addressing and improving many of the nation’s most urgent needs, including education, public safety, and health care. The NTIA also represents the Executive Branch in international telecommunications and information policy activities which is important because the digital divide is not just a domestic issue. Now, it is also increasingly evident that huge  populations all over the world have been excluded from this ever-growing technological era due to inadequate resources and education and that the “digital divide” is actually widening (“Falling through the Net”). This is in part because some areas or countries are substantially more equipped to acquire and benefit from internet use than other developing places, and specific groups within populations require but are deprived of necessary assistance within the digital world.  Consequently, bridging the gap of the “digital divide” is a crucial component of achieving inclusive sustainable development and would help create greater economic equality, social mobility, informational capabilities,  and development as defined by Amartya Sen.

by

SDGs and HLPF

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of development goals set forth by the United Nations (UN) that seek to address some of the greatest developmental challenges facing the international community today. The SDGs, were developed to replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which expired in 2015 and sought to reflect a more inclusive, and sustainable approach to development. The SDGs are structured as a set of 17 overarching goals with a number of sub-goals for each. Among the goals expressed within the SDGs are hopes for great access to education, healthcare, sanitation, and technology. They also seek to address climate change which has the potential to most effect some of the poorest countries in the world. All of these goals are in theory to be reached by the expiration of the SDGs in 2030.

The High Level Political Forum (HFLPs) was created in order to create ongoing and continued discussion of the SDGs in order to reach the targets by the 2030 deadline. During each meeting of the HLPF, members discuss select goals contained within the SDGs. The HLPFs are overseen by the United Nations Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC). The next HLPF meetings are scheduled for July of 2017 in New York City.

The SDGs represent an ongoing response to changing perspective on development and what constitutes effective development. As discussed during the previous discussion on developmental theory, how the international community perceives development and methods of development is rapidly changing. The SDGs represent one step that the international community has taken to reflect these changing perspectives.

However, there have been critiques towards the SDGs and its approach to development. First and foremost is the SDG’s perceived failure to address the needs of different minority groups directly including persons with disabilities. The SDGs also have received criticism for being too broad and too ambitious for the time frame given. However, perhaps the greatest challenge presented to the SDGs is the complex and multifaceted “Grand Challenges” that were discussed during the first week of class. Many of the most prominent Grand Challenges facing the international community are represented within the SDGs and a targeted for resolution by the SDGs.

The SDGS while far from perfect do represent an important trend by the international community to encourage inclusive and sustainable development. Reaching even a portion of the targets expressed within the SDGs will mean a more equitable and sustainable international community.

by

Grand Callenges

The term “Grand Challenge” reflects the concept of a complex issue that has consistently failed to be resolved or addressed properly. While there are a number of different formal definitions of Grand Challenges, Lewis Branscomb defines Grand Challenges as, “…Technically complex societal problems that have stubbornly defied solution.” The consistent failure to solve these issues is often because of a complex web of interconnected smaller issues that can be exceedingly difficult to address all at once. Some of these “Grand Challenges” include inequities in education, access to clean water, and access to healthcare. While exceedingly complex, addressing these Grand Challenges is absolutely paramount to achieving a more developed, equitable, and sustainable world.

Addressing the Grand Challenges facing the international community is also necessary to reaching a number of goals expressed recently by the international community. One the most prominent set of goals currently put forth by the international community are the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Seeking to replace the now expired Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the SDGs speak to some of the most complex Grand Challenges to date including inequities in education, health, and technologies. Grand challenges are also represented in the topics discussed within different international institutions and conventions including the CRPD.

Within the United States, different government agencies have begun to attempt to address some of the Grand Challenges that face the country. Some of these government agencies include the executive office and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Of course, efforts have also been made to address Grand Challenges outside of the United States as well. Many international institutions have made addressing a plethora of Grand Challenges a key part of their goals via, as previously discussed, the SDGs.

One of the most interesting aspects when exploring the concept of Grand Challenges is how different organizations decide to approach these challenges. As Mikayla noted in her blog post, even within the US government, different agencies attempt to address the Grand Challenges in different ways. At first glance this may appear to over complicate addressing these issues. However, I believe that this is not necessarily as big an issue as one might assume. The different approaches to addressing Grand Challenges reflect the complexity and multi-faceted nature of many of these issues. However, when these different approaches overlap or directly contradict difficulties can arise. Therefore, communication within governments and between members of international institutions is paramount to effectively addressing the Grand Challenges facing the international community.

by

Gender & Development

Gender & Development by Ines Renique 

“Development if not engendered, is endangered” is a statement that is to the defense of women, and the role that they play in the development of communities, families, and nations. Women are the key component to positive changes, not just for themselves but for those around them, as the expression goes: “ educate a girl and you are educating an entire village”. Moreover, development is not gender neutral, as it is more often than not sexist and repressive towards women. Take for example, the informal unpaid work of women.

Much of subsistent production, informal paid work, volunteer work, and domestic production, is all led or conducted by women. More often than not, these types of work, although all essential, are not accounted for in a nation’s economy, as they are considered to be outside of the economic realm. However, if household production were in fact accounted for, then growth rates would be more accurate. Development of countries cannot even be measured entirely accurately without accounting for the work so many women do around the world.   

Moreover, something else that stagnates development is that so many women and girls are not accounted for. A statistic I learned recently—each day, 41,000 girls are married as children, making it 15 million girls a year. Besides being a human rights violation, this is a massive blockade to development. These are girls that will not be able to receive a higher education, and girls that will be expected to have children while they themselves are still children. These girls can easily become women that are unaccounted for, and that are not given the basic rights of citizenship, as outlined by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Combating deeply entrenched gendered norms is a far from easy task. Any kind of intervention  to create positive change for women and development will undoubtedly need to be multi- sectoral. However, there are daily advancements in improving the lives of women and empowering them further. A healthy, educated, and empowered woman is the key to further development.

by

Development Theory and Actors

Of all the development theories we covered for the capstone class and any other development class I have had over the past four years, I think that the most accurate framework for understanding what development means is the version of development presented by Amartya Sen. Essentially, Sen writes that to bring “development” to a population is to expand the freedoms population of that population. Sen argues for his framework with two reasons: the “evaluative reason” and the “effectiveness reason”. The evaluative reason claims that assessment of the progress of any development policy must be done primarily by whether or not freedoms are enhanced. For example, if a policy rises the average income of an area by increasing the income of the richest members of that community, then the freedoms of the average person have not been effected. While an economically-oriented analysis may make this policy look like a good one, it clearly does not help those in need of development programs. Sen’s analysis reveals this to be the case. We know a development plan is only as good as the degree of freedom it brings to the average individual. The second reason is the effectiveness reason: effective development is completely dependent on the lasting freedom of people. If a policy allows increases the freedoms of a group of people substantively but in an unsustainable or temporary way, then the policy has not effectively developed the area in any meaningful way. Through this metric, the major impediments to development are poverty and tyranny and their effects are inextricable.

Another use for Sen’s framework is the examination of national policies that are advertised as effective means of developing a country. Some industrializing countries have suspended freedoms such as workers’ rights in the short term to develop more opportunity for freedom. By some economically oriented frameworks, this would seem like a reasonable if unpleasant strategy. Sen’s framework shows that sacrificing freedom for wealth is illogical because the country is pursuing freedom by giving up freedom. Sen recognizes wealth as an intermediary to freedom and this reveals many overly-simplistic, utilitarian policies to be what they are. Sen cites “unfreedoms” as those issues that impede development. These unfreedoms are actually the exact issues that many of the sustainable development goals look to resolve. Some of these unfreedoms are a lack of food and food security, lack of health services, and a lack of gender equality.