UN is not Coca-Cola - Village Magazine

76June 2015

INTERNATIONAL UN

EGOTIATIONS on the UN Sustain-

able Development Goals (SDGs)

may still be ongoing, but the

debate is shifting to questions of imple-

mentation. A strange logic is evident. A

highly technocratic market-driven

model of delivery is envisaged rather

than any focus on embedding these

goals in national political life. There

appears to be little appetite to commit

the substantial new public resources,

estimated at over $.tn, required to

meet the goals.

The SDGs are to be universal to all

countries. They cover a vast range of

areas. Previously, there were eight Mil-

lennium Development Goals, focused on

priority basic development areas. There

are now seventeen SDGs, addressing the

full range of economic, social and envi-

ronmental objectives which constitute

the daily public life of a modern nation.

It is all about choices, contradictions

and possible pathways when it comes to

implementing the SDGs. Issues which

are priorities for one nation, are not so

vital for another. Decisions around what

gets prioritised in any one country have

to be embedded in the political choices

of that nation if they are to be legitimate

and meaningful. The SDGs must be

democratically accountable if they are

to be achieved.

Preparations for this new SDG era is,

however, giving rise to a new breed of

‘contract ready’ international NGOs,

focused almost entirely on delivery of

services connected to one or more of the

SDGs. This new breed, such as the Adam

Smith International, are winning con-

tracts from local NGOs. Donors are

favouring large-scale consortia with a

private-sector ethos. In the case of the

UK Department for International Devel-

opment this is accompanied by a

‘payment by results’ approach. Multi-

national NGO conglomerates are

driving out smaller independent organi-

sations as a result.

In the absence of any signiﬁcant com-

mitment from governments to address

fundamental inequalities in the global

economy, SDG delivery will mainly

come down to new global initiatives by

partnerships involving major private-

sector entities like Unilever and Coca

cola. Last year, Unilever signed a multi-

million dollar partnership with

Solidaridad, aimed at improving liveli-

hoods through their supply chain.

Engaging in such partnerships is set to

become the new norm.

On the surface, such a shift seems

logical. NGOs and corporations

join forces to achieve common

goals, or in business speak to

‘create shared value’. This

ensures economies of scale,

greater integration, and faster

speed of response. Multina-

tionals can readily achieve

‘market penetration at the

bottom of the pyramid’.

However, this shift will

have serious repercussions

for local civil society

organisations across the

world and their capacity

to engage in social

action and seek

accountability. It will

have serious repercus-

sions for the global

justice organisations

that still support

them. Funding for

thousands of local

NGOs, particularly

community-based

organisations, that are

unable to meet the audit

and reporting standards

of the ‘contract ready’

NGO, is under threat.

This goes to the

heart of the concept of

human development.

It reﬂects a fracture

between approaches to

development that

have co-existed for

decades. On the one

hand, there are those who see the busi-

ness of development as needs-based,

involving direct provision of essential

services and, essentially, stepping in

where government can’t or won’t pro-

vide. Speed and scale are oﬀ the essence.

On the other hand, there are those who

see development as about human rights

involving action to enable and empower

communities to hold duty bearers to

account. Local knowledge, community

participation, and political accountabil-

ity are central.

The SDGs are broad enough to

embrace both approaches, but

the needs-based, service-provi-

sion model backed by private

ﬁnance now has the upper hand.

The drive towards contract-

based SDG provision could lock

in an approach to development

co-operation that is heavily

skewed towards this service-

provision model. The big

question then is what happens

to the local NGOs that focus on

democratic governance, par-

ticipation, empowerment and

human rights?

Civil society organisations

across the world are already

under pressure in retaining

their democratic freedoms

to engage in social action

and participatory

accountability. Finding

funding for such work is

increasingly challenging.

In countries like Kenya,

Ethiopia and Zimbabwe

there is an insidious secu-

rity discourse emerging

about international NGOs

being agents of foreign

interference. These coun-

tries are already using

legal, policy, and ﬁnancial

means to obstruct the

work of vocal local

NGOs. They would hap-

pily take the help of SDG

contract-ready partner-

ships that absolve them

of their responsibilities

and make no noise, in preference to the

involvement of organisations that sup-

port a vibrant and challenging civil

society. How INGOs position themselves

in regard to these issues over the

coming months is critical. •

Two ways to implement Sustainable Development Goals: Government-replacement and

Community-building. By Lorna Gold

UN is not Coca-Cola

A new breed

of ‘contract

ready’

international

NGOs, focus

on delivery

of services

rather than

encouraging

activism

“

Lorna Gold is Head of

Policy and Advocacy

with Trócaire

UN is different