← The CGD Podcast
The CGD Podcast
What Will America Do Differently Once It Adopts the SDGs? – with US Chief Negotiator Tony Pipa
00:20:12
If anyone understands the nuances and political realities of the American position on each of the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals, it is Tony Pipa. As the US Chief Negotiator for the Post-2015 Process, he helped hammer out the wording of the...
Loading summary
Transcript55 lines
- [00:05]
A
Hello, I'm Rajesh Merchandani and thanks for joining me for the CGD podcast. Now a moment is coming that has been very long in the making. In a few weeks time, nations will gather in New York to adopt the Sustainable Development Goals. This is an agreement that sets the framework for how development will be done for the next 15 years. You know by now, 17 goals, 169 targets. They're designed to apply to not just developing countries, but but to all countries to leave no one behind. The draft agreement is done. In fact, here's a copy of it and there should be no more negotiating. So it's a good time for the US Chief Negotiator to reflect on this process. Tony Pippa is the US Special Coordinator for the Post2015 Development Agenda and he joins me today. Tony, great to have you here for the podcast. Welcome.
- [00:53]
B
Thanks for having me.
- [00:54]
A
Great to be here. Let's start first of all, just by getting your thoughts on the number of goals and targets. 17 and 169. Compare that to the Millennium Development Goals, which were nice, easy, manageable. Eight.
- [01:06]
B
Right. I would liken the Millennium Development Goals as to the cornerstones of development. They were sort of a first order of things that you wanted countries to be able to achieve then to be able to create momentum and spur their own development. The Sustainable Development Goals are really comprehensive. They are the comprehensive blueprint, the comprehensive foundation, if you will, for development that any country should aspire to and try to achieve to go forward.
- [01:33]
A
Does that mean it's good that there are so many of them?
- [01:36]
B
You know, in terms of the number, I think it's more. It's good that there's the breadth and there's some things that are important that we're missing from the Millennium Development Goals that we know about development that are extremely important to development, such as you talked about. Leave no one behind. The inclusive nature of this particular agenda is extremely important. It focuses, for example, much stronger goal on gender equality and gender empowerment. It looks at things like peace and peaceful societies and the importance of freedom from violence to what that means for development. The importance and the strength of governance and institutions and making sure those institutions are effective and responsive to their citizens and the importance of that to development.
- [02:27]
A
You're talking about the goal 16 there, I think promote peaceful and inclusive societies, sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. I'm imagining the US is pretty happy to see goal 16 include.
- [02:41]
B
We're very happy to see goal 16. We see that if you look at our Presidential policy directive that this administration did at the very beginning, first ever Presidential policy directive on development governance and the strength of governments and what that meant for development was a part of that. And we saw that as extremely, as a transformational element, really, and what it means to development.
- [03:05]
A
What about. I mean, that's a goal that seems to promote democracy, but would you say democracy is a prerequisite for development? I mean, look at China.
- [03:16]
B
So from our perspective, so what's in the goal? You know, nations will set their own benchmarks and their own milestones on what they're trying to achieve via development. I think from our perspective, we're about promoting resilient, democratic societies. I think we want to see the elements that are in goal 16 and the targets that are in goal 16 achieved and be taken seriously by any country. And for those to be able to strive towards development, we think it's extremely important.
- [03:54]
A
And one thing about the goals, obviously is once they've been adopted, they have to be implemented. And you've talked previously about the need for greater technical expertise on, say, the science of implementation. How much progress do you feel has been achieved on that?
- [04:10]
B
I think we're going to see a lot of focus on ensuring that we have better data, more data and better quality data to understand what our progress looks like, but not only just progress, how that data also then gets applied for development impact and development progress. I think we have a way to go. I mean, I think the, the great thing about this particular process is it's brought some political attention and momentum to the importance of that evidence and to the importance of data overall.
- [04:45]
A
Because the indicators, how we measure progress on the Sustainable Development Goals, well, they won't be agreed until next year.
- [04:53]
B
That's true, but you know, that's actually a lot quicker than the MDGs. So the MDGs, it took about three to four years for the global community to start to come around a set of indicators to start to gather data that everyone. That was standard across countries because of the inclusive nature of this process up to now. And all member states have been part of this process of developing the SDGs. You know, countries themselves feel real stake in these particular goals and have already started some momentum in trying to implement them. And the process of developing the indicators, as you say, will come to fruition in March 2016. But we started that process up to now and in fact, there's a comment period that's open right now for countries and for civil society and others to be commenting on what those indicators could look like, to develop a global set of indicators on how we'll measure progress.
- [05:52]
A
Does that mean. It's not necessarily a problem right now that of the 169 targets, only 85 of them have, have what are called Tier 1 indicators, which is indicators where we know how to measure progress and we have decent data on it. Right.
- [06:06]
B
So I think that's part of the power of the agenda, actually, is to drive us to really get more specific on how we do measure progress on different parts of the agenda. We didn't have all that in hand when we began measuring what progress looked like on the MDGs. And so we have to get smarter about what those indicators will look like when we look at the targets that we've developed. And frankly, from our perspective, from the US Perspective, we think that there could have been some improvements in the targets themselves. Such as there's, you know, so it's a pretty wide ranging agenda. There's 169 targets in the agenda. Some of them are not as measurable, as specific or precise as we would have liked. And we thought you could have brought the standard of measurability up.
- [06:57]
A
Can you give any examples?
- [07:00]
B
I mean, I'd have to. I can. Maybe I should go to my copy here.
- [07:06]
A
There's one that's easily available, but yeah.
- [07:08]
B
I mean, there's some that are more political statements than they are specific, measurable. And in fact, we made some improvements throughout the process. For example, 3.2, we went from just talking about ending child mortality and bringing some specific numbers to that where neonatal Deaths would be 12 to the level of 12 per 1,000 births and under 5 mortality, 25 per 1,000 births.
- [07:38]
A
Yeah, I see that language is in there. But if you look at, say, something like goal 5.1, end all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere. I mean, that is a very good goal to have. No one would disagree with that.
- [07:50]
B
Agreed.
- [07:50]
A
How do you measure that and how do you police that? What are the metrics for that?
- [07:54]
B
So that's going to be part of the process of which experts will come together and say, what is it that we can look like? What is it we can look at in terms of indicators to assess this?
- [08:06]
A
Do you think? Are you confident that there are metrics you can establish, maybe not now, but down the road that would be able to measure something like this?
- [08:14]
B
I'll leave that one up to the experts.
- [08:16]
A
It's not just about outlawing the practice, is it? Because you can outlaw something, but it still carries on Right.
- [08:25]
B
So I'll leave it up to the experts how it is that we're going to be measuring all the different targets in there. I will say that 5.1 is one of the particular targets that I think is more aspirational than concrete and practical in terms of measurement. But we will be developing indicators to be able to assess what progress looks like on it. I think one thing that's also important about the indicators themselves, that they are going to be an expert and technical process rather than a political process. And we advocated strongly for that to be the case so that we weren't getting into what the political decisions could be around what those indicators look like.
- [09:09]
A
Well, talking about politics, the point about the SDGs is that they're meant to be universal. They apply to all countries, not just to developing countries. So once they're adopted, what will the US do differently? How will US Development dollars be spent differently to take on board the SDGs?
- [09:28]
B
So, first off, one of the things I would say is that I think the SDGs reflect a lot of what the US priorities are right now in terms of our development priorities and our investments that we're making overseas. At the moral center of this particular agenda is a focus on ending extreme poverty. And that's something that the President has advocated for in his last three State of the Union addresses. And it's something that the U.S. agency for International Development now has part of its mission statement that we are about partnering to end extreme poverty. We were strong advocates through the Financing for Development conference that preceded the negotiations on post2015 that just ended about ensuring that we're looking at multiple streams of resources to make development progress, the domestic resources that countries themselves are stimulating and collecting. Also how resources from outside stakeholders, especially private investment, go for development impact, as well as our own investments in official development assistance and public resources that we're making available. The leave no one behind part of this agenda, which really focuses on the most vulnerable, the poorest, and those that have been most marginalized, I also think helps us think, think about how we make those investments and assess and stimulate that sort of progress in areas that to now have been hardest pressed to make Progress on. The MDGs. When you look at states coming out of conflict, when you look at fragile states, those countries made the least progress on the Millennium Development Goals. And I think it's going to continue to challenge how we use our investment dollars and think about making as much development progress as possible in those particular areas.
- [11:35]
A
But remember, the SDGs, of course, are to apply to all Countries as well. What will America do differently domestically to enact and implement the SDGs for the sake of its own people?
- [11:46]
B
Well, again, I think the SDGs are reflective of the agenda that President Obama and this administration has been pursuing domestically. When you look at the focus on inequality and the president's focus on addressing inequality, I think that's very reflected in what the SDGs and the focus on leave no one behind within the SDGs. But you look at the president's proposals on, you know, universal early childhood development, you look at proposals on access to community college system that fits with the focus on economic growth and about having people prepared for the knowledge economy and what's important for economic growth. We've been talking with the Domestic Policy Council and looking and going through the goals and the targets and looking how they match up with where the domestic agenda is. And we'll be thinking hard about what that looks like going forward.
- [12:54]
A
And so when you say you've been, you're looking at the domestic agenda, you're talking to Health and Human Services, you're talking to Department of Education. Are they involved in the process?
- [13:01]
B
So they've been involved. So one, we've had a very robust interagency process throughout the couple of years of negotiations.
- [13:08]
A
So they know what it is. They know what it is.
- [13:10]
B
So there's familiarity with what this agenda is. And in fact, it helped us provide our inputs into this agenda and helped shape the agenda. I would like to say that I think we brought some of the best thinking from our domestic agencies as we were negotiating and engaging with other member states at the UN to help shape this agenda. We were learning from some of the things that we've done here in the US and some of the models that have been successful in bringing that to bear, both internationally but also domestically.
- [13:46]
A
Are you able to give any examples of that?
- [13:50]
B
So let me think the Department of Education, for example, and the work that they've been doing on early childhood development had informed our thinking and informed the targets that we were asking for around education, for example.
- [14:13]
A
How likely is it that the intergovernmental negotiations are going to be able to inform domestic policy in the U.S. you know, the last thing that U.S. lawmakers want is the UN telling them what to do.
- [14:23]
B
Yeah. I would put it the other way. I think our domestic priorities and initiatives are reflected in, I think, what the SDGs look like. And it's just a matter of us matching up sort of the data and the way in which we measure progress and how we think about domestic progress, matching them up and being able to comment on how they reflect where the SDGs and the specific goals and the targets that the SDGs put.
- [14:52]
A
And what are you doing to get Congress on board?
- [14:56]
B
We've been in conversations with our congressional committees and congressional members. We brief them before negotiations have been happening to get their input. They were very excited about the focus on governance and strength of governance and peaceful societies. That goal 16 that you talked about.
- [15:24]
A
What about the others?
- [15:24]
B
Yeah, and also we went through actually the entire agenda with them, trying to get input on where they thought the important things were around extreme poverty, food, hunger, health. And they've been out of session since we've ended negotiations. So I'll be back to sit down with congressional committees in September, take them through the agenda and where we've come out.
- [15:54]
A
What about in the two years leading up to this, though? I mean, you've got to get congressional support during the negotiations. Were you kind of talking to Congress at that point?
- [16:01]
B
Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. We've been. We've been talking with them directly, as well as NGOs that have been very involved in civil society, that have been very involved, has also been engaging with them. We've been engaging with certain champions on different parts of the agenda. Yeah, we've been engaging with Congress throughout the process as we've been going forward.
- [16:22]
A
What do you think is the important message for members of the US Congress to understand in terms of the importance of the SDG agenda? What's the kind of key point that you think would get them to buy into it?
- [16:34]
B
So, from my perspective, this is a political global commitment to end poverty and end extreme poverty, which we've been committed to as a government, but to do it in a way that takes into account the economic dimensions of that and what inclusive economic growth looks like and the policy commitments that are necessary for that to occur as well, to do it sustainably and to take into account what needs to happen in terms of resilience and protection of biodiversity and protection of the planet's resources. And it is all countries themselves. This was a. A politically inclusive process. And so countries themselves are committing to the norms and the aspirations that the goals send out. And there are, I think, transformational elements to this particular agenda, like what we've been talking around, peace and governance, the inclusive nature of it, the focus on gender and other vulnerable populations. And I think all that will be exciting to members of Congress and see that as a way in which our investments will work harder because it will provide a platform for partnerships both with countries themselves as well as with private sector and civil society, to be able to achieve that. And at the end of the day, that comes back to us as a country in spades in terms of prosperity and in terms of security.
- [18:17]
A
So Congress will get on board, do you think, because they see the SDGS as a way to promote democracy around the world?
- [18:24]
B
I think they'll certainly come on board because they see it as a way to promote the connection between peace and peaceful societies, the importance of governance, and governance that is responsive to their citizens and provides a platform for citizens to hold their governments accountable for what progress looks like in development in their countries.
- [18:51]
A
So let's finish with a kind of big picture thought. Let's give us, give us something to inspire us, Tony. Achievable goals, tangible accomplishments, or aspirational striving? What do you hope in 15 years from now we will look back and.
- [19:05]
B
We'Ll say the STG is achieved by 2030? I think they will have helped us achieve the end of extreme poverty, which to me will be an astounding achievement, actually, because I think not many in the general public realize just how much progress we've made over the last 15 to 20 years on extreme poverty and that we are actually on the cusp of achieving that as well. And so really ending absolute poverty in any country in the world, I think would be an astounding achievement. I think that's the moral center of this agenda. And I think that this agenda can help mobilize the global community to see us through.
- [19:49]
A
Okay, Tony, Pippa, it's been great to have you here. Thank you very much for joining us.
- [19:51]
B
Thank you very much.
- [19:54]
A
And as ever, you can find out much more about CGD's work on the SDGs on our website, cgdev.org I'm Rajesh Merchandanian. Do join me again for the next podcast podcast from the center for Global Development.