The main argument used by countries at the meeting of the UN High Level Political Forum (HLPF) to justify the reduction in the speed of implementation of socio-environmental agendas was the pandemic. The meeting, which takes stock of how countries are doing in the 2030 Agenda, ended on Monday (18) and marked the return to the group’s face-to-face meetings, which effectively improves the quality of negotiations between the parties.
But, if the pandemic was an alibi, it must be remembered that even before it the speed of change was below expectations, so much so that the UN decided to create the decade of action 2020-2030, as well as calling for more intense advances.
Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General, sets the tone for the forum. Visibly depressed by the overlapping crises and the countries’ inability to resolve them, he seems to be at the limit of his possibilities, making all kinds of appeals. The arguments range from the pandemic to the climate crisis, from the technological gap to the food crisis. The climate crisis, for example, requires long-term decisions in a world led by people who only think about the short term and about immediate results for their maintenance in power, both in the public and private sectors.
The incrementalism —slow and punctual changes— adopted by the UN, governments, companies and many NGOs, has been increasingly criticized for not providing the necessary response to the seriousness of the problem we have to face. Temperatures approaching 50°C in Canada, Italy and Spain leave no room for doubt as to the seriousness of the moment. Faced with this observation, Guterres showed signs of fatigue and reached the limit of the radicalism that the position allows, rigorously appealing to government officials and companies.
In reality, the leaders are more concerned with the power struggle and prefer to promote wars as vanity platforms, rather than face the real problems of the planet, such as inequalities and climate change. Regrettably, they fall short of the challenges we have.
At the Forum, 44 countries presented their voluntary national reports, especially evaluating the five SDGs chosen for this year’s report: quality education (SDG 4), gender equity (SDG 5), life on the water (SDG 14), life on land ( SDG 15) and partnerships and means of implementation (SDG 17).
The last report presented by Brazil was in 2017 and the current government has disregarded this agenda. It extinguished the National SDG Commission in 2019 and has not considered sustainable development in its planning and actions. In the absence of an institutional position, Brazilian civil society assumed the role of producing the Luz Report, which analyzes the situation in Brazil in the 17 SDGs. Of the 168 indicators surveyed, only one had satisfactory progress, 11 remained or entered stagnation, and 110 (!) are in retreat, which gives a measure of the panorama that we have been experiencing in this UN agenda. It is necessary for the next elected government to re-commit to advancing this, which is the main global agenda.
In 2023, we will reach the middle of the 2030 Agenda period. Everything suggests that the balance of progress will be far from what was expected. Even so, continuing to act to transform this situation is what remains to try to avoid the worsening of the social and environmental crises. Being attentive to dissimulations and reductionism can contribute to changing the course. This seems to be the last ray of hope that unites Guterres to the UN’s 2030 Agenda.
For a long time now, a small group has concentrated economic and political power to the detriment of the vast majority of the population. This has been the history of the human saga that is repeated with the same script, albeit with characters that are renewed over time. The appearance changes, but the essence remains the same.
The battle for transformations undertaken by some entities of society is noble and, in many cases, gives meaning to an existence that we know is fleeting and fragile. But the agenda has not been able to sensitize a powerful minority, which insists on maintaining its privileges. The UN meetings fit this script, but the time has come to go further, with binding and mandatory agreements, without which the film will continue to run until the room is set on fire.
The reversal of lost time depends on an unlikely institutional revolution. The UN’s anachronistic governance model precludes hopeful expectations. The practice of the veto, introduced since its creation in 1945, when applied in a context of intense geopolitical disputes such as those that occur today between the USA, Russia and China, prevents the formation of consensus on issues that affect all humanity, such as the reducing inequalities and tackling climate change, economic, energy and food crises.
One way out would be to democratize the UN, with the participation of a larger group of countries and also of civil society in decision-making. Inaction generates delay that mainly affects the most vulnerable population, but that, sooner or later, will affect everyone, as science never tires of warning.
How long will the limited vision of political leaders supported by economic power prevail, that is the question of today.
