Taminka Hanscamp – Pike & Hurricane

A Path to Prosperity? The Place of the Private Sector in the Sustainable Development Goals

Taminka Hanscamp — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 10:24:24 +0000

No poverty, prosperity for all and a healthy planet by 2030: this is the promise of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Set in 2015 this quixotic set of 17 goals is deliberately more aspirational compared to the eight concrete Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which underpinned the UN agenda on international development from 2001 to 2015. The MDGs alongside the optimism and momentum of the Make Poverty History Campaign, microfinance and the Fairtrade label defined much of the development work and discourse in the first 15 years of the twenty-first century. Progress was made, child mortality was cut in half and the percentage of people living in extreme poverty in developing countries dropped from 47 per cent in 1990 to 14 per cent in 2015 (UN, 2016). However, whilst purporting to have learnt from, and improve the development agenda since the MDGs, the SDGs are still plagued with problematic westerncentric assumptions.

The MDGs essentially targeted Sub-Saharan African countries and were often critiqued for providing a one-sided, top down transfer of assistance from the Global-North to the Global-South. Since the implementation of the MDGs International development discourse has become more aware of how it can be neo-colonialist, paternalistic and dismissive and this is reflected in the broader, more inclusive focus of the SDGs. For example, in addition to no poverty and zero hunger, the goals address reducing inequality, responsible consumption and production and climate action, issues that affect and originate from countries across both the Global-North and Global-South.

The naming of the goals under the ‘sustainable development’ banner reflects this at a normative level as well. Sustainable development evokes ideas of capacity building rather than dependency, self determination, environmentalism, and a long term, intergenerational outlook. Therefore the SDGs signal a shift at least in understanding, recognising that the Global-North has a responsibility, not only its aid and development work but also at a domestic level to address global issues of inequality, discrimination and environmentalism. Nonetheless with the expansion of globalisation the interrelationship and inter-causality of the issues that the SDGs address becomes even more important.

The MDGs were limited in scope to address very traditional areas of concern within the development and non-government sphere and provided little invitation to civil society, the private sector or public institutions to share in the responsibility or initiatives designed to tackle the issues. The SDGs however have deliberately emphasised the role of the private sector and state bodies. For the private sector this is fairly consistent with new focuses and projects on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and its related counterparts.

It is appropriate that the private sector be included and recognised as potential key contributors to the realisation of the SDGs. This reflects the reality of our globalised world.

Further the SDGs engage a holistic approach that recognises how achieving health, education and a healthy environment relate to each other and how aiming for these things presupposes and can lead to, other development outcomes such as jobs, peace, justice and partnership. However, before this innovative and holistic approach is accepted on its face, the underlying causes and contributors that have prevented the realisation of these outcomes needs to be appreciated. At an oversimplification, hunger and preventable diseases continue to kill not because we do not know how to address them but because we prioritise industry, patents, profits and greed.

There remains an inherent hypocrisy and impossibility in expecting the private sector to help reduce inequality and promote responsible consumption and production. At the most basic level the goals operate within a capitalist mandate. A mandate which supposes that accumulation of wealth for personal gain is a primary good.

How are the companies that predicate their existence on this assumption and their survival on the basis that customers adopt the same practice, expected to redress global inequality?

At a panel discussion on implementing the SDGs in the business sector, hosted at Lund University on November 16 in conjunction with the Swedish Aid Department FUF and the Lund UN chapter, Mats Svensson, International Secretary at IF Metall discussed the landmark industrial trade union agreement achieved with H&M to ensure local enforceable workers rights and conditions. The work of IKEA, H&M and others should be applauded and their practices are deserving of recognition and are certainly a lot better than many competitors, however analysing their application points to the hypocrisy of the goals. If H&M have worked to achieve decent work conditions for the employees in their supply chain, it is partly at the cost of promoting responsible consumption and production.

The thousands of employees that now have ‘good jobs’ are able to do so because of the required mass production that fuels quick product turnover which directly opposes responsible consumption at an individual level. Also at this panel IKEA’s Global Communication Manager of Next Generation Social Entrepreneurs Ann-Sofie Gunnarsson talked about the innovative CSR work done by IKEA. For one project, IKEA invests in training entrepreneurial women in selected rural locations in developing countries to build handicraft businesses and then aims to sell these products in their stores. However good this might be, the impact of the best handicraft initiative is still dwarfed by what could be achieved if IKEA stopped dodging taxes. If the money they cleverly avoid paying in taxes went to the governments of the countries where these initiatives occur, the conditions, infrastructure and accountability needed to achieve ‘development’ for the people targeted in these projects would be allowed to occur at the local level. Yet, achieving tax justice is not addressed by most actors who are apparently on board with the SDGs. One estimate suggests that in 2008 developing countries lost more than USD $160b through two forms of multinational corporate tax dodging, those same countries collectively received USD $120b in aid the following year.

Whilst the inclusion of the private sector in the SDGs is appropriate, for it to have integrity, the private sector needs to realise and address their underlying practices which contribute to the global issues that the SDGs aim to address. If this does not happen, it remains easy to be cynical and consider the work done through CSR to simply be about positive branding.

The legacy of colonialism is once again seen to rear its head through the inclusion of the private sector in the SDGs, whilst western economies were allowed to develop and profit from their histories of exploitation and are only now expected to implement sustainable practice, initiatives and organisations in the Global-South are now subject to these checks from the outset. This is seen in the IKEA handicraft project which ensures that the rural, small-scale businesses they support, are mandated to remain just that, small-scale and rurally based. Thus, the women will now have some income, skills and experience but they are prevented for aiming for the larger profit margins and mass production that allows IKEA to be a globally successful company.

The reality of the world as one plagued with inequality, poverty and suffering cannot and should not be ignored. There will always be dispute and cause for critique about how these problems are being tackled. Nonetheless, the SDGs remain an important, normative and unified agenda for addressing these issues. The inclusion of the private sector allows for greater force and diversity in the approaches adopted to address the SDGs. It is unlikely the 17 goals and 169 subgoals will be achieved by 2030 but just as the SDGs changed to incorporate the lessons learnt from the progress made in the MDGs, so too success may be better measured not in what is achieved but by what is challenged and changed in the process.

Taminka Hanscamp

The post A Path to Prosperity? The Place of the Private Sector in the Sustainable Development Goals appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Big Issues Through Little Eyes

Taminka Hanscamp — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:46:47 +0000

In the leafy suburban outskirts of Oslo is a white house. It is almost as unassuming as the subject matter it contains, it is the International Museum of Children’s Art. Compared to the White House in Washington DC this one greets you with colourful giant snails, butterflies and a cow. This joyful expression of childhood and imagination does not however, preclude the Museum from being properly viewed as a centre of international and political concern. The Museum provides a unique opportunity to see and consider the perspective of children on international issues. It also gives a platform for children to be recognised in our society and works for the promotion of the rights of the child.

For too long we have dismissed the voices, wisdom and concerns of children, especially in politics, but this forgets that children are already involved in the ‘adult’ world. When we do remember, our responses are often paternalistic and disempowering. This is wrong as it is also their world and their future that is being dealt with. Children are key stakeholders in many serious international issues, for example concerning work, slavery and violence and when it comes to child labour and child soldiers we are quick to voice outrage and concern as these practices are seen as abhorrent abuses of the rights of the child and the sanctity of childhood. Children are also at the centre of issues such as education, health, climate change, immigration and population growth. Acknowledging that children are involved in international issues places the need and value of showcasing their views and contributions, through their art, squarely in the field of foreign affairs. Further, it seems absurd that the International Museum of Children’s Art in Oslo is the only one like it in the world. This is especially because children produce art on a prolific scale and the ability and time to do this epitomises the realisation of the ideal childhood that the world invests so much into protecting and developing.

Sharmin Chait, 10 years, Bangladesh, ‘Child Worker’

The Museum hosts exhibitions inviting contributions from children around the world on different themes. In this way it captures the perspectives, concerns and understandings of local and global issues in a unique way. The Museum is currently exhibiting the best works from the last three decades to celebrate its 30th birthday. This special exhibition and the Museum’s archives provide valuable insight into how time, technology, perspectives and cultures have both changed and collided across the globe. For example two exhibitions on fatherhood were done in the last 30 years allowing for a comparison of how family roles have changed in this time. Whilst the newspapers that previously featured were replaced with computers and phones, depictions of anger and fear were unfortunately common to both eras.

Left, Michiru Shioji, 3 Years, Japan, ‘My Father is Angry!’; Right, Jonas Lindborg, 10 Years, Sweden, ‘Papa’

What remained with me as I wandered through the galleries was the ability for children to distil very complex issues into a clear sentiment. Pieces from exhibitions on environment and disaster highlighted how the challenges of climate change are already felt very seriously in the lived experiences of those who will be affected the most. Some pictures showed the grave concern and hopelessness of the issues whilst others had a quixotic tone. The greed and waste that have so clearly contributed to climate change are outlined so simply that you can’t avoid this truth staring you in the face. The works and indeed the gallery shone a light on how adults are often indifferent to the concerns of children and the type of world they want us to leave them.

Left, Emma Lorena Cabaldoens, 13 years, Panama, ‘NATURE See, Smell, Feel and Admire It. Don’t Forget What It Was. Preserve It’; Right, Olga Crasik, 15 Years, Ukraine, ‘The Dream

In displaying contributions from around the world on single topics, the Museum provides a rich resource for understanding different cultures and nations. Children’s art reconnects us to the basic truths of our shared existence on the planet, and the gallery is a beautiful reminder of the importance and value of giving children the respect they deserve and a voice in matters of international concern.

Taminka Hanscamp

Photo Credit: Pictures 1-5 Permission from the International Museum of Children’s Art

Cover image: 5 years, India, ‘I am going to the Moon’ International Museum of Children’s Art Used with Normal One Time Permission

The post Big Issues Through Little Eyes appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The Australian Case For EU Membership

Taminka Hanscamp — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 14:49:54 +0000

I’m Australian, not Austrian but please let me in on the EU. There are marked differences between the two countries, not least of which is that Australia is an island continent 14,000 kilometres away from Europe. However, this geographic logic did not stop Australia joining the Eurovision song contest in 2015. Indeed, Australia fully embraced Eurovision but the country seems much more reticent to participate in matters of international politics. I concede that Australia will never become an EU Member, nor would this actually be appropriate given the geography. However, by considering the Australian consequences of not being a part of such a body, this article illustrates how an EU model would be of significant value in addressing the issues facing the international community.

Photo: Naomi Wolfers. Australian’s overcoming the time difference to dress up, get together and celebrate Eurovision 2015.

The benefits of EU Membership are pertinent to consider at a time when another contest about the ‘Euro[pean] vision’ is playing out on a much broader stage in European and international politics. Underpinning the EU is the idea that international cooperation is both necessary and beneficial for economic, political and security purposes. In reality it might not achieve these ends, be efficient or even be understandable. However what makes it different from other international bodies that share similar goals is that the EU remains unique in its authority over its members. This perceived relinquishment of individual state autonomy has contributed to the momentum of Euro-skepticism. However, it is necessary to consider how this also provides an important strength. This can be seen by comparing the Australian and EU responses to the pressing issues of climate change and the human rights treatment of refugees and asylum seekers.

Climate change poses a very real threat to the globe and its effects have no respect for national boundaries. It is recognised that strong, international action is required to address it. However, without effective and binding frameworks that encourage shared responsibility, this is difficult to achieve.

Australia has been accused of withdrawing from international cooperation on the issue, favouring unilateral action instead. This came after Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott removed climate change from the topics of discussion at the 2014 G20 conference hosted in Brisbane and repealed a tax on carbon emissions. Even if unilateral action was enough it still requires action. Australia had designed an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in 2007, and many other countries now also have variations of an ETS including the EU. However in Australia, it never passed. Domestic political tensions meant that it was dropped off the agenda along with the prime minister who suggested it. The reasons for back-pedalling on environmental protection measures were primarily economic: to introduce an ETS would have put Australia at a comparative market disadvantage with its regional trading partners. Taking action on climate change has therefore been equated with being detrimental to national industry.

The EU model with its single market and ability to pass binding resolutions is in a better position to guarantee action and share responsibility, at the very least it can hold conversations about the issue with its members. Under the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) the EU has implemented an ETS and is on track to meet a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020. In addition to the EU wide policies member states have established domestic programs that complement or extend their international and european commitments. Sweden for example has committed to having no net GHG emissions by 2050. Where EU energy law is not respected the EU Commission can begin enforcement procedures calling for compliance through the European Court of justice.

International commitments such as the Paris Agreement are also an important form of international cooperation but perhaps are still not enough. International law is often said to be ‘non-binding’. International convention relies on the fact that the embarrassment and reaction of respective parties will be enough to encourage the compliance of the other. The problem in Australia is that this is apparently not motivating enough.

Enter Australia’s refugee and asylum seeker system. For human rights to be meaningful they need to be respected regardless of domestic political agendas. However, the framework of international law makes it difficult to ensure this happens as incorporation into domestic law is at the behest of individual nations. The importance of recognition at law of rights is crucial. Members of the EU must, at least on paper, domestically incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights, which is accountable to the European Court of Human Rights. This can be contrasted to the position in Australia where there is little legal protection of rights.

The mechanisms used to process and treat asylum seekers is increasingly becoming a challenge especially in Europe. This is because the numbers of people coming are overwhelming existing and imagined systems. It appears that the bigger the problem the more tempting to implement harsher, sweeping and dehumanising policies. It is vital that whatever approaches are adopted across Europe, that they uphold human rights. At the moment there is some guarantee of this occurring. The scale of the issue in Australia is markedly less, yet extremely harsh measures have been implemented to achieve a deterrence based system. Adopting this ‘stop the boats’ policy, that is not subject to domestic or binding international human rights protections, has resulted in multiple findings of human rights breaches by the UN and other organisations and the harm continues. The Australian system detains Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) on offshore processing centres and settlement in Australia will never be an option for those who arrived ‘illegally’ by boat. Upon the release of a report finding human rights abuses against torture, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott simply said Australians were ‘sick of being lectured to by the UN’.

International cooperation is always going to be difficult where domestic interests have to be balanced against each other. However, its pursuit is still necessary and worthy precisely because if left to domestic political interests the action and responsibility sharing required to deal with the issues of the 21st century is undermined and the results are ugly. Australia provides a case example of the dangers of not being involved, so whilst the EU might not be perfect it should not be abandoned.

Taminka Hanscamp

Image 1: Bernard Spragg, Public Domain

Image 2: Naomi Wolfers, Instagram

The post The Australian Case For EU Membership appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.