David Nabarro’s new job comes with a daunting in-tray. Last September, heads of state and government from 193 countries approved a set of goals and targets designed to guide policy and spending decisions on global development for the next 15 years.
The 2030 Agenda spans a vast range of world problems, setting out ambitious – some would say utopian – goals on everything from climate change and poverty to income inequality and war.
The long, occasionally fraught process was a major achievement. But it was also the easy bit. Ensuring the 17 goals are achieved is one of the biggest challenges facing governments, multilateral organisations, NGOs – and, now, Dr Nabarro himself. In December, the London-born physician was appointed as special adviser to UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon on the 2030 Agenda. It’s a role that will make him a key player in cajoling states and institutions into action. His job, Dr Nabarro says, is to work with Ban to make the document “come to life”.
“To do that, we have to be massively optimistic about the capacity of leaders of the world to stay true to what they have said they are going to do,” he says. “At the same time, we also have to be confident that their citizens will have the power and the opportunity to hold their leaders to account.”
Dr Nabarro, who previously served as Ban’s special envoy on Ebola and remains his special representative on food security and nutrition, has been encouraged by what he has seen since the deal was agreed last September. He senses that governments are “much more serious about this set of ambitions than about anything I have been involved in in my international life”.
Indicators of progress
One of the first stages in the implementation phase, which formally began on January 1st, will be the production of indicators, or ways to measure and compare progress over time. Data-collection standards vary from country to country; finding reliable ways to monitor and review states’ performance will be vital if the agenda is to be fulfilled.
States will then come up with action plans. According to Dr Nabarro, a development specialist who previously worked with the British government's development aid agency and later the World Health Organisation, the agenda will require fundamental shifts in how the UN system and individual governments operate.
"No part of the 17 goals can be isolated out with people saying, 'I'm just dealing with oceans' or 'I'm just dealing with sustainable consumption'," he says. "The new agenda is not something you can just add on to your normal business. The new agenda is the business."
Of the 17 goals and 169 subsidiary targets, some are more achievable and more easily measurable than others. For example, target 1.1, which declares that by 2030 extreme poverty (currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day) will have been eradicated, is ambitious but by no means inconceivable. Less tangible, for example, is target 11.4, in which states commit to “strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage”.
Speaking in Dublin after giving an address at the Institute of International and European Affairs, Dr Nabarro declines to identify priorities, and points out that targets that look more achievable are not necessarily any more important than ones that look difficult.
“The real difference between this 2030 Agenda and what has come before is that it’s not based on what is feasible, it’s based on what is needed,” he says. But he can see “strands” that run through many of the goals and targets. “First, these goals are about people being able to realise their rights . . . For me, trying to make certain that work on social and economic rights is woven into the 2030 Agenda is one important element.
“Second, many of these goals cannot be achieved without the full engagement of, and empowerment of, women. We are still in a world where there are massive inequities between the sexes. Dealing with that and ensuring that gender parity and equity is a key element of the agenda is important.”
Geopolitical context
Similarly, he says, the climate agenda and protracted crises – among them the Syrian war and the exodus it has set off – will have a huge bearing on the world’s ability to achieve even ostensibly unrelated goals.
Having co-facilitated (with Kenya) the negotiations leading to the 2030 agreement, Ireland’s stock is high in the development sector these days.
Dr Nabarro praises the country's role, saying he has seen examples across the world of how Irish government agencies, NGOs and aid workers have "a capacity to plug into the real issues faced by people at community level" that is "second to none". "Those of us who work in development have come to expect it of Ireland – to be the exemplar," he adds.
Moral force
The 2030 goals are not legally binding, so the UN’s role in their implementation is that of facilitator rather than enforcer. Champions of the initiative point out that the goals have a moral force, however. They believe this, combined with the fact 193 countries have agreed to sign up, will make it difficult for any government to openly resile from them.
But is it a problem that the UN has a carrot but no stick?
“If we look at all aspects of international action, the vast majority of what we seek to do in terms of global good depends on collective voluntary action by governments,” Dr Nabarro replies.
Recalling his own experience in the health sector, he points out that proper focus on people with HIV/Aids moved from being a marginal issue to a central one in just over a decade. He also remarks that when the world began to apply its collective mind to issues such as child mortality, tuberculosis and malaria, it made important strides.
“It’s not all neat and clear, there are not penalties, but that is how global governance works,” he says.
“I have enough examples of success to make me believe that while not every single community and every single country will be able to advance the 2030 Agenda, I would be willing to wager a fair amount that, over the next 15 years, there will be a solid momentum towards these outcomes in the majority of nations.
“After all, they committed to it. I think that for the majority of politicians a commitment has real meaning.”
