[TLDR (too long didn’t read): This Reader is about the not-by-chance shortcomings of the SDGs and PPPs and the implications this has for human rights. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text].
The SDGs were set out as aspirations, not as destinations at the end of well-planned voyages –now tragically set back by the pandemic (George Kent)
1. Semi-good procedures were put in place for collecting and analyzing information about the 17 goals. But there is little systematic use of that information to guide action. The practice of offering the world aspirations without plausible pathways to their achievement is very familiar. It is well illustrated by the many conferences and documents about ending (not just reducing) hunger in the world. (G. Kent)
2. Coming to the table to discuss ‘solutions’ supposed to be global is not as simple as it sounds, especially if the table is already set, the seating plan non-negotiable and the menu highly limited. And what if the real conversation is actually happening at a different table? (Michael Fakhri)
3. Yes, the practice of offering aspirations without plausible pathways to their achievement is painfully familiar. The trajectory of the entire SDGs program could have been very different if the seventeen goals were cast as rights. To illustrate, the first five could have been:
- The right to freedom from hunger
- The right to freedom from poverty
- The right to gender equality
- The right to good health and well-being
- The right to quality education. (G. Kent)
4. The suggestion here is not simply to change the phrasing, but to establish human rights (HR) systems that provide clear paths toward achieving the goals. (https://sdg:a.humanrights.dk/) It is their enforceability that makes the HR approach a strategy and not just an aspiration. The accountability part is in what claim holders can and will do about it if they do not get what they are supposed to get. This rights-based approach is not likely to be applied quickly though, even half way through Agenda 2030. But if there were a clear focus on the long-term destination it could be more effective than other approaches for ending HR violations related to the SDGs.* (G. Kent) [Be aware that equality of opportunity is not what we are striving for; we are striving for equality of results!].
*: The results could be improved by the Hawthorne effect that refers to the reactivity in which individuals (duty bearers) modify an aspect of their behavior and action in response to their awareness of being observed. (Wikipedia).
5. You see? Under this guise, the United Nations, the G7 and the G20 summits are particularly irrelevant, because world leaders do not deliver on their promises. They like making symbolic statements, not solving problems. Worse, they give the appearance of solving global problems, while really leaving them to actually worsen. (Jeffrey Sachs)
6. Bottom line here: Instead of simply stating goals, it would have been more useful to think in terms of the rights of the people who are supposed to benefit, to then set off to pursue the fulfillment of those rights strategically. Basically, the key would have been to ask: a) Who should get what goods and services? b) Who is to provide those things? c) How? d) Using what resources? e) What would motivate the duty bearers? f) What will keep them on track? and g) Who is to be held accountable, for what, in what way? (G. Kent)
SDGS ARE TOO OFTEN PEGGED TO PUBLIC PRIVATE (FOR PROFIT) PARTNERSHIPS.
-In one of its incarnations, PPPs put private investment at the center of financing the provision of healthcare services –wither the right to health.
7. What are PPPs?: PPPs are long term contracts between a private party and a government entity for providing a public asset or service, in which the private party bears significant risk and management responsibility and in which remuneration is linked to performance.
8. The World Bank, a primary PPPs proponent, explicitly recommends ‘de-risking’ PPPs, effectively involving ‘socializing’ risks and privatizing profits.(!) The term ‘de-risking’ is simply misleading, as some risk is inherent in all project investments. Hence, Bank advice does not really seek to reduce, let alone eliminate risk, but simply to make governments bear and absorb the risk. Therefore, ‘de-risking’ really means shifting risk from private investors to governments.
9. Moreover, PPPs and other similar arrangements keep projects ‘off the books’ of official central government accounts, effectively reducing transparency and accountability, while compromising governance. Being ‘off the books’, governments also face fewer constraints to taking on ever more debt and risk. Normal government budgetary accounting and audit procedures for PPPs do not improve transparency and accountability a bit.
10. PPPs tempt ‘short-termist-governments-of the-day’ to make long-term commitments they are unlikely to be held accountable for in the near to medium-term. The Bank thus contributes to ‘moral hazard’ in PPPs, i.e., the less likely the private partner stands to lose from poor performance, the less incentive it has to meet contractual obligations —also creating more opportunities for corruption and abuse …that the Bank professes to lament. If ‘not sufficiently profitable’, private partners thus have greater incentives to try renegotiating existing contracts to their advantage. Governments have little choice but to accede to their private partners’ demands. But ponder; as per the IMF: “In many countries, PPPs have not always performed better than public procurement”. “There is no ‘killer’ rationale for public-private partnerships”.** (IMF)
**: This begs a couple questions: What is the difference with contracting/procuring by the government without going into a PPP? Will the decision-making power not then stay in the public sector where it belongs?
11. Bottom line here: The Bank continues to promote PPPs as the preferred mode of financing, trying to shift more risk to governments, ostensibly to attract more private investment. (all the above by Jomo Sundaram and Anis Chowdhury)
Ordinary people (claim holders) are purposely left out of PPPs
12. The question has to be asked: Do PPPs help the people that they are intended-for and do they achieve people and HR-focused development goals? The Heinrich Böll Stiftung report titled ‘History Repppeated: How PPPs are failing’ pointed out that many PPP projects have been set up (literally procured) simply to circumvent budget constraints and to postpone (hide) the recording of fiscal costs. The report points out, that transparency in decision making and consultation with affected communities are totally lacking. This results in inequitable accountability that places people’s actual needs at risk. Of greater concern, is that the report revealed that PPP projects that had good intentions often: a) contributed to an increase in the divide between those rendered rich and those rendered; b) resulted in serious social and environmental impacts; c) negatively impacted the life of vulnerable women; and d) negatively affected the environment.
13. The report strongly recommended that actions be undertaken to support initiatives that seek the best financing method only for PPP projects that are responsible, transparent, environmentally and fiscally sustainable, and in line with HR obligations. Primarily, extra due diligence is needed to ensure that PPPs prioritize and align with the SDGs and are not launched as irrelevant ‘vanity’ projects that ignore people’s actual needs and defeat the purpose of using PPPs as meaningful economic development tools. (Heinrich Böll Stiftung, https://www.eurodad.org/historyrepppeated )
Why do we have to challenge the cozy and too often closed relationship between industry and governments? (Sharon Friel et al)
14. Because: (the case of PPPs in health)
- (i) PPPs are more expensive. (According to a 2019 systematic review, all peer-reviewed articles that compared PPP costs with traditional public procurement pointed out the higher cost of PPPs in health. To attract private investments, there must be an attractive margin for profit!).
- (ii) PPPs influence priority setting. (For-profit actors base their actions on the basis of potential profit margins instead of needs).
- (iii) PPPs require complex contracts and risky negotiating. (Large and expensive projects need complex contracts. They often need to be renegotiated after a few years. Two thirds of PPP contracts in Latin American were renegotiated. The government cannot withdraw from the contract, because healthcare is an essential service, so it is forced to renegotiate).
- (iv) PPPs can affect access to health services. (Higher fees and the concentration of facilities in high- and middle-class areas hamper access for those most in need. Two thirds of beneficiaries are usually either middle class or rich). (S. Friel et al)
15. So, the only way to drive institutional change is for claim holder representatives to ‘get inside’ traditionally closed or uninvited spaces. This, if we are to achieve policymaking favorable to HR.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at schuftan@gmail.com
All Readers are available at www.claudioschuftan.com
Postscript/Marginalia
–What does it really mean to ‘leave no one behind’, as the SDGs proclaim? Communities are not forgetfully left behind! It is the neoliberal policies that systematically exclude them. (Warda Rina)