As the 48th International Diploma in Humanitarian Assistance (IDHA) approaches this Sunday, we share with you a brief of a lecture given on last year’s course by Patrick Walsh, Senior Adviser at SDSN.
After 18 months of international dialogue with experts from UN organizations, academia, civil society, business, and various national statistical offices, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) headed by economist Jeffrey Sachs drafted its 2015 report. The report, Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals, “outlines how a comprehensive indicator framework might be established to support the goals and targets proposed by the Open Working Group on [Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)].”
These goals encompass economic, social, and environmental policy fields and aim to provide a quantifiable framework for the construction and monitoring of local, national, regional, and global SDG progress. “We can’t isolate economic, social, and environmental policy anymore,” noted Patrick Walsh, Senior Adviser at SDSN. Walsh was leading IDHA’s afternoon lecture on the transition from crisis to development—where the need for humanitarian relief turns to that of nation building and sustainability. “Maybe in talking about that transition,” proposed Walsh, “we really see how to connect development to the humanitarian world.”
This connection, however, contains multiple points of resistance. The policy fields included in the report “have to be integrated both in the developing world and the developed world,” noted Walsh. But as the students quickly confirmed, such sustainable integration, not only between policy fields but also between international departments and organizations, often proves to be a difficult—and arguably unfeasible—partnership.
“Jeffrey Sachs’ answer to this is, of course, [that] development is what’s really important,” Walsh explained, “because if you don’t make progress in development, you’re just setting up crises of the future.” Ascribing financial primacy to crisis aid may provide temporary security solutions, but it fails to combat the very conditions from which future conflicts, and therefore future spending, will later arise—and will continue to arise—at the expense of the international community. Development becomes imperative, and Sachs “already thinks the resources are being wrongly allocated.”
Unfortunately, such challenges will not simply evaporate, nor can they be swept aside. In fact, successful progress with the sustainability goals outlined in the report hinges on resolving precisely these difficulties. Partnership is the fulcrum by which SDG progress is set into motion; progress is not made unless partnership is achieved. The “transformative ideas” brought to light by the report underscore this need for universality.
“Before we used to think of development as simply overseas development aid or foreign aid, where it’s the northern hemisphere donating to the southern hemisphere,” Walsh explained, “and that the southern hemisphere has to ‘catch up’ and work.” Environmental issues and climate change models radically challenge such assumptions and put pressure on the global community—though in terms of climate change, responsibility rests primarily with the northern hemisphere.
“But we fear it’s not just environmental issues,” Walsh admitted. “When people look at global value chains and industrial structures, there’s more and more of a realization with global finance and global trade—and even with global migration—that really the world has gotten much more interconnected.” The interconnectivity of global challenges calls for a holistic approach, despite the continued “polarization” of governmental departments and institutions. “We cannot in isolation look at security, in isolation look at social development, in isolation look at environment,” explained Walsh. Nor for that matter can these issues be solely the responsibility of governments. “Solutions have to be found where private sector, civil society, the government, and academia” intersect and where the incentives of each align.
“Households naturally [implement] sustainable approaches,” began Walsh, hoping to better explain the difficulty in aligning interests. “Any household I know, they focus a lot on children (they sacrifice a lot to put kids through school); […] the adults are investing in pension schemes and other things so that they will have security when they’re old; there is always a struggle around nutrition, so that when you’re young you eat properly so that you’ll be healthier when you’re older. This is what households are doing: they are all the time on the medium-long-term plan—always. When there’s a big financial shock, […] they delay fertility decisions; they take kids out of private schools; […] they don’t go on holiday. […] Whatever they have to do, they make that adjustment and that response to keep them on track to meet their long-term goals. Do we think governments do that? No. Do we think the private sector does that? Do we think NGOs do that? And this is the problem. This, to me, is the essence of [the question] of how do we somehow align the values and align all these groups and have a more medium-term, long-term perspective.”
“The vision here, under Jeffrey Sachs,” Walsh concluded, “was to start thinking about these types of partnerships and how they might deliver sustainable development goals.” For the UN, ‘sustainability’ entails the interaction between “three pillars:” economy, society, and environment. Walsh anticipated the audience’s concern: Oftentimes, “you might look at foreign direct investment and investment goals, and you might say, ‘that’s the evil of the world; their going in with their value chains to get the lowest cost labor, the lowest cost raw materials without much respect for the environment—the whole world is fused with these value chains and its very very destructive.’”
This assumption is certainly not unfounded. But “on the other hand,” countered Walsh, “you could look at industrial policy at a nation state where governments can have investment criteria.” Governments possess the capacity to dictate economic terms and set clear investment incentives. In theory, companies and corporations “should not really be trying to exploit gaps in societies and environments,” said Walsh; “all those gaps should be closed.” They should instead be incentivized to be on one level “mindful of human rights” and on another level “creating positive outcomes for societies and environments.”
This is of course the ideal, but as Walsh explained, such a project is not unattainable. Creating positive outcomes becomes a matter of creating “a demand for responsible investment.” The difficulty arises in the reconciliation of two key policy challenges: sustaining economic growth and tackling rising inequality. “The challenge of the Sustainable Development Project,” Walsh clarified, “is that we need to start thinking about new institutions, new ways of doing things, new policies that actually allow us to have economic prosperity but [those that generate] much more inclusive societies.”
Walsh drew the students’ attention to one particular working group goal outlined in the report—Goal 16: “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” Indicators for attaining this include the reduction of violence, abuse, exploitation, trafficking, and arms flow, as well as the promotion of the rule of law and equal access to justice.
This goal, Walsh believed, falls most closely in line with the efforts of humanitarians on the ground. While it is certainly ambitious and perhaps lacking in the level of accountability or adequate “benchmarks” that many students believed requisite in assessing development, the goal, nevertheless, acts as a clear enunciation of sustainable objectives for the international community. One must consider the “developmental histories” of our own countries, Walsh explained. A state does not simply “jump” from one stage of development to the next; the process occurs slowly and often with the assistance of external players. “We have to build the nation state before the nation state can take responsibility,” Walsh concluded.
To better understand this development, it can be useful to run the process in reverse—understanding the factors that destabilize states and lead to collapse. “I wanted to try and get back to why a state fails,” explained Walsh, “and then—in terms of even your basic military and humanitarian intervention and what happens at ground zero—[ask] what sort of principles and what sort of things should really be happening in the humanitarian, the military, and the development interface.” What factors contribute to societal unrest and state instability, and how can the knowledge of these factors produce potential solutions for external organizations in constructing “development pathways from conflict”?
In his paper, Patterns of Conflict in the Great Lakes Region, Walsh analyzes the discrepancy between conflict developments across neighboring African states. The report juxtaposes two separate “zones”: zone 1—comprising Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo—representing the “conflict” states, and its “counterweight,” zone 2—comprising Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, and Zambia —representing the “peaceful states.” The goal, as outlined in the report, is to “identify a set of structural and historical factors (if any), that differentiate the zone 1 from the zone 2 states and which can explain the incidence of conflicts across time and countries.”
“What I’m searching for is a set of structural factors—a combination of things, whether they’re economic, social, or government structures—that makes you more vulnerable to conflict or less,” Walsh explained. By juxtaposing historical, economic, societal, and governmental developments, Walsh was searching for the underlying conditions that gave zone 1 a greater propensity for unrest. “The argument that I am going to make is that those who embraced development—particularly more openness in [their] society and their economies —and were less fractional (less [prone] to creating two separate groups) were the ones who came out the other side without conflict.”
Walsh noted some possible objections to his methodology. Some theorists maintain that every conflict is “idiosyncratic” and thus resistant to the kind of statistical analysis academics such as himself may hope to perform. If this idiosyncrasy were the case, however, analysis would reveal statistical uncertainties, and Walsh believed his findings told a much different story. Though the largest single indicator on the regression was precisely these “idiosyncratic effects by region and by conflict,” the indicator only accounted for about 40% of the variation, meaning there was a combination of separate, quantifiable factors contributing to zone 1’s propensity for conflict. (The fact that the idiosyncrasies was the largest single indicator means only that no other one factor could determine the variation between zones; it was thus a combination of historical, economic, societal, and governmental factors that contributed to this variation).
One of the most significant of such factors was colonial history. Colonization often lead to linguistic and ethnic fractionalization, destabilizing factors that later impacted social and economic development. The colonial power that had the most detrimental effect on states was Belgium. The Belgians used a particular type of strategy of indirect rule where they would “use and augment previous distinctions to define a local ruling elite.” This system proved the most destructive and “was a much bigger feature of Rwanda, Uganda, etc. that naturally had a north-south divide,” Walsh explained. Belgian rule acts a natural indicator of ethnic divide, but the Belgians were not the only force that perpetuated such divisions —Uganda, for instance, while belonging to zone 1, was not colonized by Belgium, but was rather divided due to its topography. What the Belgian indicator represents is rather the much greater destabilizing trend of ethnic divisions, perpetuated either by history or geography.
As the report concludes, “zone 1 states began the period of independence with serious vulnerabilities: particular forms of colonialism interlocked with ethnic divisions to produce conflict potential. However this was far from determining. It was the addition of other factors—military dictatorships, an isolation from the wider economy, and, particularly as violence developed, a hollowing out of the adult population and a destruction of civil society, that produced high conflict risk.” Likewise, countries in zone 2 though beginning their development trajectories on much more favorable historical conditions, nevertheless, required “subsequent choices and events, openness to international trade and aid, civilian dictatorships with strong integrative ideologies [(dictatorships indicated statistically greater levels of stability)], that permitted the building of cultural, political, and civil society barriers— [like an] immune system—against conflict.”
Though the conclusion produces no groundbreaking discoveries in the generation of conflict, it does provide a quantifiable explanation to compliment contemporary literature. It also helps to isolate developmental factors such as economic and political structures that may themselves help to “mitigate the initial conditions” of conflict —colonization, ethnic divisions, language, etc.
“When we go in with humanitarian action or we do capacity building, to build a state, build a colony, build a society,” explained Walsh, “we [should be] looking at how these economic or social indicators of development” may help in the intervention during times of conflict, and later, in the prevention of future conflicts. And in the end, the knowledge that prevention is critical and indeed possible becomes essential. “Those who are in the humanitarian world and the development world,” concluded Walsh, “have to believe that if we go into other countries, that we have to [contribute to a] change for good—that we’re pushing or nudging society, politics, and the economy in a direction that’s peaceful, that’s inclusive and responsible.” Otherwise, why go in at all?
Lecture given by Patrick Walsh, Senior Adviser at UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) to the IDHA 45 class at Fordham University, New York, June 2015
Brief written by Joshua Paul St. Clair, IIHA Summer 2015 Intern
Professor Patrick Walsh also gave a TED talk this past February 2016 focusing on the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and how it is an agenda of the people with the responsibility of implementation by the people. He delves into how people must use their influence over their livelihoods, civil society, and governance to create successful partnerships on local, national, and international levels.