Exportar Publicação

Carvalho, L. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda: A Roadmap for Global Change. Workshop Dinâmicas Socioeconómicas e Territoriais Contemporâneas II, Iscte, Lisboa.

L. F. Carvalho,  "Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda: A Roadmap for Global Change", in Workshop Dinâmicas Socioeconómicas e Territoriais Contemporâneas II, Iscte, Lisboa., Lisboa, 2016

@misc{carvalho2016_1767071088543,
	author = "Carvalho, L.",
	title = "Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda: A Roadmap for Global Change",
	year = "2016",
	howpublished = "Outro"
}

TY  - CPAPER
TI  - Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda: A Roadmap for Global Change
T2  - Workshop Dinâmicas Socioeconómicas e Territoriais Contemporâneas II, Iscte, Lisboa.
AU  - Carvalho, L.
PY  - 2016
CY  - Lisboa
AB  - In September 2015, the General Assembly of the UN approved its resolution A/RES/70/1 entitled ‘Transforming Our Word: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’. This resolution is the outcome of a long and complex process, which formally dated back to the Rio +20 Conference in 2012, resulting from the need to define a renewed framework for international development that could follow the Millennium
 Development Goals (MDGs) which were in place in 2000-2015. The 2030 Agenda therefore established the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), intended to be effective for the period 2015-2030.
The final decision contemplates 17 different goals, each one of them associated with a set of specific targets (a total of 169 targets are considered).  The goals are: (1) ‘No Poverty’ (end poverty in all its forms everywhere) ; (2) ‘Zero Hunger’ (end hunger, achieve food security an improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture); (3) ‘Good Health and Well-being’ (ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages); (4) ‘Quality Education’ (ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities); (5) ‘Gender Equality’ (empower all women and girls); (6) ‘Clean Water and Sanitation’ (ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all); (7) ‘Affordable and Clean Energy’ (ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all); (8) ‘Decent Work and Economic Growth’ (promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all);  (9) ‘Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure’ (build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation); (10) ‘Reduced Inequalities’ (reduce inequalities within and among nations(; (11) ‘Sustainable Cities and Communities’ (make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable); (12) ‘Responsible Consumption and Production’ (ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns); (13) ‘Climate Action’ (take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts); (14) ‘Life bellow Water’ (conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development); (15) ‘Life on Land’ (protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably mange forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation and biodiversity loss) ; (16) ‘Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions’ (promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels); (17) ‘Partnerships for the Goals’ (strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development).
The SDGs managed to overcame some of the limitations of the MDGs, and answer a number questions voiced by early critics of the MDGs (namely regarding the process of goal setting, and the alleged lack of inclusiveness and comprehensiveness of the MDGs). Some of these perceived ‘advantages’ of SDGs can, however, become the source of shortcomings , namely the ‘catch-all’ philosophy that finally resulted in an extremely long list of goals and targets that may prove to be  problematic, in terms of communication and ‘education for development’, as well as regarding  issues of implementation and monitoring. There remain, of course, serious general doubts concerning the appropriateness of these types of undertaking: does it make sense, practically and conceptually, to set global goals for development?
In spite of all the discussion, this paper argues that SDGs and the 2030 Agenda from which they are derived, present a roadmap for ‘global change’. This ‘globality’ is here understood in at three levels:
1.	Contrary to the MDGs, which focused on specific issues of what may be labeled ‘social development’, being subjected to extensive criticism for their narrowness,  the SDGs take into consideration a broad range of issues, following a multidimensional conception of sustainable development (at least a three pillar approach: environment, economy, and society). We can say that the focus shifted from the ‘social’ to the ‘societal’, and we now have a comprehensive perspective, a ‘global’ agenda for change.

2.	The MDGs were clearly designed for poorest countries, setting an agenda for international development cooperation as conventionally perceived. The SDGs involve challenges that are relevant for all countries, rich and poor, following an orientation present in the concept of sustainable development since its inception through the 1987 Bruntland Report. Certainly some goals, and some targets within goals, still refer primarily to poor countries (e.g. target 1.1. ‘eradicate extreme poverty everywhere’, meaning people living with less than 1.25 US dollars a day; or target 3.1. ‘reduce global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births), but generally the issues involved have a ‘global’ reach, even if translated differently according to specific contexts .


3.	Finally, there is a sense of “globality” relating to the policy-oriented discussion and research agenda which will inevitably emerge out of the contents of SDGs and the challenges to their implementation. The complexity and multidimensional character of the issues calls for an inter/transdisciplinary approach, where the humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences must necessarily establish platforms for a ‘global’ dialogue.

ER  -