The international authorities have decided to set new development goals to be achieved by 2030, ambitions that would include theThe seven previous objectives, to which would be added the new challenges (about ten) the world of tomorrow. These will be decided in May in North Korea and then in September by the heads of state meeting in New York for the occasion. Between now and then, the member states will meet every month until the September 2015 deadline to discuss, clarify and reduce them... Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, is opposed to any immediate reduction in the number of targets, especially as the fight to reach this figure seems to have been a tough one.
From the first international meetings and conferences that have taken place on the subject, from the first writings and guidelines that have been published, it can be said that the ambition is great.... Too much perhaps when we see the failures of the previous 15 years. Is it really useful to set such ambitious objectives when economic, social and political difficulties are constantly multiplying in a constantly changing world? What use are they if we have failed to meet them in the first place? If an enthusiastic declaration by leaders on the future objectives to be achieved would indeed not be of much use, a binding schedule listing the axes and actions to be implemented could lead to real change. For the time being, however, it seems that such a path is not on the agenda.
Unlike their predecessors, the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are more abundant and more complex in their forms. There is therefore a strong risk that they will be much more difficult to implement and measure. Especially since these 17 goals are accompanied by 169 indicators that will need to be monitored and achieved to ensure the full realisation of the SDGs. Is this a way of making them binding, if only symbolically? Nothing is less certain.
The MDGs were officially intended for all countries, but in reality only concerned the so-called "poor" countries, which were financed by aid from "rich" countries. In contrast, the MDGs are supposed to apply to all countries, including rich ones, by integrating global issues such as gender equality, climate resilience, urbanisation, food production, in short all aspects of sustainable development and even peace and security.
In terms of transparency, the UN has tried to address the criticism that the MDGs are often too far removed from local realities. It has therefore launched multiple open consultations to ensure that all stakeholders are fully involved in the development of the new goals. But the goals often amount to a list of just about everything that is wrong with the world.
