Leaving People Behind in Rebuilding Sri Lanka in the wake of the

“largest and most challenging natural disaster in our history”

By Uchita de Zoysa

 https://www.ft.lk/opinion/Leaving-people-behind-in-rebuilding-Sri-Lanka-post-most-challenging-natural-disaster/14-785131

As predicted, the “Cyclone Ditwah” has already turned into an opportunity seeking game in Sri Lanka. While most of the public, young and old, are focused in addressing the immediate disaster response in the form of providing redress for victims, a ‘Group of Business Sector Leaders – All Men” have been appointed by the government to manage the funds for rebuilding Sri Lanka. This sounds like an “Early Warning for a Greater Disaster” and therefore I wish to present a few quick thoughts to be able to rethink our way forward with greater strategic foresight. If years of investment into disaster preparedness did not work, reimagining a new way forward must be understood not as an option but a mandatory approach. If this latest disaster in its scale uncertainty has not shaken us to the skull of reality, then the central idea of people’s intent for a “Systems Change” would have washed away in the floods. An exclusive planning process that excludes all other stakeholders will not result in an inclusive transformation towards sustainable development. It’s not time to panic or engage in a blame game; but it’s time for hard talk leading to long term climate sustainability and not pacification to maintain the failed system.

 

1.     Taking the Wrong Early Mover Advantage: Sensing the panic of a government still getting used to macro dynamics of governance of a country bankrupt not too far ago, the influencers and manipulators of all recent governments have stepped in early. Most of them are seasoned players of trade and commerce and will know better than many how to navigate disaster into advantage. To be clear, most of them are the best in spinning money – but with profit in mind. Most of the companies they represent have been part the problem in the context of a climate justice, social justice or even economic justice when it comes to exploitation of a human resource invested largely through a welfare state system including education and health. For example, tea plantation companies have been exploiting the “Natural Capital of the Central Highlands” as well as extending slavery through poorly paid labor and control of plantation worker lives for generations. Then comes a whole heap of industries from garments to food that continue to exploit the human and natural capital with a justification of creating jobs and bringing foreign currency etc. But who represent the voices of over a million migrant workers generating such “dollars” for the nation? Does this committee largely dominated by “Male Corporate Leaders” relate to the realities of the common people and challenges faced by eco-climatic changes threatening the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation? 

2.     The Missing Actors: While not taking away anything from members of the team appointed with considerable capability and even credibility, Rebuilding Sri Lanka is the primary responsibility of a government elected with a 2/3 majority. While the political blame game has started already inside the parliament by opposition politicians, stating lack of response to early warnings, the government has no right to sub-contract its responsibility of “Leading the Rebuilding of the Nation”. While many issues of discontent prevail, a majority of the population wants this government “Not to Fail”. The President still commands that hope of the people, but a cabinet of ministers do not appear the most equipped for the job. Where are the Nine (09) Provincial Councils in a committee of rebuilding Sri Lanka? Constitutionally, Sri Lanka is based on a three-tiered governance structure – Central, Provincial and Local. Never in its history, Sri Lanka has trusted the empowerment of Provincial Governments. This is a disaster that covers the entire country, but the scale of impact in the different provinces are diverse and will require serious decentralized assessment for rebuilding. A “single template for rebuilding” will not work nor will mere collection of money. 

3.     No Seat at the Table for Women, Youth and Civil Actors: Surprisingly, even in a corporate team of leaders, no women have been thought of worthy. If Sri Lankan decision makers still have no value for SDG5 to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls, at least they must realize that a vast percentage affected by the disaster are women that needs special attention. Men trying to represent women has never demonstrated success and wellbeing and is totally misrepresented in development planning. A government that was elected as a result of the ‘Youth Led Uprising – Aragalaya” now appears to be not even provide for an annexure in “Rebuilding Sri Lanka”. Please understand the global trends of uprising by the GenZ and be mindful of not making another historical governance mistake – we cannot afford another change of government! Some in the current government are champions of youth activism and they can still trust the goodness and innovation younger generations can bring to the planning an implementation. Meanwhile, the role of a highly fragmented civil society is a mystery that they need solve themselves. To gain a seat at the table and relevant in national planning, civil society will need to appreciate their diversity and stop fighting for individual gain. Also, the old approach of critic alone makes no sense if alternatives are not presented – not any alternative but researched, factual, analytical and foresight driven proposals. While blaming for corporate capture, its ideal time to put your house in order as well. 

4.     Exclusive vs. Inclusive Planning for Policy Coherence: Planning has been an exclusive affair for those in decision making. They have excluded people and stakeholders from planning to implementation. Tokenistic invitation to fill selected meeting rooms has not worked as only the favored are in those rooms most of the time. This disaster is not exclusive to a single or a few communities or regions. Hence, planning for rebuilding cannot be exclusive. The government has various mechanisms including the “District Development Committees” that can finally play its intended role by dumping the regional politician’s dominant approach. Building the district to sub-national level officials need to be a priority if an accurate assessment of the damage is to be made. Stakeholder engagement mut be strengthened if an honest assessment is intended. Owning one of the most fragmented institutional mechanisms for public service delivery, Sri Lanka also has a seriously incoherent policy architecture where environmental, social, economic and governance polices contradict each other to prevent proper planning and implementation. It’s time to revisit the public deliver mechanism or the public service as called in general. 

5.     Abandoning Sustainable Development: The disaster that has broken a large intrusive infrastructure-based development system, now has an opportunity to Recalibrate its system for change. The call for a “Systems Change” can be addressed if the government takes a brave and smart approach. Leading to the disaster and now planning for the aftermath, rebuilding Sri Lanka appears to be treading on the failed old path with a surprisingly larger affinity towards the exploitative and destructive development model and its proponents. This development model will not provide any base for rebuilding the nation and will lead to nurturing repetitive disasters as we have been witnessing. Preparing Reports for multilateral agreements is an easy way out for any government on earth. The recently concluded UNFCCC COP30 in Brazil demonstrated how “Corporate Capture” has failed the world from climate sustainability and how weak ad fragmented approaches by governments and the so called civil society has let down people. 

6.     Recalibrate the Systems - Reimagine, Reorganize and Reinvest: Development planning in Sri Lanka is prone to working in siloes. Economic development planning and climate sustainability planning continue to be on two separate tracks and require convergence in order to address the economic challenges presented by climate vulnerability such as this disaster. Policy makers must be made aware that all investment plans must ensure climate resilient sustainable development if economic prosperity is to be achieved. This disaster provides Sri Lanka a massive opportunity to Recalibrate the failed and errored system. For that, we will need to Reimagine our resource mobilization, Reorganize the resource governance, and start Reinvesting in transformational pathways that drives the nation towards a more sustainable and resilient nation. 

 

About the writer: Uchita de Zoysa is a climate sustainability expert with over 35 years of experience in the public, private, and civil society sectors working to advance local to global climate sustainability transformation. Staring from the 1st Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, he has created some of the largest multi-stakeholder engagement platforms for global summits and facilitated hundreds of dialogues to formulate world changing alternative policies and programmes. He has advised governments during major negotiations and represented Sri Lanka during 2016 and 2017 as the Chief Negotiator for the UN SDG Process in his capacity as Ministerial Advisor on Sustainable Development. He has managed large donor funded projects as non-profit organization leader and also designed and executed marketing campaigns and events for companies while managing corporate communications agencies. He is the Author of ‘It Has to be Climate Sustainability’, Lead Author of the publication ‘LOCALISING THE TRANSFORMATION IN THE NEW NORMAL: A Domestic Resource Mobilization Framework for Sustainable Development Goals in Sri Lanka’ and the Chief Editor of the ‘Independent Peoples Reviews on the SDGs’ including the ‘Voluntary Peoples Review on the SDGs” amongst many other publications. 

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/uchita-de-zoysa-99933710/   

Tel: +94 11 2768459   Mobile:+94777372206  Email:uchitadezoysa@gmail.com   Skype:uchita.de.zoysa

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/uchita-de-zoysa-99933710/ 

 

Some recent publications from CED can be downloaded. 

·      Sri Lanka VOLUNTARY PEOPLES REVIEW on the SDGs to HLPF 2022(https://www.academia.edu/103124102/Sri_Lanka_VOLUNTARY_PEOPLES_REVIEW_on_the_SDGs_to_HLPF) 

·       Sri Lanka SDG16+ Spotlight Report to HLPF 2022(https://www.academia.edu/106258052/Sri_Lanka_SDG16_Spotlight_Report_to_HLPF) 

·       LOCALISING THE TRANSFORMATION IN THE NEW NORMAL: A Domestic Resource Mobilization Framework for Sustainable Development Goals in Sri Lanka(https://www.academia.edu/76804624/LOCALISING_THE_TRANSFORMATION_IN_THE_NEW_NORMAL_A_Domestic_Resource_Mobilization_Framework_for_Sustainable_Development_Goals_in_Sri_Lanka) 

·       Proposed Roadmap for Mainstreaming and Integrating Natural Capital Valuations in Decision Making in Sri Lanka(https://www.academia.edu/129819331/Proposed_Roadmap_for_Mainstreaming_and_Integrating_Natural_Capital_Valuations_in_Decision_Making_in_Sri_Lanka)  

 

 “The World Social Summit Ends Today with Renewed Promises Dating 30 Years without a Plan to Ensure Social Justice!”

 

The Historical and Political Context of Two World Social Summits: from Copenhagen 1995 to Doha 2025 and Beyond

by Uchita de Zoysa

(reporting from Doha as a participant at both Summits, 6^th November 2025)

 

Many engaged in multilateralism would have had renewed hope for “Social Justice” when the United Nations General Assembly, through Resolutions 78/261 and 78/318, decided to convene the World Social Summit under the title “Second World Summit for Social Development (WSSD)”. Thirty years after the first Summit in 1995 in Copenhagen-Denmark, the Second World Summit for Social Development in Doha-Qatar is being held from 4 to 6 November 2025. The UN has stated that in a world facing growing inequalities, demographic shifts, and rapid technological transformation, the need for a renewed commitment to social progress has never been more urgent. 30 years ago, I participated in the 1^st WSSD in Copenhagen as a young civil society activist, and now in Doha for the 2^nd WSSD as a person who has engaged in multilateral processes for over 30 years and witnessed big promises of pacification and failures without accountability to deliver.  The 2^nd WSSD will mark another such show that renews global hope without a real plan to achieve it. 

 

1. Pre & Post Copenhagen 
2. Doha & the Immediate Pathway
3. Planning for Sustainable Futures Post Doha

 

1.     Pre & Post Copenhagen 

 

The first World Summit for Social Development (WSSD) which was held from 6 - 12 March 1995 was a landmark event that had the largest gathering of world leaders ever at the time, that placed people at the center of development efforts. Governments adopted the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development and a Programme of Action, which focused on ten commitments aimed at eradicating poverty, promoting the goal of full and productive employment, and fostering social integration and well-being for all. The agreements from this summit have since attempted to guide multilateral action on social development and to form a basis for sustainable development.

 

 

However, it appears that the 2^nd WSSD is positioned in another multilateral silo while simply using word to show linkages to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 1^st WSSD was not a silo but a response to growing concerns that the core social justice issues were not being addressed adequately in an emerging sustainable development agenda. The 1972 UNCHE and then 20 years later the 1992 UNCED 1^st Earth Summit had started evolving a multilateral discourse on sustainable development, in which the environmental dimension received greater focus. The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 provided the much needed narrative for an integrated approach to development planning, but also marked the emergence of siloed pathways to climate change (UNFCCC), biodiversity (UNCBD), desertification (UNCCD) plus financing, trade, and many other related thematic areas. In this context, a social development summit would have been perceived as important to address “Social Justice” to bring deeper focus on issues prevailing at that time. The 10 commitments of the Copenhagen Declaration quite well represent that need at that time historically. 

 

 

During the past 30 plus years, multilateralism has taken fragmented approaches to sustainability, climate change, biodiversity conservation, poverty eradication, peace, human rights, financing, trade, etc. What is now provided at the international stage is more of outcomes from an industry of pacification that delays action to the ultimate truth. Such an approach has created more desperation and hopelessness where climate change, ecocide, wars, marginalization, exclusion, injustice, bankruptcy, etc. take place in an increased frequency than 30 years ago. The next stop is in Belem-Brazil where a massive circus in the name of UNFCCC COP30 is planned. 

 

2.     Doha and the Immediate Pathway

 

The 2^nd WSSD emerges in the obvious failures of the greatest promise for a transformation of systems that are contributing to a planet in distress. The 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development at the Rio+20 Summit produced the 17 SDGs as an incremental step to Agenda 21 from the 1^st Earth Summit. At the mid-term review of the SDGs in 2023, it was revealed that only 12% of the SDGs were on track to be achieved in 2030. UNESCAP had reported that the Asia Pacific Region would take up to 2060 to achieve these goals and targets. The continued lack of governments, multilateral agencies and other key actors to engage an integrated approach to implementation has simply compromised transformation towards a more sustainable world. According to the Stockholm Resilience Centre, seven of the nine planetary boundaries have been transgressed that increases the risk of generating large-scale abrupt or irreversible environmental changes. 

 

Building on the 10 Commitments of the 1995 Summit and the Copenhagen Declaration, the 2^nd WSSD promises accelerate action on poverty eradication, the promotion of full employment and decent work, and social inclusion, ensuring that no one is left behind in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. It aims to address persistent gaps, reaffirm global commitment to social development, and give new momentum to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The stated goal is to build societies that are more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable.

 

In the backdrop of failed promises during UN Summits, the Doha Political Declaration does not demonstrate the urgency of people to transform the systems ailing social protection, development and justice. The preparation and finalizing of the Declaration for far from inclusive and left out CSOs and other key stakeholders. While it was promised that world leaders will come together in Doha to redefine strategies for social progress, strengthen global partnerships, and promote inclusive policies that foster equitable opportunities for all, the declaration for finalized before that Summit had started. Only a very few Heads of State actually participated which can be an indicator of lack of value at national level and also space for real engagement in global policy design. While claiming to do so, the Declaration does not provide people of the world renewed hope for the promised transformation towards sustainable futures. The Summit only provides space for hundreds side events to showcase activities, solutions and ideas of governments, international organizations, the UN system, civil society, cooperatives, academia, the private sector, and experts; but the fragmented approach fails to strengthen international cooperation for inclusive social development. 

 

3.     Planning for Sustainable Futures Post Doha

 

We live in a fundamentally different world that is in greater desperation and the multilateral response of action needs to be relevant to the current and future!

 

Transformation requires addressing the root causes that generate and reproduce economic, social, environmental and governance problems and inequities, not merely their symptoms. Transformation is also about the processes of change needed in society and the economy to achieve greater equality, empowerment and sustainability. Planning for a transformation requires consideration of multiple scenarios that impact on sustainable development; scenarios that might lead to breakdowns creating chaos or instability, scenarios that will help prepare for alternative futures and greater sustainability, as well as scenarios that can help establish favorable conditions for an inclusive prosperity. 

 

 

 

Civil Society needs to play its historical role in multilateralism to bring urgency of social development and justice promised 30 years ago. The question is if civil society has also been coaxed into a fragmented and pacification driven multilateral mechanism. Are they proactive, collective, representative, relevant, strategic, futuristic and is driving global partnerships for transformation towards sustainability?

 

The critic of civil society actors has been good for a long time, but do they produce transformative strategies and plans for systems change driven alternative futures? 

In five years, a World Summit for Social Justice is now on the cards. For this, I had proposed that a “People’s Roadmap for Social Justice” needs to be developed that includes advocating for the global public good, ensuring greater accountability of international bodies, and providing essential expertise and community-level insights. The roadmap can strengthen informing policymaking, monitoring implementation, promoting democratic participation, and fostering dialogue and cooperation between governments and citizens to address shared global challenges for integrated social development.

 

Such a Peoples Roadmap for Social Justice could address the following.

·      ⁠Immediate Action: Ensuring renewed commitment to the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action is embedded in the challenges of the present world realities. 

·      Advancing the 2030 Agenda (2026-2030): Advancing social goals of the 2030 Agenda with an integrated approach with environmental, economic and governance goals to bring back on track the SDGs.  

·      Sustainable Development Beyond 2030: Moving the global sustainable development agenda beyond 2030 to ensure intergenerational equity for climate sustainability futures.

 

About the writer: Uchita de Zoysa participated in the 1st World Social Summit and will be at the 2nd summit. He also was at the 1st Earth Summit in 1992 as a Steering Committee Member of the International NGO Forum, and 20 years later initiated the Peoples Sustainability Treaties Platform for Rio+20. He represented Sri Lanka during 2016 and 2017 as the Chief Negotiator for the UN 2030 SDG Process in his capacity as Ministerial Advisor on Sustainable Development. He is a thinker, author, strategist for the local to global climate sustainability transformation with over 35 years of experience.

Context Setting – The Climate Crisis from Sri Lanka to Brazil

LCOY Sri Lanka 2025 (Local Conference of Youth), a youth-led national conference, linked to the UNFCCC youth constituency YOUNGO, requested CED Executive Director Uchita de Zoysa to deliver the session “Context Setting – The Climate Crisis from Sri Lanka to Brazil”. Not only the current youth leadership in Climate COPs, but the national decision makers appear unaware of the historical journey that leads to yet another expensive global event that increasingly provides little hope and inspiration. A fragmented approach that ignores implications on the earth system does not harness aspiring young researchers, activists and entrepreneurs to find holistic solutions. Sharing a few slides from my presentation was to provide these 150 young leaders a critical context on Climate Sustainability!

As a follow-up outcome of the Policy Coherence for Reforms (PC4R), the Center for Environment and Development (CED) was invited to conduct the first-ever Sustainability Lab to Formulate a Transformation Roadmap on PC4R for Integrated Sustainability Planning in the Northern Province from 9-11th May in Jaffna. The Sustainability Lab sessions were hosted by the Northern Provincial Secretariat and in collaboration with the University of Jaffna and University of Vavuniya. It was designed to provide an in-depth analysis required for strategic foresight driven integrated planning for sustainable development in the province. Key decision makers in the Northern Province (including the Governor, Chief Secretary, District Secretaries and Planning Officials) and influences (including Vice Chancellors of Universities, Academics, Business Chambers and CSOs) and the five districts representing public authorities, think tanks/research organizations, United Nations, international development agencies, and other independent organizations including key stakeholders from academics, the private sector, CSOs and other Major Groups participated in an engaging process. The Northern Team in collaboration with CED will plan the next steps in the coming weeks. 

The Centre for Environment and Development (CED) will be organizing a series of Consultations and Transformation Labs on “Policy Coherence for Reforms in Sri Lanka” in 2025 in collaboration with a host of national and provincial partners. A first of its kind, the initiative will attempt to draw multiple outcomes with key impact on the Policy-Political-Public-Peoples Reforms in the country. We are also inviting interested organizations to collaborate and support the initiative.

On the 1st of November 2024, The Centre for Environment and Development (CED) entered into an agreement with the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) on behalf of the Sri Lanka Reforms Brains Trust (SLRBT) to conduct a first-ever Policy Coherence Mapping for Sri Lanka. In the months to come CED will be conducting a series of Stakeholder Consultations and organizing Transformation Labs for Policy Reforms at the national level and in the provinces. The Center for Environment and Development (CED) has accreditation with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and has contributed to a vast number of international and national policy processes during the past two and a half decades. Since 2018, CED has been conducting Independent Monitoring, Evaluation & Review of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. This has resulted in many outcomes including a Voluntary Peoples Review (VPR), Peoples Score Card (PSC) and a Domestic Resource Mobilization Framework (DRMF). This year we are adding the first-ever Policy Coherence Mapping in Sri Lanka. This initiative intends the following.

•       To enhance the understanding of the policy spectrum, fragmentation, incoherence and contradictions

•       To assist the policy reforms process in adopting a systems redesign/design approach

•       To assist the selection of policy reforms interventions and facilitate convergence between the different recommendations

•       To enhance impact measurement for proposed policy reforms

•       To assist policy coherence planning for reforms proposals

 

Stakeholder consultations and transformation labs will be organized to engage those who can assist in mapping the policy spectrum and conducting critical analysis and assessments. Therefore, we will collaborate with key government ministries and agencies, provincial and local government authorities, think tanks/research organizations, and other independent organizations including key stakeholders from academics, the private sector, CSOs and other Major Groups.

Overcoming Structural Barriers and Systemic Issues of Sustainable Development of South Asia

 

Overcoming Structural Barriers and Systemic Issues of Sustainable Development of South Asia

(By Uchita de Zoysa, 28 September 2023)

 

Today, I was invited to share my comments on “Overcoming Structural Barriers and Systemic Issues of Sustainable Development of South Asia”. To start with, the United Nations have formally announced that the SDGs are failing.  If 12% only is on track, 50% moderately or severely off track, and 30% showing no movement or regressed below 2015 baseline, then the SDGs are failing.  The Global Sustainable Development Report 2023, unfortunately like many other assessments, only engages in a linier review of the SDGs. It does not make much of an attempt to conduct a system wide impact assessment considering the interlinkages between the targets. Meanwhile, what has been the impact investment on SDGs during the past eight years? What is said is that the gap in financing the SDGs have grown from 2015 to now in the developing countries. Meanwhile, Stockholm Resilience Centre, six of the nine planetary boundaries have been transgressed.

 

Sadly, SDG are proving that Sustainable Development is an Oxymoron as advocated by some critical thinkers. SDGs have not been advancing Sustainability but used more for institutionalized marketing promotions and funded partnership projects by almost all sectors. All systems are breaking down around us including natural, economic, peace, wellbeing, prosperity, etc. and prosperity has become a distant aspiration. In the region not just youth, but elders are migrating as destitution is widespread. The development model is not promoting sustainability. Sufficiency struggles to enter the agendas while wellbeing of the state has become more important than the nation. Political systems are more predatory that threatens democracy and peace openly than before. The poor are paying for the financial/debt crisis that is corruptly managed economies in countries like Sri Lanka and Pakistan.  Yet, the debt restructuring strategies are on more borrowing to pay debt than focusing of sufficiency based prosperity; a vicious cycle enjoyed by the multilateral banks and richer countries. 

 

Countries in the region have not shown much interest in policy coherence and environmental and social protection policies are breeched in the name of growth. The deeply fragmented public institutional architecture continues to be a barrier for an efficient public service delivery. Already overburdened, corrupt and inefficient public service adds more to the financial and debt crisis in these countries. Finally, the widespread call is to change the system and shift the power. But the state response is suppression! Where is the protection for shifting power when the police and military are acting against the people. Who will shift the power for people’s power? In the failure of the SDG Summit, civil society and other stakeholder needs to move from being reactive to agendas that divert attention from truth on earth and work towards driving “Peoples Planetary Futures”.

 

Can We Make a Just Real Green Deal?

 Can We Make a Just Real Green Deal?

Uchita de Zoysa (July 2023)

 

During my recent engagements in Europe, I had a better opportunity to experience the pulse of stakeholders of the region on the EU Green Deal. On returning home, the main question that sprouted in my mind was “is the green deal just for all?”. A regional meeting with over fifty EU CSOs in Brussels calling for a ‘Real Deal’ confirmed that even within Europe it does not provide a just deal to all. Stakeholders also underscored the double standards applied on green standards for European products sold in developing countries. However, do the European stakeholder assessments and propositions represent the thinking for a just green deal in other parts of the world? Particularly, the perception of what is just for the Global South that prevails amongst EU stakeholders may not actually align with the realities and think of those living in the countries of the South. So, what could be the way forward a commonly acceptable just green deal for a transformation towards sustainable development?

 

In search for a way forward, I am keen to explore several pathways that converge with the European stakeholder context. Particularly the thematic discoursing of a just transition, sufficiency, and policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD) could provide the main thematic tracks of mutual interest between Europe and the South. Also, in the imminent failure of achieving the SDGs, some groups are already asking the question of what the next sustainability agenda is going to look like. Therefore, building foresight into a more just real green deal that advances the global sustainability agenda is pertinent. 

 

The discussion on a Just Transition in the Global South appears to be of great concern amongst European stakeholders. While the focus appears to revolve heavily around the energy and global finance system, issues of equitable opportunities for wellbeing and prosperity continue to dominate the Southern focus. The tone and agenda for a just transition should not be set by multilateral agencies and the rich countries if climate negotiations end in commitment. A collective North-South-East-West dialogue is essential for a just transition and must have equitable space sharing in the deliberations. 

 

An interest on Sufficiency surprisingly is sprouting in Europe after decades of investment and insistence in a linear efficiency agenda. The irony is that the same organizations that shot down the concept of sufficiency and helped convert Southern nations to adopt efficiency appear to be chartering a new sufficiency discourse. Those who have campaigned for sufficiency for decades even from Europe appear to still be struggling to get their voices heard. Pathways through Sufficiency, underscored by the concepts of adequacy or contentment and self-reliance or self-sufficiency, are expected to strengthen resilience of consumption and production systems as well as economic and financial systems of a country. Sufficiency continues to be practiced across many parts of the world and will not have a single narrative but have common and shared principles. As reminded by some European activists, if a new sufficiency narrative in Europe is to be evolved, it would need to revisit its historical dependency and exploitation of resources from its former colonies and post-colonial extended strategies. Sufficiency would also challenge the growth-based development models promoted in the developing countries as well and compromises on lifestyle aspirations will be imminent for all. If discoursed honestly and adopted effectively, sufficiency would be able to address many issues including commitment to climate action and resourcing sustainable development. The discoursing of sufficiency needs to transgress beyond a small group of sustainable consumption and production policy researchers and administrators and must be centrally located in the just transition process. 

 

European stakeholders may have conducted the best research on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD) and these have enriched researchers across the world. However, has this research resulted in significant transformation in Europe and other parts of the world? The failure of the SDGs is rooted in the lack of political will for PCSD with the trends of resource exploitation and linear growth based economic and trade practices continuing to flourish creating more poverty and less equity. Isolated examples on PCSD do not amount to the pace of destruction of the earth systems. Also, it’s hard to have transformation towards sustainable development if only a handful of countries adopt the PCSD strategies. A single model for PCSD will not work in different geographical and societal contexts across the world to achieve sustainable development. But a global financial architecture that supports critical transformation is necessary for countries in the South to adopt PCSD. Therefore, more investigation beyond reforming the multilateral banks and lending mechanisms needs to be conducted. 

 

Global Sustainable Development Report 2023 (GSDR) clearly stating that the world is far off track in achieving the SDGs makes us think more of a next level global sustainability agenda; not to rush into replacing the 2030 agenda, but to find a just transition that can support the transformation in the coming years. However, just like any other region, the official SDG reviews in Europe appear political justifications while stakeholder reviews continue to provide the political critique. Even the GSDR takes a linear approach in assessing the individual targets than providing an integrated analysis of the total impact amongst the 169 targets. As demonstrated by the Sri LankaVoluntary Peoples Review (VPR), adopting Independent Monitoring, Evaluation and Review Mechanisms using a Micro-Macro Assessment Methodology could help advance PCSD. Also, an Integrated Climate Sustainability Agenda that brings together the climate change and sustainable development global agendas into a single discoursing, financing, and political drive is important. 

 

The EU Green Deal is a significant policy and political approach but has many gaps as highlighted in the alternative Real Deal presented by a collective of European CSOs. While the internal deficiencies or negative impacts of a green deal on Europe can be well reviewed by its own stakeholders, the greater impact on the rest of the world surely needs an honest engagement with external stakeholders for a just and real green deal. If the independent think tanks, foundations and CSOs in Europe can extend their platforms and programmes, particularly to Southern counterparts, they would find a sincere response and reciprocation towards building a collective voice for a sustainable world. The multilateral event and programme landscape in the coming months and years also provide ample opportunity to make a greater impact if we can find a collective way forward. The proposition, therefore, is to seek opportunities for collaboration on a just real green deal between European and Southern entities towards evolving a New Narrative on a Peoples Planetary Futures!

 

 

 

About the author: Uchita de Zoysa is a thinker, author, strategist for the local to global climate sustainability transformation with over 30 years of experience working in the public, private, and civil society sectors. He represented Sri Lanka during 2016 and 2017 as the Chief Negotiator for the UN SDG Process in his capacity as Ministerial Advisor on Sustainable Development. In 2018 he established the Sri Lanka Stakeholder SDG Platform and is the Chief Architect of the SDG Transformation Lab, Chairman of Global Sustainability Solutions (GLOSS), Executive Director of Centre for Environment and Development (CED). He is the Author of ‘It Has to be Climate Sustainability’, Lead Author of the publication ‘LOCALISING THE TRANSFORMATION IN THE NEW NORMAL: A Domestic Resource Mobilization Framework for Sustainable Development Goals in Sri Lanka’ and the Chief Editor of the ‘Independent Peoples Reviews on the SDGs’ including the ‘Voluntary Peoples Review on the SDGs”. 

 

(Please send your comments and suggestions to: uchitadezoysa@gmail.com)