當一雙舊鞋踏上非洲,當我們無法置身事外:認識聯合國永續發展目標(SDGs)

圖/Anes Sabitovic @ Unsplash

編按:

從去年開始許多團體逐漸在倡議的聯合國「永續發展目標」(SDGs)究竟是什麼?它跟臺灣有什麼關係?為什麼我們必須把它放在心上?

NPOst 臺灣海外援助發展聯盟(Taiwan Aid)合力開啟了這個專欄,期望以 Taiwan Aid 紮實的研究基礎及其成員組織豐富的國際服務經驗,讓每個人都能理解 SDGs 為何與我們大有關係。本篇為 SDGs 的導讀介紹,期後陸續將針對 SDGs 裡的各項目標議題,深入討論臺灣自身狀況,以及每個人身在其中所能呼應與著力的方向。

 

6 月 30 日NPOst 刊出一篇褚士瑩的專欄文章「舊鞋救命救非洲?東非國協:盼立法禁止二手衣鞋捐贈」,引爆超過 60 萬人點閱分享,許多原本正在打包家中舊鞋與衣物的民眾停下了手中動作,忽然之間發現「捐二手衣救非洲」原來是件需要思考的事。

關於全世界各地二手衣鞋長達 20 年來不斷傾倒進非洲,究竟對這個大陸是傷害還是扶助,對其產業是重傷還是扶貧,即使在國際發展領域早已是老掉牙的討論,每年依然有無數相關人士重覆在激辯。值此盛夏,二手衣捐贈的利弊隨著暑假期間一團又一團的志工服務而重新被翻出。

在全球化之下,如同全球半數以上的碳排放量來自於富裕國家,最受衝擊的卻往往是貧弱國家的居民,人類彼此共同承擔著遠方跨國企業與地球村民造成的代價,讓人不禁費解:倘若我們期望生活在一個更美好的星球、重新定義人類長遠的「發展」與「永續」這件事,究竟該如何彼此扶持?

持續尋求「發展」的評比與標準

打從 18 世紀至今,無數的社會學家、經濟學家、人類學家、發展研究學者就不斷自問,為什麼這世界上總有些人過得很好,有些人卻痛苦不堪?而所謂的「很好」又該如何衡量?人類的「發展」該用什麼標準來檢視?

早期我們用國內生產總值(GDP)或國民所得毛額(GNI)來將某些國家歸類為「最低度發展國家」,那是經濟至上的年代,人類對於為了經濟發展所犧牲掉的社會環境代價還沒有自覺;到了 90 年代,人們開始發現有些國家雖然國家所得高(如中東產油國),但教育和醫療水平卻遠遠落後,聯合國發展計畫署(UNDP)於是公佈了「人類發展指數」(HDI),其中開始囊括各國國民的平均預期壽命、識字率、入學率、治安、自然環境、行政管理及政治社會環境等其他發展評比;然而,HDI 對於性別或貧富差距的衡量依然不足。

由此開始,許多指標開始陸續浮現──

1995 年聯合國發展署的「性別發展指標」(GDI)開始比較各國男女的健康、教育、生活水平等狀況;國際透明組織提出「清廉觀感指數」(CPI),比較各國的貪汙情形;隔年,世界銀行從選舉與言論自由、政治穩定與暴力、政府效率、法律制定與執行力、法治健全度、貪腐控制等 6 大方向,提出「世界良善治理指標」(WGI);2002 年,美國耶魯大學則提出「全球環境表現評比」(EPI),來衡量各國的環境治理能力。

人類對於自身發展的衡量標準推陳出新,不斷想用各種方式理解自身「發展」的程度。2006 年,英國新經濟基金會甚至提出「快樂地球指數」;隔年,經濟和平研究所則提出「全球和平指數」(GPI)2008 年,美國蓋洛普公司提出「蓋洛普福利指數」,衡量各國生活、勞動、社會網路、社區關係與國民健康狀態;聯合國經濟合作暨發展組織(OECD)則於 2011 年提出「OECD 美好生活指數」,綜合社區、教育、自然環境、公民參與、健康、生活滿意度等各項評比。

凡此種種,為的都是有效衡量「人類在什麼情況下可以稱之為『過得好』?」,並且以「國家」為單位,比較各國在不同指標下的發展狀況。為了不落人後或其他利益考量,每當國際間各項受關注、調研過程備受信賴的指標公佈後,各國便會開始有所警覺或力圖提升全球排名,許多指標因此具有足夠的力量來影響各國政府的政策走向。

由此開始,「發展」的概念持續變動,在無數的討論過程中,除了被動拿來檢測的「指標」(Index,或 Indicator),人們也開始主動設立願景,亦即設立「目標」(Goal)──綜合各項「指標」,以相應的制度及系統性的方法,來達到全面性的發展成效。而晚近最有名的人類發展「目標」,非「千禧年發展目標」(The Millennium Development GoalsMDGs)莫屬。

千禧年發展目標(MDGs)。 圖/@ The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015 Press Kit

MDGs:8 大目標致力根除極端貧窮

MDGs 可說是全球有史以來最全面的發展總動員。西元 2000 年,來自世界 189 個國家的領袖集結做出這個為期 15 年的劃時代承諾──「不遺餘力幫助男女老少同胞,擺脫痛苦可憐與毫無尊嚴的極端貧窮狀態」。這個承諾由 8 大目標來衡量,亦即提升人類發展的 8 個面向:根除極端貧窮與飢餓、普及初等教育、兩性平等、降低兒童死亡率、防治愛滋瘧疾、提升孕產婦健康、環境永續與全球合作

MDGs 是各國領導人對全球弱勢的承諾,以人類整體為基礎,從全球視野出發,期望在 2015 年前以各領域的實際行動,來改善這 8 大面向,並以相應的各項指標來衡量成效。全世界各大已開發國家為此提供了高達 1352 億美元的官方發展援助(ODA)經費,比過去成長了 66%,其成果不可謂毫無成效。自上世紀 90 年代至 2015 年止,發展中國家活在極端貧線以下的人口數從 47% 下降至 14%、營養不良人口比率從 23.3% 降至 12.9%;瘧疾發生率降低了 37%,死亡率降低 58%;接受 ART 療法的 HIV 帶原者,則從 80 萬人增加到 1360 萬人。

圖/Larm Rmah @ Unsplash

此外,同一時間,全球 5 歲以下兒童死亡率從千分之 90 減半至千分之 43(即從 90 年代的 1270 萬人降至 2015 年的 600 萬人);發展中國家的小學淨就學率從 83% 上升至 91%。在母嬰安全方面,全球產婦死亡率下降了45%,且截至 2014 年為止,全球已有 71% 的產婦在生產時能得到醫療協助。

環境與居住品質也有不小的改觀。90 年代後臭氧層破壞物質已被淘汰,預計在這個世紀中過後,我們就能修復臭氧層。全球有 91% 的人口已能取得獲改善的飲用水源,並且有 95 個國家能達到衛生目標;貧民窟的都市居民比例下降了近 10%;行動電話普及率則大幅提升,網路使用人口比率更從 6% 躍升至 43%,相當於有高達 32 億人在這 15 年間成為網路使用者。

圖/Annie Spratt @ Unsplash

SDGs:17 項目標彼此連動,如同全球現況

MDGs 的成就看似可觀,卻依然有所侷限。根據「全球南方觀點下的國際發展與援助」報告顯示,縱觀 15 年來的成效,MDGs 除了第一項目標「貧窮」因為中國經濟大幅改善而達標,其他 7 大子目標其實並未完全達到。此外,MDGs 對問題的解決方法還是傾向於經濟與資金的投入,對於和平、安全、政治穩定等永續發展的基本條件卻沒有列入,對於族群的包容性亦不足夠

2015 8 12 日,在 MDGs 落幕之際,聯合國通過了自 2012 年以來就積極研議的「永續發展目標」(Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs,宣誓全球邁入下一個 15 年發展計畫。SDGs 總共包括 17 項目標(Goals)及 169 項子目標(Targets),同時區分為「經濟成長」、「社會進步」與「環境保護」3 大類。

圖/Jackson Jost @ Unsplash

從 MDGs 的 8 大目標,到 SDGs 的 17 項目標,SDGs 欲確保許多「經濟發展」之外的價值落實。例如在收入之外,關注文化、認同、種族與性別的不均發展,以及健康、教育、性別等權益,並且力圖降低少數族群受到的邊緣化狀態、廣納民間團體及各群體,並且保障勞動權益等。此外,SDGs 的 17 項目標彼此之間也高度相關,而非像 MDGs 的 8 大目標一樣分開討論。在 SDGs 中,「發展」也必須同時納入多方評估,如同永續能源(目標 7)與經濟成長(目標 8、9)該如何權衡?公平、正義與和平(目標 16)與消弭不平等(目標 10)又該如何呼應?凡此種種,都是 SDGs 渴望注入的精神。

另一方面,SDGs 最重大的意義即為人類「發展」意含的重大轉變。這從幾個方向可以清楚看見──

由下而上的制定者;多方參與的行動者

過往 MDGs 由聯合國發展計劃署所主導,扮演重要的規畫角色,這使得許多目標一旦到了要落實到田野進入執行階段時,不斷發生許多難以觸及與掌控的狀況。SDGs 因此在研究與訂定期間,便納入大量的公民團體、社區組織、非政府組織(NGO)等參與,不僅帶入實務現場的困境,也帶入多元的視角。這些視角讓 SDGs 在制定之初,就能考量到更多弱勢群體,如身心障礙者、原住民族、青年社群等邊緣弱勢。

同樣的思維也反應在後續的行動者身上。夥伴關係成為新時代的重要課題,除了上述的民間組織,SDGs 進一步強化過去已不斷倡議的多方合作,包括擁有創新思維與先進技術的企業和跨國公司(私部門),以及聯合國、世界銀行、世界貿易組織等多邊參與,並且再次重申南方國家的跨連力量,包括南北合作、南南合作、三方合作(亦即北方國家與特定南方國家合作,去協助其他南方國家)等概念。這意謂著,新時代的發展理念已開始兼顧貿易、外資、減債與能力建構等多元發展,而不僅侷限在過去單一的開發援助思維中

圖/Karsten Würth @ Unsplash

沒有人能置身事外:掙脫富與窮的劃分 & 國與國的界線

自上世紀至過去 15 年來,我們一直都習於劃分「援助者」與「受助者」,這種因資源及貧富所區分出的、上對下的援助觀點,使貧困者在援助過程中持續缺席,無法成為「主體」,只能被動收受。這樣的「習慣」反映在 MDGs 中,使「發展」成為一種「富」與「窮」之間的事這也因此讓大部分位於中段班的國家──例如臺灣──置身事外,認為這是美國、英國、歐洲等富國才應盡的義務。

對臺灣政府來說,國與國之間的援助一直都只是外交策略;對臺灣人民來說,「非洲人過得怎麼樣才不關我的事」。然而,SDGs 的核心精神卻強調包容性與全球視野──沒有人應該被放棄,沒有人不受影響。固然,SDGs 強調富裕國必須對全球困境承擔重要責任,但「發展」的概念不應再以國界與政權來切分。未來 15 年,每個人都必須在 SDGs 17 項目標裡,共同檢視各自的「發展」問題,並且檢視這樣的發展如何彼此影響。

圖/Slava Bowman @ Unsplash

在這樣的概念下,我們無法再輕易將自己不要或過度消費的東西,小自舊衣舊鞋、大至石化廠、煉鋼廠、核廢料等輕易往他國傾倒,好似別人的汙染就不是汙染,他國的貧病交加都與自己無關。如今,我們該自問的是:「造成嚴重環境破壞的煉鋼廠離開了臺灣,卻轉而汙染了越南,我們該怎麼想這件事?」、「我在臺灣捐的一件二手衣,是否打擊了遙遠的非洲?」、「當環境議題遇上政治困境,該如何平衡?

在同一個全球脈絡下,我們都深受彼此的變動所影響。在 SDGs 的精神下,我們必須思索自身的發展階段,並且指認彼此對世界造成的傷害或改變。由此,我們迎來的是個不再能夠獨善其身的時代,沒有人能再置身事外。


註:南方國家

二戰結束後,歐美各國的殖民地紛紛獨立,這些殖民地多半位於亞、非、拉丁美洲等 3 洲,相對於位處歐洲北美的殖民母國來說地處南方,因此而有南北之分。


特別感謝/資料來源

  1. 簡旭伸與吳奕辰(2016),「全球南方觀點下的國際發展與援助」,收錄於《發展研究與當代臺灣社會》,簡旭伸與王振寰主編(巨流出版社)
  2. 吳奕辰、簡旭伸、陳俊宏(投稿中),「臺灣的國際扶貧行動──從釣魚諺語看權利與發展援助」

When a pair of second-hand shoes stepped into the African Land and we can no longer leave ourselves out from it: understanding Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Original article/ Yeh Ching Lun

Translated/ Eden Social Welfare Foundation

What is Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which most NGOs have been promoting since last year, and what is the connection to Taiwan and why should we bear in mind?

Countries all over the world have been donating second-hand shoes and clothes to Africa for over two decades, however, is it doing more harm than relief, especially to its industries? The issue has stern debates among INGOs repeatedly every year although it’s already a cliché in the field of development. The pros and cons to weigh second-hand clothes donations again been carried out as groups and groups of international volunteers being dispatched to Africa over summer vacation.

More than half of the carbon emission comes from developed countries due to globalization, however, under-developed countries affected by its impact the most and pay the price caused by international enterprises and global citizens, it is beyond our comprehension that: How redefining the long term goal of “development” and “sustainability”, and how do they support on the road to a build a better planet to live in?

Since 18th Century, numerous sociologists, economists, anthropologists, and researchers have long been asking the question: why people live in a wealthy life while others suffer? How does “wealthy” being measured? What are the criteria to measure and exam the work of “humanity development”?

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Income (GNI) were used to labeling some countries as “Least Developed Countries”, it was the period when economic development says all and humans were unaware of what social environment had sacrificed; until the 90 th Century, people began to notice that the education and medical system were way below average (such as oil-producing countries in the Middle-East), therefore, The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) published the Human Development Index (HDI), measuring developments in terms of average life expectancy, literacy rate, school enrollment rate, public security, natural environment, administration and sociopolitical environment in each country; but it was short of its measurement in gender and wealth inequality.

Many indicators started to emerge since then

In 1995, The UNPD then issued Gender Development Index (GDI), measuring health, education, and living-standards between genders in each country; Transparency International issued the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), to compare issues in corruptions of each country; The World Bank then issued Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), from prospects of freedom of speech and election, political stability, and efficiency, as well as abilities in law enforcement and government-corruption control; in 2002, Yale University issued an Environmental Performance Index (EPI), to measure the ability in environmental governance in each country.

圖/Ben White @ Unsplash

There has been an innovation in development measurement, we keep trying new methods to know the level of its “development”. In 2006, Britain’s New Economics Foundation issued “Happy Planet Index”; Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) issued “Global Peace Index (GPI)” in the following year; The American firm – Gallup, Inc. issued “Gallup Well-Being Index”, measuring conditions of living, labor, social-network, community relations, as well as public health in each country in 2008; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) issued “Better Life Index” in 2011, synthesize evaluations on community, education, natural environment, citizen participation, and satisfaction with life.

The work above was adequate measurement and evaluation of “under what circumstance is considered being well-off”, comparing the development of each country as a single unit under different index. In order not to run behind other countries and taken consideration of other interests, when each index of trustworthy research process that has caused international attention was issued, each country would become really cautious and try hard to raise up its international rankings, and many indexes, therefore, has enough power to demand the strategy making of governments .

Since then, the concept of “development” keeps changing, through countless discussions, apart from passively being used as the index or indicator, people started to set up goals, synthesize each “index”, using relevant regulations and systematic methods to reach the goal of comprehensive development. The latest and famous development “goals” of humanity development, is The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

MDGs: 8 Goals to eliminate extreme poverty

MDGs is considered as the major developmental movement in human history. In 2000, leaders from a total number of 189 countries across the globe assembled and made the momentous commitment which lasts for 15 years, ” to spare no effort to help people, to extricate oneself from poor, suffering, and the ignominy state of extreme poverty”. The commitment was measured with 8 aspects in development: terminate extreme poverty and hunger, popularize primary education, gender equality, lower infant mortality rate, and fight HIV and malaria, improve maternal health, environmental sustainability, and global cooperation.

MDGs is the promise which global leaders made to the underprivileged, it began with global vision and mankind as the foundation, hoping through actions, these 8 aspects in development can be improved and relevant index can be applied to measure the result by 2015. Developed countries around the world have donated USD $1,352 billion of official development assistance (ODA), with 66% increases comparing to previous periods. From the 90th Century to the end of 2015, the percentage of people living under poverty line in developing countries dropped from 47% to 14%, the percentage of malnutrition dropped from 23.3% to 12.9%; incidence rate of malaria dropped by 37%, mortality rate dropped by 58%; the number of people with HIV who receives Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) increased from 800 thousand to 13.6 million.

圖/Sho Hatakeyama @ Unsplash

More than that, at the same time, infant mortality rate fell half to 43 per-thousand (12.7 million in the 90th, and 6 million in 2015); Net enrollment rate for elementary school increased from 83% to 91%. As for mother-child safety, the global maternal mortality rate dropped by 43%, and by the end of 2014, 71% of maternal receives medical assistances in labor.

Environment and living condition had a great improvement too. Ozone depleting substance was eliminated, it is estimated that Ozone can be recovered after the middle of this century. 91% of people have access to the cleansed drinking water, and 95 countries had reached hygiene goals; percentage of people who live in ghetto of cities has dropped by 10%; the usage of mobiles has increased dramatically, internet users jumped from 6% to 43% by the end of 2014, meaning total number of 3.2 billion people became internet users within the 15 years.

SDGs: 17 Goals that co-relates with each other as the global situation

The accomplishments of MDGs seemed enormous but rather limited somehow. Looking back at the result of past 15 years, MDGs had reached only the first goal of fighting poverty fully, because of the economic growth of China. Furthermore, MDGs solved the problems through inputting money and economic supplies, it had not recognized the basic conditions of sustainable development such as peace, security, political stabilization, and either it had not mentioned enough on ethnic tolerance.

August. 12. 2015, when MDGs was coming to an end, The UN passed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which it had been studying and researching since 2012, pledging the world has entered into the next 15 years of development plans. SDGs consists of 17 sustainable goals and 169 targets, joined by 3 dimensions of development – “ economic growth”, “social improvement”, “environment protection”.

圖/Petter Rudwall @ Unsplash

From MDGs to SDGs, SDGs has assured the practice of many non-economic aspects. For instance, apart from focusing on economic growth, it pushes for the attention on culture, identification, racial and gender inequality, health, education, gender rights, and lower the chance of margin of minority groups, taking in non-government institutions into consideration and secure labor rights.

On the other hand, the most significant part of SDGs is that it transformed the meaning of “development”, it can be recognized from the aspects mentioned in the following paragraphs.

SDGs as the formulator and operator

In the past, MDGs were operated by UNPD, it played an important role as the organizer which has led many projects became harder to monitor and control in practices. SDGs therefore, taken a lot of non-government groups and community organizations, NGOs as part of it team during research and development period, helping to bring in a clear picture of the difficulties in practice and different viewpoints. These viewpoints enable SDGs to take underprivileged groups such as people with disability, aborigines, and other socially vulnerable groups into consideration while setting the goals.

Partnership building has become an important task for new generation, apart from the groups mentioned above, SDGs further strengthen the existing campaign and work together with enterprises and international organizations with innovative technologies such as The UN, The World Bank, World Trade Organization, and emphasise the importance of influence connecting with southbound countries, , including north-south corporation, south-south corporation, and three-party corporation (that is corporation of a certain north-south country to help another south country), meaning the new concept of development has border it focus on trade, foreign investment, debt reduction, and not narrowing in the single concept of development support.

圖/Annie Spratt @ Unsplash

No one can step aside: shake of the division between the rich and poor, border of the nations.

From the last century to the past 15 years, we were used to distinguishing “supporter” and the “supported”, the view point of “the better support the poor”, left the poor absent in the process of support, they can only receive aid passively rather than being the “main body” of development. This type of “pattern” existed in MDGs, which made the work of development became the issue of “rich” and “poor”, leaving countries in intermediate classes like Taiwan stay their self away from it, thinking it’s the job and responsibility of rich countries such as America, United Kingdom, and other rich European countries.

To Taiwanese government, international support is only a diplomatic strategy; to most Taiwanese people, “it is non-of my business that how people in African countries live”. However, the core spirit of SDGs emphasized that the rich take the most responsibility in the global issue, but the concept of development should not be separated by the border and political power. For the next 15 years, we shall all exam our issues in development and impacts under the 17 SDGs.

圖/Edwin Andrade @ Unsplash

Therefore, we can no longer turn a blind eye on the problems of giving away things that we dispose or over purchased to another country, from personal clothes and shoes, to the dumping of petrochemical plants and steelmaking plant wastes, ignoring the harm as it is not the problem when the waste is in another country, and their misfortune is not related to us. Today, we shall ask ourselves the question that, “the steelmaking plants which caused a lot of pollution has left Taiwan and damaging Vietnam, but what can we do with that?” “Has the second-hand clothes which I donated from Taiwan affected the market in Africa?” “How do we balance environmental issues with the political dilemma?”

Under the same global trend, we are affected deeply by the revolution of each other. Under the spirit of SDGs, we shall know the developmental stage we are in, understand the changes or harms that each other has caused to the world. From that point, we are entering into an era that we can no longer pay attention to one’s own moral uplift without thought of others.


Note:Southern countries

After WWII, a lot of European and American colonies became independent, most of these countries located in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, south to their colonial home country, therefore there is a distinction of North and South.


Special Thanks to/ resources

  1. Chien, S.-S., Wu, Y.-C., 2016. International Development and Aid – “under “Global South Perspective (quanqiu nanfang guandian xia de guoji fazhan yu yuanzhu). Development Studies and Contemporary Taiwan Society (fazhan yanjiu yu dangdai taiwan shehui), Chien, S.-S., Wang, J.-H., Taipei: Chu-liu.
  2. Chien, S.-S., Wu, Y.-C., Chen, J.-H., Taiwan’s International Poverty Alleviation (taiwan de guoji fupin xingdong) – Rights and International Aid from the Fishing Proverb (cong diaoyu yanyu kan quanli yu fazhan yuanzhu)

延伸閱讀:

SDGs 專欄/世界正在翻轉!認識聯合國永續發展目標

SDGs 專欄/別用爬樹能力來判斷一隻魚:借鑑芬蘭,思考教育價值

SDGs 專欄/臺灣如何實踐聯合國永續發展目標?

聯合國永續發展目標 SDGs/NPOst 專欄

 

按讚,追蹤更多好文章:


▼ 這篇不能只有我看到!分享給朋友一起讀 ↓ ▼

作者介紹

葉靜倫

葉靜倫

NPOst 主編。臺北人,七年級,傳播媒體與文化研究出身, 擔任出版編輯超過七年,熱愛文字與閱讀。 善感,不易淚, 相信善意真實存在,如同明瞭惡意確實橫行; 已完成人生第一個夢想,正在進行第二個。

FACEBOOK讀者迴響