32
focuses on both national and international political framework, coupled with the
necessary changes to local framework with the intention of doing “no harm” to the
country development and communities. In this sense, the experience of the member
countries of the OECD reminds us that there are no specific and miraculous practices for a country, but everything depends on the ways in which governments function and how they adopt public policy measures, institutional, administrative, among
others, to meet their development goals.
In general, as the OECD recalls, the main achievements when establishing these
cohesion mechanisms are limited to modest results such as the increase of sensitivity and interest to the problems of the global development agenda or to the creation
of institutional commitments by the government in turn (OECD 2019). According
to the global index of development commitments which is meant to track and monitor progresses of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member countries,
they are very efficient when establishing solid cohesion policies on issues of security, technology, environment, trade, and migration, among others (OECD 2019).
However, such results are not enough to ensure that a complex agenda such as the
SDGs may trigger a robust process of cohesion and comprehensive political cohesion. Systemic and persistent difficulties in many countries to implement SDGs
actions continue to affect the understanding of the concept of sustainability and its
cohesion in different areas and thus its implementation. In the specific case of the
concept of sustainability, the following table shows how the three pillars of the concept (economic, social, and environmental) are distributed in the current SDG
agenda.
Although the SDGs consider a balance of the pillars of sustainability, it is crucial
to undertake an analysis of how sustainability and its interconnections and implications are reflected in an agenda where diverse stakeholders from different levels
(local, national, international) and inside and outside the government understand
and apply sustainability itself (ICFC 2017). One of the key challenges facing policymakers is to ensure an integrated approach by implementing the concept of sustainable development. In this sense, a crucial error in this agenda is to think and
recognize that all countries accept and understand the SD as dogmatic and monolithic. Reports such as Brundtland’s (1987) and others that were published later and
promoted by many multilateral institutions constitute the basis of the current international architecture under which the narrative of sustainability has been built.
As demonstrated in several case studies at the global and local level, there are
countless visions about sustainable development and its understanding (Lucatello
and Vera 2016). Despite having more than three decades of narrative effervescence
about sustainability many public policy makers in the field of sustainable development need information and analysis to know what kind of development they are
adopting, their inconsistencies, and how these could result from decisions in different sectors to achieve the objectives of national political plans.
Therefore, it is essential to analyze how sustainability turns out to be the element
of cohesion for the SDG agenda. In this sense, some elements to consider for a more
detailed analysis of the “mainstreaming” of sustainability in the agenda include:
S. Lucatello and E. Huber-Sannwald
focuses on both national and international political framework, coupled with the
necessary changes to local framework with the intention of doing “no harm” to the
country development and communities. In this sense, the experience of the member
countries of the OECD reminds us that there are no specific and miraculous practices for a country, but everything depends on the ways in which governments function and how they adopt public policy measures, institutional, administrative, among
others, to meet their development goals.
In general, as the OECD recalls, the main achievements when establishing these
cohesion mechanisms are limited to modest results such as the increase of sensitivity and interest to the problems of the global development agenda or to the creation
of institutional commitments by the government in turn (OECD 2019). According
to the global index of development commitments which is meant to track and monitor progresses of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member countries,
they are very efficient when establishing solid cohesion policies on issues of security, technology, environment, trade, and migration, among others (OECD 2019).
However, such results are not enough to ensure that a complex agenda such as the
SDGs may trigger a robust process of cohesion and comprehensive political cohesion. Systemic and persistent difficulties in many countries to implement SDGs
actions continue to affect the understanding of the concept of sustainability and its
cohesion in different areas and thus its implementation. In the specific case of the
concept of sustainability, the following table shows how the three pillars of the concept (economic, social, and environmental) are distributed in the current SDG
agenda.
Although the SDGs consider a balance of the pillars of sustainability, it is crucial
to undertake an analysis of how sustainability and its interconnections and implications are reflected in an agenda where diverse stakeholders from different levels
(local, national, international) and inside and outside the government understand
and apply sustainability itself (ICFC 2017). One of the key challenges facing policymakers is to ensure an integrated approach by implementing the concept of sustainable development. In this sense, a crucial error in this agenda is to think and
recognize that all countries accept and understand the SD as dogmatic and monolithic. Reports such as Brundtland’s (1987) and others that were published later and
promoted by many multilateral institutions constitute the basis of the current international architecture under which the narrative of sustainability has been built.
As demonstrated in several case studies at the global and local level, there are
countless visions about sustainable development and its understanding (Lucatello
and Vera 2016). Despite having more than three decades of narrative effervescence
about sustainability many public policy makers in the field of sustainable development need information and analysis to know what kind of development they are
adopting, their inconsistencies, and how these could result from decisions in different sectors to achieve the objectives of national political plans.
Therefore, it is essential to analyze how sustainability turns out to be the element
of cohesion for the SDG agenda. In this sense, some elements to consider for a more
detailed analysis of the “mainstreaming” of sustainability in the agenda include:
S. Lucatello and E. Huber-Sannwald