- SDG experts note SL’s progress so far and the myriad challenges the nation faces in achieving the goals
Even though achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) has remained an essential topic in many development, policy, and governance-related discussions for years, Sri Lanka’s efforts to reach these goals have fallen short in many cases due to various legal, policy, political, governance, administrative, and practical issues. This has made it extremely difficult for the country to achieve certain key SDGs.
One such goal is SDG 16 (i.e. promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, providing access to justice for all and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels) and SDG 16-Plus, which includes 12 targets from SDG 16 and 24 targets from several other Goals that measure aspects such as peace, justice, and inclusion.
These are some of the key points of discussion covered at the “SDG 16+ Conference and SDG Transformation Lab on Peace, Justice, and Strong Initiations for a Sustainable Recovery in Sri Lanka”, where a session titled “The National Crisis from a Sustainable Development Assessment: Based on 2022 Independent Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reviews of the SDGs (with a focus on SDG 16+)” – conducted based on the findings of the Sri Lanka Voluntary People’s Review and Sri Lanka SDG 16+ Spotlight Report and other independent reviews on SDGs – reviewed at length the progress Sri Lanka has achieved in terms of achieving SDG 16/SDG 16+ Goals, challenges that have hindered that process, and what steps need to be taken to ensure the achievement of the said Goals.
During the discussion, several experts in SDGs pointed out the challenges faced by Sri Lanka and the progress that has been made.
Challenges in achieving SDG 16
Speaking of the challenges faced by and inadequacies on the part of Sri Lanka during the 2016-2022 period, SDG Platform Chairman Uchita de Zoysa noted that during the said period, the country had failed to achieve many aspects of SDG 16 owing to several challenges and issues. Sri Lanka not having a roadmap, policy strategy, or monitoring mechanism to achieve the said SDG was one of the key challenges.
Raising concerns about the lack of political and public sector commitment and interest towards achieving it, de Zoysa added: “There is no roadmap for Sri Lanka to implement this SDG even after more than seven years. Sri Lanka does not have a policy in this regard, which is a mandated responsibility of the Sustainable Development Act of the Sustainable Development Council.” With regard to not having a financing and an investment strategy, he added that the country does not have a financing architecture investment strategy with regard to SDGs and that without a financing strategy or an investment plan, there is no return on investment on SDGs. In addition, he stressed that even though there is a hypothetical idea that the country is getting visibility concerning SDGs through such poor and irregular investments, that is not as accepted by the people as the government authorities believe.
De Zoysa pointed out a number of other challenges and issues, most of which relate to inadequacies on the part of the Government, the governing system, and the public sector. They include low political and administrative commitment, fragmented institutional mechanisms, the lack of policy coherence, the low integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development (environmental, social, and economic aspects), poor localising efforts, low awareness among all sectors and stakeholders on SDGs, shrinking space for stakeholder engagement in achieving SDGs, a low economic climate, and political resilience to promoting transformation.
During the conference, several recommendations that are necessary to overcome the highlighted challenges were presented. Among them were ensuring policy continuity from one government to another in order to improve political commitment and administrative drive so as to achieve SDG 16+ transformation in Sri Lanka, the localisation and decentralisation of the implementation of policies, and appropriate monitoring and establishing reporting mechanisms in order to make sure that these policies are followed up with.
Country-level implementation of SDG 16 targets
Meanwhile, in a review of the country-level implementation of SDG 16 targets, it was noted that the SDG 16 transformative aspect ratings indicate that only three out of the 30 aspects are rated in the positive range and that such ratings highlight shortcomings in the planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation systems and processes pertaining to the country-level implementation of this SDG. It was also observed that the effective implementation of the available law, policies and frameworks must be strengthened, which suggests that the practical dimensions of SDG 16 are weaker in comparison to the conceptual dimensions.
Another point of improvement, according to another speaker, SDG Platform Committee Member Chiranthi Senanayake, is the streamlining of complex laws of Sri Lanka, which are composed of customary, personal, colonial, and general laws. Inefficiencies in and the apparent politicisation of the process established for the progressive development of the law have, according to her, led to this reality. She noted that significant gaps in data collection and big data reporting have impacted the timeliness, effectiveness, and foresight of legal policies implemented in the country.
Review of international commitments
During the conference, another speaker, SDG Platform Committee Member John Wilson, noted that all elements of the Government and the State should be held accountable when it comes to achieving SDG 16. In addition, he highlighted the importance of inclusion in all aspects of achieving SDGs. With regard to data collection, he said that it is not just the government or academia, but that everyone should be able to contribute to the process of data collection. Another aspect of inclusion, he noted, was the inclusion of minorities and marginalised groups – one example being indigenous groups. Without ensuring the inclusion of such groups in this process, he opined that there would be no proper progress.
He also spoke extensively of international commitments that Sri Lanka has agreed to fulfil, and presented an assessment regarding the same. Environment-related commitments, governance and human rights-related commitments were two key points that he discussed. With regard to environmental commitments, Wilson presented that though Sri Lanka has signed many international environmental commitments, one of the key challenges in achieving such commitments is the lack of a legislative framework for many of these conventions and agreements at the domestic level coupled with a lack of institutional framework with clear mandates for implementation.
Some examples he pointed out were the reconstitution of the Cabinet Ministry portfolio for Disaster Management in Sri Lanka, and the amendment of the Sri Lanka Disaster Management Act, No. 13 of 2005. Speaking of governance and human rights-related international commitments, his presentation stated: “In 2015, the newly elected previous administration committed the Sri Lankan Government to Resolution 30/1, thereby committing to several reconciliation-related efforts ranging from establishing a Commission for Truth, Justice, Reconciliation, and Non-recurrence, an office on Missing Persons (OMP), and an Office for Reparations, and to preserving all existing records and documentation related to human rights violations and abuses and also violations of international humanitarian law. Since committing to Resolution 30/1, the Sri Lankan Government took some positive steps by establishing the National Authority for the Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses in 2016, the OMP in 2017, and the Office for Reparations in 2018. Despite the establishment of the aforementioned authorities, each of these institutions was operationally weak without adequate funding to carry out their mandates due to a lack of political and administrative commitments. Shortly after former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s election win in November 2019, the Government of Sri Lanka withdrew from Resolution 30/1. The 20th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in 2020, which essentially repealed the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, and granted the President the authority to appoint members to previously independent commissions at his sole discretion, which reduced the impartiality of such Commissions.”
Integrating, mainstreaming inter-linkages between SDG 16 and other Goals, targets
Meanwhile, Senanayake explained that the adoption of political manifestos and documentation towards the national-level implementation of SDGs by successive governments has led to an absence of a national action plan for sustainable development, which integrates and mainstreams the sustainable development transformation. During her presentation, she said that clear inter-linkages exist between SDG 16 and the other goals in relation to Sri Lanka’s unique socioeconomic, political, and environmental realities, adopting policies and systems based on a sound understanding of such inter-linkages has been interrupted by the existing State administrative mechanism for national sustainable development. She provided examples for this situation: “Sri Lanka, in 2016, established a ‘Sustainable Development Engagement Platform’ under the facilitation of the then-Cabinet Ministry of Sustainable Development and Wildlife (constituted and established as per Extraordinary Gazette Number 193/13, dated 21 September 2015). The objective of the platform was to enhance global partnerships for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships. With the Ministry dissolved, the Platform was discontinued. The sole coordination of SDGs in the country had since been centred around the Sustainable Development Council of Sri Lanka (SDCSL), which has not been able to facilitate broader government involvement at the central and sub-national levels and the whole society, with the inclusion of all stakeholders. The result has caused fragmented and siloed programmes and project activities on SDGs. This has also led to a lack of integration of SDGs in the mandates of the institutions and officials crucial to the transformation.”