UN Agenda 2030 | Utopian Overreach or Useful Roadmap?
Post 24 | Canada Needs to Focus on the Basics
It takes time and repetition for information to trickle its way into our consciousness. That trickle has turned into a heavy stream when it comes to awareness of global organizations like the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and World Economic Forum (WEF).
They hold heavy sway over global diplomacy, health policy, the climate movement, social trends, and economic principles. The WEF (not a UN organization) has come under particular scrutiny of late and rightly so, given their controversial Great Reset plan for western governments. It is worthy of a separate article in due course.
When it comes to the United Nations, I have tended to overlook though not absolve its dysfunctions, hypocrisies and warts as it navigates and mediates a complicated and dangerous world. Despite its faults, I believe the UN is valuable as a place for enemies and frenemies to coexist - a global body for international dispute management and peace initiatives. But it is a many tentacled beast with more parts than one can reasonably track.
Over the past few years considerable ink has been spilled in critique of the WHO and IPCC*, including my own writing on the IPCC-driven net zero movement. But my radar has recently tuned into the UN’s influence in social matters and how they might be impacting Canada. After digging into a UN initiative called Agenda 2030, it seems our most divisive social policies and government actions are strongly shaped by it.
Agenda 2030 may be one of the most important documents of our time that you don’t know about.
[* WHO and IPCC are each connected to the UN through a labyrinth of special agency status, other UN bodies, and connected funding mechanisms but are not direct reports to the UN]
UN Brief Sketch
The United Nations came into existence in 1945, growing out of World War II as an international group for global peace - to replace the League of Nations that had functioned since 1920.
The General Assembly is the main diplomatic and decision making body of the UN where the world’s 193 countries meet in New York City. The Security Council is the primary group who recommend international actions to the General Assembly and comprises five permanent members (USA, China, Russia, France and UK) plus ten non-permanent members each elected for two-year periods. And the International Court of Justice, located in The Hague, Netherlands, is the organ responsible for international judicial matters.
The Secratariat is effectively the main corporation of the UN, staffing more than 36,000 employees and operating a budget of $3.6B, with three quarters of that covering general operations and the balance for peacekeeping missions. The budget is fed by mandatory dues from member countries, plus additional voluntary contributions for special UN missions which far outstrip the base budget. Dues are calculated on an ability to pay formula which includes a country’s Gross National Income and Per Capita Income. At $83M Canada’s dues rank in 9th place, with the United States as the largest contributor whose dues are capped at 22%, though US total contributions dwarf the base budget amounts.
But the body of most interest for purposes of this review is the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
Economic and Social Council & Agenda 2030
“The Economic and Social Council is the principal body for coordination, policy review, policy dialogue and recommendations on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as implementation of internationally agreed development goals.”
It comprises 54 member countries that rotate on three-year terms, where Canada has held terms for all but five years since 2000.
ECOSOC created an initiative which was adopted by the full UN membership in 2015 called 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development - commonly referred to as Agenda 2030.
The UN describes Agenda 2030 as, “a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity”, based on 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) where, “They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.”
On the face of it you’d have to be a touch misanthropic to look at most of these 17 areas and not nod in agreement that they are positive for humanity.
However, look deeper into the 169 individual targets plus 231 indicators underlying the 17 linked social, environmental and economic goals - and things get more complex, including the suggested means by which to achieve them.
It is challenging to comprehend the scope and potential influence of Agenda 2030 even after reviewing volumes of detail. The reams of material and layering on of prior UN initiatives (including the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Millennium Development Goals) are nearly impenetrable. So while I claim no expert understanding I have read the principal documents and spent some hours reading related materials.
A kind reader of Agenda 2030 might call it an idealistic and aspirational guide toward which humanity should target itself.
A biting critic could label it a utopian dream that strays heavily into social, climate and economic re-engineering, encourages centralized control, and includes only limited focus on pure economic goals.
I land somewhere in the middle recognizing its positive elements but concerned about its dark underbelly. I encourage you to scan it for yourself. UN 2030 Agenda
Of the 169 targets, some are benignly idealistic with little hope of achievement while some are quality endpoints. But many push dangerously into free market territory, present as ideological mandates that can be politically leveraged, lay a heavy hand in chosen social areas and promote a philosophy of government-centric solutions.
Beginning in 2015, UN members agreed to build their own national plans against this framework. The program is considered voluntary, nations are not legally bound to the commitments, and many have been reporting on their progress - Canada included.
Canada’s Implementation of Agenda 2030
The Canadian government reportedly conducted extensive national consultations prior to the first 2018 plan submission. They note, “We heard from a diverse range of stakeholders, including all levels of government, indigenous peoples, municipalities, civil society, the private sector, academia and youth”. There was also a short review period last year before submission of the 2023 version. I either slept through it all or it was poorly publicized and didn’t encourage individual citizen involvement.
Canada’s two formal submissions can be found below. They are worth a look to get your own sense of the tone and direction.
Canada 2018 Agenda 2030 Implementation Plan
Canada 2023 Agenda 2030 Implementation Plan
At the outset, I had intended to itemize individual examples of concern with the UN Agenda 2030 framework itself, then highlight specific issues within Canada’s response documents. But this was overly ambitious and my detailed critiques exceeded reasonable limits for an article. So, I will instead offer summary observations.
The 17 main goals are useful as a framework. The practice of developing targets and sharing common indicators of progress with other countries has value in itself. There are excellent elements contained in this extensive body of work, covering actions for the universal benefit of humankind.
But the absolutism of Agenda 2030’s assertion that economic, social and environmental issues are integrated and indivisible chafes against free market principles. The economic elements feel more like a foil for the social and environmental tinkering threaded throughout the framework rather than a serious economic blueprint - and where that tinkering shoots unintended consequence warning signals through my head.
Meanwhile, having previously written of concerns with UN-driven climate and net zero policies in Post 12, Post 13 and Post 17 I will not specifically address the climate change elements of Agenda 2030. But climate change is a transformative theme running through the document in addition to being one of the 17 specific goals, with many details offloaded to the UNFCCC and IPCC - each with their own sizable mandates.
But since Agenda 2030 is within full control of each country to implement as they see fit, it could still be a valuable tool in balanced hands. And yet…
Canada’s written plans strongly focus on Trudeau’s priorities of gender, indigenous and climate issues which are generously laced throughout the goals. There is little serious attention paid to productivity, growth, or economic development unencumbered by social justice or climate factors. [Word frequency can be a useful indicator of a document’s focus and priorities. Filtering for specific words in Canada’s 2018 plan, results in: Women or Girls (539), Indigenous or First Nations (418), Gender (197), Climate or Carbon (206), Economy (82), GDP (43), Men or Boys (27), LGBT (20), Productivity (8).]
Canada’s responses do not present a balanced and representative plan for the country as a whole as it heavily favours specific groups. The central theme of Leave no one behind is a laudable goal, but forced inclusiveness will not result in national economic well-being, or create sustainable social conditions.
Despite the word sustainable used heavily throughout Agenda 2030, many of the targets and actions have the potential to be economically regressive while further throttling market competition. That is decidedly unsustainable.
The massive scope of the 17 goals and 169 targets pushes our federal government far past their remit not only into provincial jurisdictions such as education and healthcare, but beyond the general purview of a free-market, democratic government. And this contributes to distraction from the core business of running an efficient country as I have written previously.
Unless uptake among countries is equivalent, Canada puts itself at a global disadvantage by avidly adopting this framework with unproven economic upside - yet with billions spent, concessions made and commitments laid down. As has been the case with net zero targets where Canada jumped in headfirst while others linger - not all countries are readily putting themselves on the line with their Agenda 2030 responses.
Unless we want an even heavier hand of government across all aspects of Canadian life with more regulations and further bloat Agenda 2030 should, at most, be treated as a high-level guide and not a plan of action. In the right context it could provide aspirational targets while helping clock how the rest of the world is progressing. But to hew so closely to it as our current government appears to be doing particularly in their pet areas is not a path to national thriving.
While our government has been driving Canada by these Agenda 2030 policies since 2018 our economy and GDP have badly declined, productivity has fallen to near worst in the G7, our social fabric and unity have frayed, health outcomes have worsened and our international reputation has crumbled. And even Trudeau’s signature net zero targets are not within hailing distance of being met.
Evidently, this utopian plan is not working out particularly well for us.
Let’s build a roadmap that focuses on the basics of running an efficient economy, creating conditions for broad economic productivity, securing our energy independence, stimulating innovation, taking care of those truly in need through our basic social programs, welcoming smart population growth, prioritizing our security and defining a pragmatic vision for the good of all Canadians.
Agenda 2030 is not that roadmap.
Stay tuned and stay pragmatic.