ABSTRACT
Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs) have been touted by the UN as a sure way for harnessing synergy to realise the 17 Global Goals. Goal 17 aims to achieve Global Partnership. Targets 17.16 to 17.17 are specifically dedicated to MSPs. They identify, public, private and civil society partnership as a means to boost critical factors, which would equip states to achieve the goals. These include, financial resource mobilisation, technology and sharing of knowledge and expertise. Given the importance of state ownership in Agenda 2030, states are mandated to facilitate these partnerships, thus acting as conveners to provide a reliable avenue for multi-stakeholder engagements. Using a qualitative methodology to acquire primary and secondary data, this study, therefore, focused on how the Government of Ghana (GoG) is enabling MSPs within its borders. The study found that, the GoG is pursuing MSPs in a decentralised and inclusive framework. While strides have been made, there are some challenges that have to be addressed.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
- Background to the Research Problem
Realists believe that, cooperation is only necessary to enable states ensure their absolute gains within the international system and is secondary to the maintenance of world peace and security (Cai, 2011). Liberalists, on the other hand, are of the view that cooperation is paramount in ensuring stability in the international system and that states are more concerned about comparative gains (Ozkan & Cetin, 2016). Furthermore, while Realists believe that cooperation is reasonable only in the realm of high politics, Liberals, argue that cooperation transcends issues of war and power to economic matters relevant to the parties in question (Rana, 2015). The Realist form of cooperation can, therefore, be seen in the formation of organisations like the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the now-defunct Warsaw Pact. Whereas, the Liberalist’s form of cooperation is exemplified within organisations like the World Trade Organisation.
Both the Realist and Liberalist perception of cooperation have materialised within the International System. This is affirmed by Liberatore’s (2009) observation that leading up to the 1970’s, the numerous treaties signed on nuclear ban and the formation of institutions like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) proved that international cooperation was geared towards the prevention of war and economic growth. These two main areas have largely remained the bedrock of cooperation even with the rise of other sectors of cooperation.
Given their firm belief that cooperation among States is essential for international stability, Liberals have championed the cause for new forms of cooperation. Indeed, sustaining peace and economic prosperity continues to be at the heart of many international cooperation
initiatives. However, these have been undertaken through other forms of cooperation (Liberatore, 2009). This is in line with the liberal stance that the guarantee of peace is not only dependent on military and security resources, but also on other important sectors of a state, namely, the economy, culture, education, natural resources, among others.
To explain this further, scientific cooperation, such as technical collaboration and partnerships, has garnered a lot of attention in international cooperation. This is because it brings about innovation, which is viewed as a guarantor of economic growth (Pradhan, Arvin, Hall, & Nair, 2016). In the same way, scientific and educational programmes conducted by organisations like the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), are believed to foster the promotion of understanding and shared values, and by so doing, contribute to the ‘culture of peace’ (Singh, 2018). Furthermore, Liberal theorists like Keohane posit that cooperation within institutions ensures that the intimidation that comes with high politics is absent, thus states are less threatened and suspicious of each other. There is also the supposition that within the framework of cooperation, norms and values are institutionalised to regulate, to an extent, state behavior towards one another (Arı, 2018); (Keohane & Martin, 1995).
Among the many areas that have emerged as necessary for cooperative action is the matter of the environment and its sustainability (Horton & Reynolds, 2016). The United Nations (U.N.) Conference on the Human Environment held in 1972, Sweden, Stockholm, acted as a trigger for intense collaborative initiatives towards environmental protection; paving way for about 900 agreements to be signed within bilateral and multilateral frameworks (Liberatore, 2009). The emergence of matters of the environment on the international scene, albeit tardy, has become a forerunner in global policy making today. Moreover, it has evolved steadily, over the years, to be a complex subject (Kütting & Cerny, 2015).
The intriguing nature of environmental politics as a global theme bores down to its distinctive characteristic of focusing on the relationship between the human society and the world around them (Carter, 2007). The 1992 Rio conference went further to highlight the link between the environment and human welfare as well as its impact on economic development (Teixeira de Barros, 2017). In other words, attention was drawn to the ecological limitations of economic aspirations and, thus, the urgency of preserving the environment, while ensuring an equitable socio-economic system was brought to light. Furthermore, the role of natural resources in the distribution of power and maintenance of peace, stressed the importance of ‘environmental security’ in international affairs and as a priority in foreign policy (Koff & Maganda, 2016) (Liberatore, 2009). Where all these pertinent issues, converge, that is, economic growth, human well-being, environmental protection and the promotion of peace, forms the core of the concept of sustainable development (Godfrey, 2012).
As many social concepts, there exist many definitions of sustainable development with varied perspectives. Nevertheless, the Brundtland Report, titled, ‘Our Common Future: World Commission on Environment and Development’, offers a point of departure (Sagar, 2018). It defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations, 1987). This modest and rather open-ended definition has led to a number of misinterpretations (Höjer & Wangel, 2015); nevertheless, it is successful in underlining the collective realisation by Member States of the United Nations that, pursuing any kind of development is futile in the long run if attention is not paid to the effects for posterity. The subtle elusiveness in its conceptualisation brings to fore the fact that, development should not be compartmentalised but rather its scope broadened, as much as possible, to cater for all relevant factors. This equally translates into policy-making and implementation; necessitating a holistic approach in that regard, in view of the interdependence of development indicators.
Moreover, Sustainable Development has gained much popularity due to theoretical and scientific proof of the fragility of the environment, vis-à-vis human activities. This consciousness has created ‘widespread public concern’ in national and international politics and has greatly influenced human behaviour and interaction across the globe (Carter, 2007). Others even Kates, view sustainable development as a social movement, because of the popular support it has garnered; to such an extent that, individuals voluntarily opt to effect lifestyle changes. (Kates, Parris, & Leiserowitz, 2016)
As a result, Sustainable Development has been increasingly prioritised in international treaties, like the Paris Agreement (Spash, 2016), signed in 2016 and in the itinerary of International Organisations. In 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was launched by the United Nations. The Agenda comprises 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with defined targets guided by indicators to create ‘the Future we want’ in the next 15 years. It is the second universal strategy for development, succeeding the maiden global plan launched at the onset of the new millennium, that is, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs run for 15 years (2000-2015) and were driven by the main aim to reduce poverty and hunger across the globe. It addressed other issues such as gender discrimination, health, and environmental degradation among others. In all, eight key areas were formulated into goals with measurable targets and indicators.
Global partnerships were capsulated in Goal 8 of the MDGs and reiterated in the 17th Goal of the SDGs. Goal 17 calls for cooperation among States within the bilateral and multilateral framework. Moreover, it urges States to facilitate Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs) as indicated from Target 17.16 to 17.17. Under Target 17.17, the Civil Society and Private Sector are identified as relevant partners for collaboration and resource mobilisation in the areas of Finance, Technology and Knowledge Sharing.
MSPs is a strong component of Sustainable Development (Pinkse & Kolk, 2012). Similarly, the 17 Goals exhibit inter-connected and interdependent traits of the themes that necessitate an all-inclusive strategy to achieve them. This is illustrated in the goals of Agenda 2030. For instance, Quality Education (Goal 4) is imperative to achieve Innovation in Industries (Goal 9), and the opposite is true, the quality of education will be affected by the innovation in the system. Besides, although States are to play a leading role, they must depend on structures outside the public sphere if they are to be successful. Decent Jobs and Economic Growth (Goal 8), requires that the State works with private companies to ensure that employees are treated with dignity while providing the necessary conditions to boost their profitability. In this regard, academic institutions and civil society are equally important in contributing to skill, training and research (another link to Goal 4) as well as creating social awareness and holding relevant stakeholders accountable (Strong Institutions, Goal 16).
For this reason, Sustainable Development has been a major factor for the increase in state/non-state actors’ interaction at the national and international levels. For instance, the 1992 Rio Summit offered full access to Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) with the participation of over 1,400 NGOs and 8,000 journalists. The World Summit on Sustainable Development held 10 years later, in 2002 and which took place in Johannesburg hosted 737 new NGOs and more than 8,046 representatives of major groups including business, farmers, indigenous peoples, local authorities, NGOs, the scientific and technological communities, trade unions, and women. These groups organized themselves into approximately 40 geographical and issue-based caucuses. Non-state actors have, therefore, been very instrumental in pushing cooperation among states in this regard and ensuring their
governments ascribe to the principles of sustainable development. (Kates, Parris, & Leiserowitz, 2016).
