Figures and tables

The adopted main theme for the 46^th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, in 2016, attended by over 2,500 leaders from business, government, international organizations, civil society, academia, media and the arts was

190

‗Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution‘ (World Economic Forum, 2016). While the aims are timely and compelling, especially their focus on ‗transforming the economic, social, ecological and cultural contexts in which we live‘, it is debateable whether the lectures and discussions came close to resolving central issues relating to global socioeconomic and geopolitical challenges, including ‗economic inequalities, social conflicts, religious sectarianism, territorial disputes, and fighting for control of basic resources such as water or land‘ (Forum for a New World Governance, n.d.). The probability of addressing and upholding the principles of international law and justice seem even more remote, including the ‗appalling practices‘ of patriarchal cultures which have seen discrimination against women and girls flourish (Pearson, 2016).

Serious crimes against the natural world are also being committed. In this respect Marco Lambertini, director general of WWF International, writing in the WWF Living Planet Report 2014 emphasises that ―In less than two human generations, population sizes of vertebrate species have dropped by half. These are the living forms that constitute the fabric of the ecosystems which sustain life on Earth - and the barometer of what we are DOIng to our own planet, our only home. We ignore their decline at our peril (WWF International, 2014)‖.

Exacerbating these growing concerns, William White, the Swiss-based chairman of the OECD committee and former economist of the Bank for International Settlements adds another which give us cause for concern: ‗The global financial system has become dangerously unstable and faces an avalanche of bankruptcies that will test social and political stability…The situation is worse than it was in 2007‘.

The huge socioeconomic and geopolitical challenges facing us seem almost insurmountable and piecemeal attempts at resolving these at regional and global levels are proving unsatisfactory. ‗In 1945, the world responded to the deadliest conflict in human history by establishing the United Nations‘ (Clark and Grandi, 2016), and it seems timely to re-think how best to address a wide range of intractable problems we face, many of which have been captured by the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

However, while planning for the SDGs was well executed, the probability of achieving most of the 17 goals, including affirmation of the UN pledge to ―leave no one behind‖ in the fight against poverty and inequality, despite detailed plans, seems remote.

There are simply too many obstacles in the way, including Big Business and Big Politics.

However, as the Paris Climate deal confirmed, it is possible to get 195 nations to agree to and work toward a common goal that threatens the planet and its inhabitants.

For these reasons - and of course there are many more - conscientious and future-oriented world leaders - many of whom attended the opening day of the Paris Climate Conference - might now need to consider the establishment of a new global mechanism (figure 12) that is beyond national self-interests - socioeconomic and geopolitical - and beyond ‗a relatively weak system of multilateral institutions built on the shaky foundations of the consent of sovereign states‘ (Ottersen et al., 2014), which were established in a much different world.

191 Figure 12: Toward a global sustainability council

A new global governance structure might build on the ‗power asymmetries‘, identified by The Lancet-University of the Oslo Commission of Global Governance for Health. Their report, ‗The political origins of health inequity: prospects for Change (Frenk et al., 2014)‘, identified five main dysfunctions of global governance that allow adverse effects of global political determinants of health to persist, and which, arguably, could apply to other SDG areas; namely,

 lack of participation of key groups in decision-making processes;

 inability to constrain power;

 norms, rules and decision-making processes that undermine change;

 inadequate policy-making arenas; and

 absence of international institutions to protect and promote health.

The overarching aim of a revitalised ‗global socioeconomic and geopolitical sustainability‘ body could be to ensure the health and well-being of the planet and its people. According to the 2016 World Economic Forum (World Economic Forum, 2016), initial priorities in the next 18 months and over the next 10 years involve such issues as:

 Involuntary migration

 State collapse or crisis

 Interstate conflicts

 Unemployment and underemployment

 National governance

 Water crises

 Climate change

 Extreme weather

 Food crises

 Social instability

192 Others that could be added include

 Pandemics and epidemics

 Consequences of modernity

 Cybercrime

 Cultural inertia

 Investment and conscious capitalism

 Corruption

 Re-building national trust …

 Growth in well-being (vs. consumption) …

In the longer term, according to the authors of The Lancet paper, ‗From sovereignty to solidarity: a renewed concept of global health for an era of complex interdependence‘

(Ottersen et al., 2014) a fundamental change is required: ‗the gradual construction of a global society…based on the principles of human rights and the logic of health interdependence‘ whereby all stakeholders ‗...accept to share the risks, rights, and duties related to protection and promotion of the health of every member of this society‘. We have to move from sovereignty to solidarity (Frenk et al., 2014).

“As human beings, our greatness

lies not so much in being able to remake the world – that is the myth of the atomic age – as in being able to remake ourselves.”

Gandhi

193 Exercises