Resilience is no substitute for justice – WBUR

Report on the Misapplication of “Resilience” and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Critical Analysis of Resilience in Development

Recent events, such as Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica, have highlighted a problematic trend within the international development sector: the romanticization of “resilience.” This report analyzes how the concept has shifted from a call for systemic strengthening to an expectation of individual endurance, thereby undermining progress toward key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The focus on celebrating the capacity of vulnerable populations to “bounce back” distracts from the core responsibilities of governments and international bodies to address structural inequities and build robust public systems, which are foundational to achieving the SDGs.

The Detrimental Shift from Systemic Responsibility to Individual Burden

From “Build Back Better” to Measuring Endurance

The term “build back better,” popularized after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, was initially intended to strengthen public institutions and ensure communities were better protected against future disasters. This objective is in direct alignment with several SDGs:

• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The goal of rebuilding infrastructure to be more robust and equitable.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The focus on reinforcing the capacity of the state as the primary duty bearer.

However, by the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the concept had devolved into a slogan. The focus shifted from systemic improvements to measuring individual metrics of survival, such as the number of tents distributed or families moved from camps. This approach failed to address the underlying weaknesses in public systems, particularly health, thereby hindering progress on SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and exacerbating conditions targeted by SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Undermining the Right to Health and SDG 3

The right to health is a legally binding obligation under international law, not an aspiration contingent on perseverance. This right is the cornerstone of SDG 3. The current development narrative, which praises the endurance of individuals in the face of collapsing health systems, implicitly abridges this right. Instead of investing in the public health infrastructure required to fulfill SDG 3, the focus on resilience shifts the burden onto the affected populations, asking them to adapt to injustice rather than demanding accountability for it.

Case Studies: Misaligned Priorities and SDG Setbacks

Climate Disasters and Systemic Vulnerability

In nations like Jamaica, communities are repeatedly expected to rebuild after climate-related disasters. This cycle fails to address the root causes of their vulnerability, which are directly linked to several SDGs:

• SDG 13 (Climate Action): The increasing frequency and intensity of storms highlight a failure to mitigate climate change and invest in adaptation.
• SDG 1 (No Poverty): Structural inequities that perpetuate poverty are left unaddressed, ensuring that the same communities remain most at risk.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The disproportionate impact of disasters on the poor deepens existing inequalities.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Ineffective Partnerships

Analysis of global pandemic aid revealed a critical failure in international cooperation, a key component of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). Less than 9% of the $170.9 billion in aid reached governments in low-income countries as grants. The majority was provided as loans, which reinforces dependency rather than building the long-term capacity of public health systems needed to achieve SDG 3. This approach prioritized short-term relief over sustainable institutional strengthening.

A Framework for Realigning with the Sustainable Development Goals

Leveraging International Law for Accountability

To ensure progress on the SDGs, accountability must be prioritized. International legal frameworks offer a pathway to hold states accountable. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), for example, allows individuals to bring complaints to the UN. While not legally binding, its rulings can drive policy changes, as seen in a 2020 housing rights case in Spain. Such mechanisms are vital tools for advancing SDG 16 by promoting justice and strengthening institutional accountability.

Recommendations for the Development Sector

To genuinely support the achievement of the SDGs, the development sector must reform its approach to resilience. The following actions are recommended:

1. Prioritize Systemic Investment: Shift funding from a patchwork of short-term NGO projects toward long-term investment in public systems, including health, education, and infrastructure. This directly supports SDG 3, SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure).
2. Redefine Success Metrics: Move away from measuring individual endurance and toward assessing the strength and equity of public systems. Success should be defined by progress on indicators related to SDG 10 and SDG 16.
3. Reinforce State Responsibility: Re-center the role of governments as the primary duty bearers for fulfilling human rights and achieving the SDGs, rather than redirecting attention to the adaptability of their populations.

Conclusion: Justice as the Precondition for True Resilience

The current application of “resilience” often serves to mask a lack of accountability for the systemic injustices that create vulnerability. True, sustainable resilience is not about how much suffering people can endure; it is the outcome of just and equitable systems. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals requires a fundamental shift: from praising endurance to demanding the justice, accountability, and strong institutions that make such endurance unnecessary.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • The article connects recurring disasters and climate change to the persistence of poverty, mentioning “structural inequities that keep them poor” in communities like those in Jamaica.

2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • This is a central theme, with the article explicitly discussing the “right to health” as a human right, the importance of strong health systems, and the “social determinants of health.” It references the failure to strengthen the Haitian health system and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • The article highlights issues of inadequate and unsafe living conditions resulting from disasters, such as “flooded streets and uprooted homes” in Jamaica. It also directly references the “right to adequate shelter” in the context of an eviction case in Spain.

4. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • The article directly links natural disasters to climate change, stating that communities are forced to “bounce back from storms made deadlier by climate change.” This points to the need for climate resilience and adaptation.

5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • A core argument of the article is the failure of accountability and justice. It criticizes weak accountability systems in international law, the shift of responsibility away from “governments as duty bearers,” and calls to make “the powerful more accountable for” injustice.

6. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • The article discusses the role of the international development sector, including “government donors, NGOs and foundations.” It critiques the nature of global aid, citing that during the pandemic, most funding to poor countries was in the form of loans rather than grants, which reinforces dependency instead of building capacity.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 1.5: Build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.

   • The article’s entire premise revolves around the concept of resilience, particularly for poor communities in Jamaica facing hurricanes “made deadlier by climate change.” It critiques the current approach to resilience, arguing for systemic investment rather than just expecting communities to “bounce back.”

2. Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.

   • The emphasis on health as a fundamental right, the critique of weak health systems in Haiti, and the discussion of “social determinants of health” all point toward the goal of universal health coverage where systems are robust enough to protect everyone.

3. Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.

   • The article mentions a case in Spain where an eviction was found to violate the “right to adequate shelter,” leading to stronger housing protections. This directly aligns with the goal of ensuring access to adequate housing.

4. Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.

   • The example of Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica is used to illustrate the repeated impact of climate-related disasters on vulnerable nations, highlighting the need for stronger adaptive capacity beyond just celebrating the endurance of the population.

5. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   • The article critiques how the focus on “resilience” has “redirected attention away from governments as duty bearers.” It calls for investment in “public systems” and making powerful actors “more accountable,” which is the essence of this target.

6. Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments.

   • The analysis of COVID-19 pandemic aid, where “less than 9% of the $170.9 billion in global pandemic aid reached governments in poor countries in the form of grants,” directly addresses the quality and form of development assistance, which is a key aspect of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Flawed/Criticized Indicators

   • The article explicitly criticizes the use of superficial output metrics following the 2010 Haiti earthquake. These included:
     • Number of houses built
     • Number of tents distributed
     • Number of families moved out of camps
     • The speed at which the population “bounced back”
   • The author argues these indicators are flawed because they measure endurance and short-term relief rather than systemic, long-term resilience.

2. Implied/Suggested Indicators

   • The article implies that more meaningful indicators would measure systemic change and the fulfillment of rights. These include:
     • Strength and capacity of public systems (e.g., “whether health systems were stronger”).
     • Levels of inequality (e.g., “whether… inequality narrower”).
     • Fulfillment of human rights (e.g., “whether… rights fulfilled”).
     • Proportion of official development assistance provided as grants versus loans. The article provides a specific data point: “less than 9% of the $170.9 billion in global pandemic aid reached governments in poor countries in the form of grants.” This can be used as a direct indicator of financial partnership quality.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wbur.org