One of the toughest environmental and social challenges of our time is managing the mobility of people and goods. By 2030, passenger traffic will exceed 80,000 billion passenger-kilometers—a fifty percent increase—and freight volume will grow by 70 percent globally.
In fast-growing places like India, China, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia, billions of people will have higher lifestyle expectations, and new mobility aspirations. Mega projects like the China’s One Belt, One Road will connect more than half of the world’s population and roughly a quarter of the goods and services that move around the globe through maritime links and physical roads. Globally, the number of vehicles on the road is expected to double by 2050.
Having a long-term term perspective which focuses on sustainability is a defining factor in the future of mobility. And yet, transport was not endorsed as a distinct global Sustainable Development Goal (SDG), largely because the sector could not talk with one voice to influence this global process.
Some elements of transport were included in various SDGs, (e.g., road safety, carbon emissions, etc.) and over the past two years, the international community made several commitments related to transport. For instance, transport is a key policy component of the action program that landlocked developing states have agreed upon, evolving them toward land-linked states. Also, the international community adopted the New Urban Agenda at the Habitat III conference in Quito, Ecuador, which outlined the importance and imperative of improving the sustainability of transport systems to mitigate the challenges of rapid urbanization.
Transport provides a critical enabling environment to support economic and social development necessary to reach the SDGs. For example, transport is a primary consumer of fossil-fuel energy, so it is critical to the achievement of SDG 7 on energy.
Likewise, transportation is indispensable to achieving SDG 9 (building resilient infrastructure) and SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities, realized through improvements in road safety and by expanding public transportation).
In addition, rural road access is highly correlated to poverty incidence. There is also a strong association between transport activity and economic development.
The transport sector has the potential to improve the lives and livelihoods of billions of people—their health, their environment, their quality of life—and stabilize climate change. But today it is stuck going in the wrong direction, with transport contributing to gross inequalities in access to economic and social opportunities, rising numbers of deaths resulting from transport-related accidents, intensive fossil fuel use, massive emissions of greenhouse gasses, as well as air and noise pollution.
The social, environmental and economic challenges are clear. However, a leadership vacuum still exists at the global level, without a clear set of principles to transform the sector. There is a way forward, but it requires all the stakeholders to work together to achieve it:
First, the sector can no longer afford a fragmented approach. It is time to bring greater coherence and talk with one voice to influence global and country processes. The approach adopted so far, in which a multitude of actors—UN agencies, multilateral development banks, the manufacturing industry, civil society, etc.—all acting independently has failed to bring the scale of actions and financing to transform mobility. Pulling these different actors together is not impossible. The energy sector partners embarked on this same journey in 2010, enabling energy to be mainstreamed into all global agreements on sustainable development and to possess the credibility and reliability required to attract private and development finance partners.
Second, we need to clearly define the objectives underpinning sustainable mobility. In this vein, the SDG framework does not provide a clearly defined trajectory for mobility, but rather includes elements to build on. For example, the SDGs embody the notions of “universal access,” road safety, energy efficiency, and deaths from air pollution. From there, it is possible to define a vision for sustainable mobility, around four global goals: (1) equitable access; (2) security and safety; (3) efficiency; and (4) pollution and climate-responsiveness. Under this vision, sustainable mobility would include a better provision of infrastructure and services to support the movement of goods and people. This outcome would be achieved only because the four goals are pursued simultaneously and trade-offs among them are managed.
Third, the economic evaluation of transport projects should be radically transformed. Traditional cost-benefit analyses of those projects focuses on travel time reduction—a proxy for efficiency. However, there is a trade-off between speed and fatalities, for example. The costs of crashes can actually reverse expected efficiency benefits from increasing transportation speeds. Integrating other sustainability dimensions, like safety, green characteristics, and inclusivity, will significantly affect project evaluation, and therefore transform project design — and this is the right way forward. No road project, for example, should be financed without due consideration for safety, equity, and climate impact.
How can technology help the future of mobility?
Technology will form the backbone of mobility in the future. By 2020, a large portion of mobile devices and connections will be in Asia Pacific, the Middle East, and Africa. More data and connectivity can lead to more efficient and convenient mobility, offering great opportunities for developing countries to leapfrog existing legacy technologies and practices. For example, advances in analytics, automation, and the “Internet of Things” are already showing great promise in reducing consumption, including the consumption of energy.
Additional mobility services provided to users on smartphones have already started a move away from vehicle ownership toward shared vehicle usage in many mega cities, as technology-enabled services like car-sharing, ride-hailing, and carpooling are mainstreamed. Connected and autonomous vehicle technology could help optimize roadway utilization, potentially saving billions for future infrastructure expansion.
But the risks associated with new technology must be considered along with the potential benefits. Fundamentally, the car remains the core element of the foreseeable future of mobility. The world could thus end up with congested cities that have a dearth of tax revenues to maintain roads, along with massive job losses pegged to automation. While decision-makers have so far focused on how to improve mobility and shift towards public modes of transportation, the next frontier will be defined by actions to avoid unnecessary physical movement of people and goods, through the use of technology.
Under the Sustainable Mobility for All platform, the World Bank Group has brought together a diverse and high-level group of transport stakeholders committed to transforming mobility, including multilateral developments banks, United Nations bodies, government donors, non-governmental organizations, global civil society, and academia.
These partners will: rally around a common vision, with clearly defined objectives; develop a mechanism of accountability for the sector, with metrics to measure progress; and articulate a program of action and financing to transform the sector. The World Bank Group is already embedding this vision for sustainable mobility in its transport lending. In addition, within the new environment and social safeguards Framework, safety assessments must be considered in the design of all new transport projects.
It is crucial that transport be a part of the global conversation around SDG implementation. This July at the United Nations headquarters, countries will come together for the second annual High Level Political Forum, and share how they are implementing the SDGs at the national level.
At the Forum, the World Bank Group and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs are planning to convene a broad group of stakeholders to share and receive feedback on the draft of the Global Mobility Report, which is the first-ever attempt to examine performance of the transport sector globally, and its ability to support sustainable development. The final report will be released in October.
All of the partners can contribute their unique expertise and perspective to change transport for the better. If these stakeholders work together, they can shape the future of mobility, while also ensuring that all of the SDGs move in the direction of ending poverty and building shared prosperity.
Recent Posts
The United Nations has shaped so much of global co-operation and regulation that we wouldn’t recognise our world today without the UN’s pervasive role in it. So many small details of our lives – such as postage and copyright laws – are subject to international co-operation nurtured by the UN.
In its 75th year, however, the UN is in a difficult moment as the world faces climate crisis, a global pandemic, great power competition, trade wars, economic depression and a wider breakdown in international co-operation.
Still, the UN has faced tough times before – over many decades during the Cold War, the Security Council was crippled by deep tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. The UN is not as sidelined or divided today as it was then. However, as the relationship between China and the US sours, the achievements of global co-operation are being eroded.
The way in which people speak about the UN often implies a level of coherence and bureaucratic independence that the UN rarely possesses. A failure of the UN is normally better understood as a failure of international co-operation.
We see this recently in the UN’s inability to deal with crises from the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, to civil conflict in Syria, and the failure of the Security Council to adopt a COVID-19 resolution calling for ceasefires in conflict zones and a co-operative international response to the pandemic.
The UN administration is not primarily to blame for these failures; rather, the problem is the great powers – in the case of COVID-19, China and the US – refusing to co-operate.
Where states fail to agree, the UN is powerless to act.
Marking the 75th anniversary of the official formation of the UN, when 50 founding nations signed the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, we look at some of its key triumphs and resounding failures.
Five successes
1. Peacekeeping
The United Nations was created with the goal of being a collective security organisation. The UN Charter establishes that the use of force is only lawful either in self-defence or if authorised by the UN Security Council. The Security Council’s five permanent members, being China, US, UK, Russia and France, can veto any such resolution.
The UN’s consistent role in seeking to manage conflict is one of its greatest successes.
A key component of this role is peacekeeping. The UN under its second secretary-general, the Swedish statesman Dag Hammarskjöld – who was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace prize after he died in a suspicious plane crash – created the concept of peacekeeping. Hammarskjöld was responding to the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which the US opposed the invasion of Egypt by its allies Israel, France and the UK.
UN peacekeeping missions involve the use of impartial and armed UN forces, drawn from member states, to stabilise fragile situations. “The essence of peacekeeping is the use of soldiers as a catalyst for peace rather than as the instruments of war,” said then UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, when the forces won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize following missions in conflict zones in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Central America and Europe.
However, peacekeeping also counts among the UN’s major failures.
2. Law of the Sea
Negotiated between 1973 and 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) set up the current international law of the seas. It defines states’ rights and creates concepts such as exclusive economic zones, as well as procedures for the settling of disputes, new arrangements for governing deep sea bed mining, and importantly, new provisions for the protection of marine resources and ocean conservation.
Mostly, countries have abided by the convention. There are various disputes that China has over the East and South China Seas which present a conflict between power and law, in that although UNCLOS creates mechanisms for resolving disputes, a powerful state isn’t necessarily going to submit to those mechanisms.
Secondly, on the conservation front, although UNCLOS is a huge step forward, it has failed to adequately protect oceans that are outside any state’s control. Ocean ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through overfishing. This is an ecological catastrophe that UNCLOS has slowed, but failed to address comprehensively.
3. Decolonisation
The idea of racial equality and of a people’s right to self-determination was discussed in the wake of World War I and rejected. After World War II, however, those principles were endorsed within the UN system, and the Trusteeship Council, which monitored the process of decolonisation, was one of the initial bodies of the UN.
Although many national independence movements only won liberation through bloody conflicts, the UN has overseen a process of decolonisation that has transformed international politics. In 1945, around one third of the world’s population lived under colonial rule. Today, there are less than 2 million people living in colonies.
When it comes to the world’s First Nations, however, the UN generally has done little to address their concerns, aside from the non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007.
4. Human rights
The Human Rights Declaration of 1948 for the first time set out fundamental human rights to be universally protected, recognising that the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
Since 1948, 10 human rights treaties have been adopted – including conventions on the rights of children and migrant workers, and against torture and discrimination based on gender and race – each monitored by its own committee of independent experts.
The language of human rights has created a new framework for thinking about the relationship between the individual, the state and the international system. Although some people would prefer that political movements focus on ‘liberation’ rather than ‘rights’, the idea of human rights has made the individual person a focus of national and international attention.
5. Free trade
Depending on your politics, you might view the World Trade Organisation as a huge success, or a huge failure.
The WTO creates a near-binding system of international trade law with a clear and efficient dispute resolution process.
The majority Australian consensus is that the WTO is a success because it has been good for Australian famers especially, through its winding back of subsidies and tariffs.
However, the WTO enabled an era of globalisation which is now politically controversial.
Recently, the US has sought to disrupt the system. In addition to the trade war with China, the Trump Administration has also refused to appoint tribunal members to the WTO’s Appellate Body, so it has crippled the dispute resolution process. Of course, the Trump Administration is not the first to take issue with China’s trade strategies, which include subsidises for ‘State Owned Enterprises’ and demands that foreign firms transfer intellectual property in exchange for market access.
The existence of the UN has created a forum where nations can discuss new problems, and climate change is one of them. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 to assess climate science and provide policymakers with assessments and options. In 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change created a permanent forum for negotiations.
However, despite an international scientific body in the IPCC, and 165 signatory nations to the climate treaty, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase.
Under the Paris Agreement, even if every country meets its greenhouse gas emission targets we are still on track for ‘dangerous warming’. Yet, no major country is even on track to meet its targets; while emissions will probably decline this year as a result of COVID-19, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will still increase.
This illustrates a core conundrum of the UN in that it opens the possibility of global cooperation, but is unable to constrain states from pursuing their narrowly conceived self-interests. Deep co-operation remains challenging.
Five failures of the UN
1. Peacekeeping
During the Bosnian War, Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed in the town of Srebrenica, declared a ‘safe area’ by the UN in 1993, failed in 1995 to stop the massacre of more than 8000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces. This is one of the most widely discussed examples of the failures of international peacekeeping operations.
On the massacre’s 10th anniversary, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote that the UN had “made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality”, contributing to a mass murder that would “haunt our history forever”.
If you look at some of the other infamous failures of peacekeeping missions – in places such as Rwanda, Somalia and Angola – it is the limited powers given to peacekeeping operations that have resulted in those failures.
2. The invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, which was unlawful and without Security Council authorisation, reflects the fact that the UN is has very limited capacity to constrain the actions of great powers.
The Security Council designers created the veto power so that any of the five permanent members could reject a Council resolution, so in that way it is programmed to fail when a great power really wants to do something that the international community generally condemns.
In the case of the Iraq invasion, the US didn’t veto a resolution, but rather sought authorisation that it did not get. The UN, if you go by the idea of collective security, should have responded by defending Iraq against this unlawful use of force.
The invasion proved a humanitarian disaster with the loss of more than 400,000 lives, and many believe that it led to the emergence of the terrorist Islamic State.
3. Refugee crises
The UN brokered the 1951 Refugee Convention to address the plight of people displaced in Europe due to World War II; years later, the 1967 Protocol removed time and geographical restrictions so that the Convention can now apply universally (although many countries in Asia have refused to sign it, owing in part to its Eurocentric origins).
Despite these treaties, and the work of the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is somewhere between 30 and 40 million refugees, many of them, such as many Palestinians, living for decades outside their homelands. This is in addition to more than 40 million people displaced within their own countries.
While for a long time refugee numbers were reducing, in recent years, particularly driven by the Syrian conflict, there have been increases in the number of people being displaced.
During the COVID-19 crisis, boatloads of Rohingya refugees were turned away by port after port. This tragedy has echoes of pre-World War II when ships of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany were refused entry by multiple countries.
And as a catastrophe of a different kind looms, there is no international framework in place for responding to people who will be displaced by rising seas and other effects of climate change.
4. Conflicts without end
Across the world, there is a shopping list of unresolved civil conflicts and disputed territories.
Palestine and Kashmir are two of the longest-running failures of the UN to resolve disputed lands. More recent, ongoing conflicts include the civil wars in Syria and Yemen.
The common denominator of unresolved conflicts is either division among the great powers, or a lack of international interest due to the geopolitical stakes not being sufficiently high. For instance, the inaction during the Rwandan civil war in the 1990s was not due to a division among great powers, but rather a lack of political will to engage.
In Syria, by contrast, Russia and the US have opposing interests and back opposing sides: Russia backs the government of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US does not.
5. Acting like it’s 1945
The UN is increasingly out of step with the reality of geopolitics today.
The permanent members of the Security Council reflect the division of power internationally at the end of World War II. The continuing exclusion of Germany, Japan, and rising powers such as India and Indonesia, reflects the failure to reflect the changing balance of power.
Also, bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are part of the UN system, continue to be dominated by the West. In response, China has created potential rival institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Western domination of UN institutions undermines their credibility. However, a more fundamental problem is that institutions designed in 1945 are a poor fit with the systemic global challenges – of which climate change is foremost – that we face today.