Introduction

We have reached the deadline for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and debates over the post-2015 development agenda are coming to a close. Following consultations with scholars, practitioners, civil society and other experts, as well as the general public, publications on the way forward have multiplied over the last five years. Critical assessments of the MDGs and achievements have been discussed and weaknesses identified. The meetings early in 2015 finalised the proposal for the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to present them to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly Summit in September 2015. The negotiations, in which member states decide on new targets, will shape international aid and development policy for the next 15 years. The hope is, that in recognition of the linkages between conflict and development difficulties, they will also address peace and security within the new goals.

While the process of forming the MDGs in the past was one of first presenting a general vision, then developing targets, and only towards the end addressing the means and tools to achieve them (Domínguez, 2013), the lessons of the last 15 years have understandably influenced the current negotiations and resulting framework. Member states are much more conscious of the practicalities of achieving the ambitious goals set out in the new development agenda, especially knowing the scrutiny these achievements undergo. They have also been much more involved in setting the new goals and targets, unlike the MDG process which was largely top-down. Furthermore, one of the criticisms of the MDGs has been that little guidance was provided on how to achieve them, hence, while acknowledging the uniqueness of each case, the new agenda also attempts to provide some general policy guidelines for accomplishing its targets (UN, 2012). It is therefore imperative that the priorities are both actionable and realistic.

As a result, the discussion on including aspects of peace and security in the new development targets is particularly sensitive; on the one hand, because in the mind of many policy-makers, it infringes on the powers of sovereign states, and on the other, because the achievement of ‘peace’ and/or ‘security’ is hard to define or measure, and is thus mired in uncertainty and controversy.