The second of our two core modules is framed a little differently from the first. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent a major landmark for development, and one that can’t be underestimated. They are complex both as a political development concept, or thinking device, and as a tool for action. To construct this module Jen discussed the Sustainable Development Goals with Professor David Hulme. David is Professor of Development Studies at the University of Manchester, where he is Executive Director of the Global Development Institute and CEO of the Effective States and Inclusive Development Research Centre. He has worked on rural development, poverty and poverty reduction, microfinance, the role of NGOs in conflict/peace and development, environmental management, social protection and the political economy of global poverty for more than 30 years. His main focus has been on Bangladesh but he has worked extensively across South Asia, East Africa and the Pacific. David is perhaps ‘the’ voice about poverty. Jen and David’s discussion is used to frame this module; providing an understanding of the SDGs from a true expert’s perspective. David also offers some fascinating insights into how Covid-19 has impacted global development in general, and the Sustainable Development Goals in particular. Jen also discussed the SDGs with Khalid Malik, Director of the United Nations Development Project 2011-2014 and special advisor for the UNDP Africa. As an economist, Khalid provides a different take on the UNDP from Jen’s human rights approach.

This module is based on the insight of both experts with contributions from Dr. Julian Skyrme and Professor James Evans. The next section, 2.2, introduces the Sustainable Development Goals, before 2.3 discusses them in greater critical detail. Section 2.4 critically unpacks the notion of ‘leaving nobody behind’ both practically, in terms of data collection, and also as a concept for development, drawing on the complexities of funding the SDGs and the role of the individual in charity and development action. The module concludes on a positive note, drawing on the potential of the SDGs to make positive change.

On 25 September 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015). This was a new global framework for sustainable development that was constructed following the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 2012. Known as Rio+20, the conference launched a three-year process to develop a framework for sustainable development that involved all United Nations Member States. Rio+20 engaged millions of people and thousands of actors from all over the world. At the core of the 2030 Agenda are 17 Sustainable Development Goals, commonly known as the SDGs. The SDGs are universal, transformational and inclusive. They describe major development challenges for humanity and aim to secure a sustainable, peaceful, prosperous and equitable life on earth for everyone now, and in the future.

The Goals cover global challenges that are crucial for the survival of humanity. Built upon the triple bottom line of sustainability that we discussed in Core Module 1, the SDGs recognise that ending poverty must go hand-in-hand with strategies that build economic development whilst recognising environmental limits and setting critical thresholds for the use of natural resources. The SDGs address a range of social needs including education, health, social protection and job opportunities while tackling climate change and environmental protection. The goals also address key systemic barriers to sustainable development such as inequality, unsustainable consumption patterns, weak institutional capacity and environmental degradation. The goals aim to be universal, transformative and human rights based.

The next film, produced by the United Nations, outlines the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

The SDGs are framed by partnership. For the goals to be reached, everyone needs to do their part: governments, the private sector, civil society and every human being across the world. Governments are expected to take ownership and establish national frameworks, policies and measures for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Indeed, a key feature of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is its universality and indivisibility. All countries are target countries. Later in this module Dr. Rory Horner will discuss the different, value laden terms ‘developed’ and ‘global south’, and how they have changed. With respect to the SDGs, all countries could be considered to be ‘developing’ as they move towards a more sustainable future. All countries subscribing to the 2030 Agenda are expected to align their own development efforts with the aim of promoting prosperity while protecting the planet in order to achieve sustainable development.

Jen asked Professor David Hulme, Executive Director of the Global Development Institute at the University of Manchester, who has over 30 years of development experience, to talk to us about the Sustainable Development Goals.

As David explains, for 193 Nations to come together and agree, not only a shared vision of the goals that we need to meet to achieve sustainable development but also to help the world to achieve that vision, was truly remarkable. Former UN Secretary General, Ban Ki- Moon described the SDGs as a ‘social contract’:

- The Millennium Development Goals

The SDGs were built upon the success and critique of the Millennium Development Goals, also known as the MDGs. The MDGs were a major landmark in development thinking. Building upon a decade of United Nations conferences, in 2000 world leaders came together at the UN Headquarters in New York to agree on the United Nations Millennium Declaration.

The declaration committed nations to a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty and set out eight, time bound targets which became known as the Millennium Development Goals, as illustrated in figure 01 below. The goals were expected to be achieved by 2015 and had measurable indicators of success.

Fig 01: The Millennium Development Goals

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2. Achieve universal primary education
3. Promote gender equality and empower women
4. Reduce child mortality
5. Improve maternal health
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7. Ensure environmental sustainability
8. Develop a global partnership for development

Source: UN

The MDGs generated much debate across Development actors and policy makers. We will unpack the support for the MDGs, and the challenges to them, but first it is vital to understand just how much of a landmark the MDGs were for Development. This was the first time the world had come together in a global agreement to reduce poverty and human deprivation at historically unprecedented rates through collaborative action. Jeffrey Sachs (2012:2206) described the MDGs as a ‘historic and effective method of global mobilisation to achieve a set of important social priorities worldwide.’ The MDGS helped to promote global awareness, political accountability, improved metrics, social feedback and public pressures. The iconic images, shown in figure 01 above, brought poverty into schools and homes, uniting the world in a common cause reminiscent of Live Aid. David Hulme calls the MDGs ‘the world’s biggest promise.’ Jeffrey Sachs (2005:25) said:

According to Sachs, Bill Gates referred to the MDGs as a type of global report card for the fight against poverty for the 15 years from 2000 to 2015. The goals were comprehensive in their nature and systematic efforts were made to finance and monitor them. On paper the MDGs seemed like a good thing. David Hulme refers to the ‘warm aura’ around the goals, but there were fierce debates in academic and professional circles about their value. It is important to understand this critique of the MDGs to fully understand the origins of the SDGs. The table below is developed from a working paper written by David Hulme in 2012. It illustrates the scale of critique and support for the MDGs.

The table above illustrates the ranging scale of critique for the MDGs from the high modernists, who saw the goals as a good thing, all the way through to radical critiques, such as those of Antrobus and Saith, who considered the MDGs to be a gimmick that obscured true development in a wash of rainbow colour. Antrobus said, for example:‘I do not believe in the MDGs. I think of them as a Major Distracting Gimmick…’ (Antrobus, 2003).

As a Development project, the MDGs remained a focus of global policy debate and national policy planning. Some ‘developing countries’ made substantial progress towards achieving the MDGs although the progress was highly variable across goals, countries and regions. The United Nations listed the following major successes of the MDGs:

• Since 1990, the number of people living in extreme poverty has declined by more than half.
• The proportion of undernourished people in the developing regions has fallen by almost half.
• The primary school enrolment rate in the developing regions has reached 91 percent, and many more girls are now in school compared to 15 years ago.
• Remarkable gains have also been made in the fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
• The under-five mortality rate has declined by more than half, and maternal mortality is down 45 percent worldwide.
• The target of halving the proportion of people who lack access to improved sources of water was also met.

Some ‘successes’ had to be considered critically. Sachs (2012), for example, argued that the number of people living in extreme poverty being cut in half was due to startling economic growth in China. This illustrated a main critique of the radical critics such as Easterly (2006:20) who felt that being so driven by a set of such public targets meant that the Development project was blinkered to the real issues of Development. He said: ‘The setting of utopian goals means aid workers will focus efforts on infeasible tasks, instead of the feasible tasks that will do some good.’ Moreover, as the UNDP Report 2018 indicated, hundreds of millions of people were left behind, unable to fully participate in, or benefit from, human development, innovation, economic growth or globalization, which pushed inequalities to new heights between, and within, countries.

Indeed Easterly’s comment reflects a common critique of the MDGs. Sachs argues that the MDGs are largely a rich world product for rich world audiences, a popularist project that was set by the white western world to improve the lives of poor people. Although representatives of the Global South were present at the agreement of the Goals in 2000, they were conspicuous in their absence in the development of them. As illustrated in the example of poverty reduction, most countries hit their MDG target as an incidental by-product of domestic growth. Moreover, there was a lot of critique of the target and indicator approach, which many policy makers argued obscured, or distorted, the activities and priorities of the organisations and individuals being measured. A good example was the critique of Goal 2, Achieving Universal Education. As seen above, the UN measured success towards this MDG in terms of a 91% enrolment in primary schools, but they didn’t consider the quality of education, levels of attainment or whether or not students actually completed their schooling.

Activity

Take another look at the Millennium Development Goals, bearing in mind the example of the critique of MDG 2 Achieve Universal Education.

• Can you think of any other possible critiques of these goals?
• Do you think the MDGs represent a ‘good thing’ for Development?

- From the MDGs to the SDGs

The activity you’ve just completed encouraged you to consider some of the flaws in the MDG project. Some of the critiques that we have been exploring were instrumental in moving on from the MDGs to develop the SDGs. In a recent conversation, Professor David Hulme and Professor Uma Kothari discussed how the two projects differ. As you watch the film take particular note of what David and Uma say about the inclusion of inequality in the SDGs.

It is particularly interesting that in this discussion David and Uma recognise how political it was to include inequality, within countries as well as between them, in the SDGs. This addresses a major critique of the MDGs that it was too focused on poverty, rather than inequality, which critics of the MDGs agreed was illustrative of how the MDGs were a ‘top down’ development project, driven by what the elite world thought was important.

We asked Professor David Hulme to tell us more about how the SDGs differ from the MDGs. The key differences he picked out are listed below

1. How the SDGs interpret poverty
   Poverty is classically understood as lack of income, often expressed as having less and $1.25 dollars a day or a baseline of calorie intake. The SDGs are a much broader and more holistic understanding of poverty that frames as it multidimensional deprivation. For example, a lack of access to water, to energy, or not having the right to vote or to access quality education could be seen as poverty. Subsequently the SDGs consider the environment and resources in development as well, akin to the triple bottom line of sustainability.
2. The SDGs are broad
   The SDGs include the 8 goals of the MDGs but move well beyond them to 17 goals and 169 targets to achieve them. The agreement on these 17 goals, achieved through the UN, gave the SDGs real legitimacy.
3. The SDGs are collaborative and universal
   The MDGs were critiqued for being a top-down western development project. The SDGs are much more inclusive. They are aimed at improving life for all which could mean enhancing consumption levels for poor people and reducing them for others (think back to the funnel shaped graph we looked at in CM1 which suggested that 10% of the richest people are responsible for 50% of carbon emissions). The product of collaboration across all 193 United Nations member states, the SDGs are a real ‘global democracy’, working together in partnership to the benefit of all. This has implications for funding the goals. It also means that the goals have to be customised to the space in which they are being applied, whether that’s a country, region, village, or even institution.
4. The goals are widely applicable
   In relation to being universal, the goals can be customised to different settings, for use as a development framework. This makes them as applicable to Manchester as Malawi, as applicable to a business as to you as an individual. Khalid Malik, of the UNDP, refers to the goals as ‘aspirational’ targets, with the aim of better lives for us all.

David refers to the SDGs as a ‘Global Democracy’, but that agreement poses special challenges for policy-makers worldwide. In the next chapter we will discuss the finer details of the 17 goals, their 169 targets and the indicators that will be used to measure progress towards meeting those targets. The 17 goals and 169 targets are potentially transformative, but will not be realised unless the numerous and complex interactions between all of them are grasped and acted upon. This requires a fundamental shift of mindsets on the part of governments and, indeed, all other stakeholders who have a role to play in implementing the Agenda. In the next chapter we will consider some of the finer details of the goals and how they are both interlinked and holistic, features which are potentially transformative, but which also generate real complexity when it comes to implementing them. We’ll examine the challenges of development action, and the ‘synergies’ and ‘trade-offs’ required.

- Terminology

Before we move on to discuss the finer details of the SDGs, we need to talk through some terminology. So far in this chapter the terms ‘develop’ and ‘Development’ and ‘global South’ and ‘Developing’ have been used interchangeably. The differences between them are subtle, but essential to understand. Development discourse has long moved away from the notion of ‘first’ to ‘third world’ that arose after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991. Illustrated in the image below, this crudely split the world into countries aligned with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (the First World), those aligned with the Eastern Bloc (the Second World), and those in the 'Third World', that had no formal political alignment. The terminology originally, therefore, was political, rather than economic. ‘Third world’ was often used to refer to the poorer countries and was gradually replaced with terms such as ‘developing countries’, ‘least developed’, ‘industrialising’ and, later, ‘Global South’.

Fig 02: The First world (blue), Second world (red) and Third World (green)

Source: Wikimedia Commons

These terms have come under increasing critique in recent decades as Dr. Rory Horner from the Global Development Institute explains in our next film. Rory explains that the terms ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ are really trying to refer to the major cleavage in the world in terms of the different standards of living that different people experience. He argues, however, that as categorisations within development, they are too broad and generalising.

Rory points out that the terms ‘developing’ and ‘developed’ tend to hide critical nuances in the complexity of Development. Development (with a capital D) tends to be used to refer to the political and practical project of improving standards of living. Rory explains that standards of living can vary hugely within countries as well as between them; there are people in Mali who are more affluent than some in Manchester and we wouldn’t necessarily consider Manchester to be a ‘developing’ country, or part of the ‘Global South’. Rory argues that this could lead to a ‘rise of the south’ generating a profound and ongoing redrawing of the global map of development and inequality. Likewise, geographically in the south of the globe, Australia is not really a poor country (based on consumption). Increasingly Development has been framed as ‘Global’ development to recognise that the whole world needs to develop, in some way, which is reflected in the all encompassing nature of the SDGs. The next film, produced by Rory for the Global Development Institute, argues that the notion of ‘international’ development has had its time.

Rory Horner suggests that the notion of sustainable development has helped us move away from the binaries of ‘developed’ and ‘undeveloped’ nations. Significant development challenges can be found in all countries in the world, which makes us all developing countries. Rory explains that the SDGs encourage us to think about Development challenges as global challenges, as challenges for all of us, wherever we're situated across the globe. Covid-19 is perhaps the most unifying global challenge of the last fifty years, but as we will discuss, whilst we are all weathering the same storm, we are not in the same boat.

In Core Module 1 we discussed the power of messages in sustainability and sustainable development. We would encourage you to think critically about the terminology you come across as you work through this unit. You might notice that a number of policy documents, even from well recognised development organisations, still use terms such as ‘developing’ or ‘global south’, for example. In your own work, too, think critically about the terms that you use, and why you are using them.

Having outlined what the SDGs are and how they transitioned from the MDGs, and equipped you with an introductory critical understanding of development vocabulary, let’s look now at the finer details of this potentially transformative global compact.

Chapter 2.2 outlined what the Sustainable Development Goals are, how they built upon the Millennium Development Goals, what they mean for development more broadly – and indeed even what development means. This chapter goes into greater detail about the Sustainable Development Goals, themselves. It considers the targets for each of the goals and how to read the goals as a development tool. Drawing upon the argument that we introduced in Core Module 1 about the need to critique sources, this chapter critically unpacks just some of the finer details of the Sustainable Development Goals, considering a few of the contradictions and challenges that we face in ensuring a better future for all. Also, as in Core Module 1, this chapter again considers the role of data in measuring development and by doing so links through to our next chapter about leaving nobody behind in Sustainable Development and the practicalities of doing that.

Having talked a little bit about what the SDGs represent for development, let’s further develop the discussion about what they could mean for practical development action. Using the MDGs as an example, Sachs (2019) agrees that development targets can accelerate progress towards complex development goals but argues that “achieving the SDGs will require deep, structural changes across all sectors in society.’ The SDGs have to be ‘operationalised’ and moved from a great idea and fantastic global compact, to practical action that can be applied at the appropriate scale. It is perhaps interesting to view the SDGs as both a set of targets that will ultimately improve human life, and as a political tool, or a lever, for change that can be accessed by many different sectors and actors. You met Dr. Julian Skyrme, the Director of Social Responsibility for the University of Manchester, in Core Module 1, where he talked about the work the University is already doing towards the SDGs. In the next film, Julain talks about why he thinks the SDGs are important.

Julian teases out two core points about the SDGs, both of which we touched upon in the last module. They are ‘the world’s call to action on the most important issues facing the world’. They are also a thinking device which, if you apply a critical lens, enables us to better understand issues from a multiplicity of angles, Julian’s morning cup of tea being a good example. This is also a real strength of this course: you are working with fellow students from across the University, engineers, social scientists, mathematicians, medics, to name but a few, uniting your different disciplinary viewpoints to look at the world differently and think of new solutions to old problems. Taking the SDGs as a thinking device also illuminates some tensions and contradictions which pose significant challenges for development. Bearing that in mind, let's look at the SDGs in greater detail.

Activity

The United Nations Knowledge Platform is an incredible resource that details the targets, indicators and annual progress for the last three years towards the SDGs. You can access the site using this link:

• Sustainable Development Goals

Then:

1. Choose one of the goals, perhaps from beyond your usual study area, click on the ‘Targets and Indicators’ from the horizontal navigation bar.
2. Read about your chosen goal, its targets and indicators, and then jot down a summary of what the goal aims to do - a few bullet points will do.
3. Is there anything that surprises you about the goal – Is it broad, for example? Does it seem achievable by 2030? How might we measure the progress towards that indicator? Are there any contradictions?

As you’ll have noticed as you explored your chosen goal, each of the 17 SDGs has its own set of targets and indicators, as illustrated in the diagram below.

Fig 03: Goals, Targets and Indicators

Source: Created by O’Brien, 2019

Having had a look at the 17 SDGs, the next exercise aims to foreground the complexity of the SDGs as a project for sustainable development. It also aims to highlight how, as a multi-disciplinary cohort of students (or potential change makers), we will interpret the SDGs in different ways. A benefit of that range of interpretations is the multiplicity of new viewpoints that we have at our disposal to solve old problems.

What surprised you about that exercise?

• If you are studying on UCIL20311 or UCIL20411 please keep your screenshot safe as you will need it for Discussion Question 2.
• If you are studying on UCIL20511 or UCIL 20611, how do your answers compare to when you completed this exercise previously? Has your categorisation changed?

This exercise illustrates the complexity of the SDGs and the challenges of transitioning them from a thinking device to a tool for practical action. In the last chapter we discussed how the goals are holistic and interlinked, which is a huge strength - at least in theory. If there is debate about whether a goal is primarily economically or environmentally or socially based, how then can groups of government ministers form development policy? Even at an individual scale, operationalising the interlinkages of the triple bottom line is a challenge - as you weigh up choices around dietary preferences, for example.

- Targets and Indicators

To enhance the complexity of the SDGs, as you probably saw when you completed the last activity, the Goals also have targets and indicators. The goals, targets and indicators need to be read in a particular way to understand them. Let’s use SDG 03 as an example.

Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

SDG 3 is a massive goal that has 13 targets and no less than 26 indicators that can be used to show that those targets have been achieved, and in turn that the goal has been achieved. Scroll through the SDG 3 targets and indicators which are given in full below. Note how broad the goal is, covering everything from infant and maternal mortality to vaccinations, air pollution, alcohol consumption, emergency preparedness and the number of quality of health workers available to deliver a continuum of care. Also note that the targets are split into numbers and letters: the numbers are outcome focused targets whilst the letters are process focused targets. Very different development actions will be required to achieve those different targets, and any action will also need to consider the scale, the key actors, the location, the progress to date, and so forth.

The indicators are also interesting. When the goals and indicators are operationalised the indicators are further classified according to ‘tier’. The ‘tier’ of the indicator illustrates how developed the methodology is to measure progress towards the target. This can often rely on the availability of data (a point we will return to in a moment). The classification, at global level, is as follows:

The UN argue that all indicators are equally important, and the establishment of the tier system is intended solely to assist in the development of global implementation strategies. The UN also suggests that for tier I and II indicators, countries can create their own tier classification for implementation because the availability of data at the national level may not necessarily align with the global tier classification.

What does that mean for development? As we discussed in the first chapter of this module, a critique of the Millennium Development Goals by some was that they were too target driven and thus almost created blinkers to other key development issues. This was particularly problematic as the MDGs were seen as a western development project. The SDGs have very clearly set indicators to achieve targets to achieve the goals. In some cases, however, there is no established methodology, or standard, to collect the information required in order to evaluate success towards the indicators, which in turn indicate targets have been achieved, and that a goal has been met. In some cases, therefore, the SDGs remain a work in progress.

Remember that the SDGs offer a development framework that has to be applied to the scale of development action, whether that is country, region, village, individual, sector, or perhaps institution. This then becomes a massive task that some would argue is methodologically unachievable. Critique has thus been levied at a set of goals that are so huge, with so many indicators, that they almost become meaningless, especially when there is no universally agreed methodology for some of the indicators. Khalid Malik, former head of the United Nations Development Project, was involved in the discussions around the Sustainable Development Goals. You’ll hear from Khalid in the next chapter, but he sets a challenge that we would like you to think about now. Read the quotation below, taken from our interview with Khaild, then complete the activity that follows.

Activity

Please spend a few minutes looking at the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, their targets and their indicators. Consider the following questions:

• Do you think Khalid is correct, is nothing left out by them?
• Is anything missing, or would you argue that any key issues are lost?
• A little later on we will discuss what Covid19 means for development. Do you think any of the SDGs should be prioritised during the pandemic?

- Proposed Alternative Classification Systems

Let's consider the SDGs from the other end of the spectrum. If they are too broad and unruly, should they be condensed down to be more achievable? A 2013 article in Nature by Griggs et al., argued that, developing from the Millennium Development Goals, there should, in fact, be six sustainable development goals that draw upon the dual aims of protecting Earth’s life-support system and reducing poverty, especially considering the real world changes that we are experiencing in the Anthropocene, as we discussed in Core Module 1. Griggs et al.’s six SDGs are:

In his article in the Lancet, which we invited you to read in the last chapter, economist Jeffrey Sachs outlined three core SDGs which are framed within the Bruntland triple bottom line of sustainability: economic development, environmental sustainability and social inclusion. He also issued the proviso that success in any of these three categories (or sub categories within them) will depend upon the success of all three. Underpinning the three goals is a fourth, which is the good governance required to achieve them.

Drawing upon the Griggs and Sachs examples, and building upon your knowledge of sustainability and sustainable development, if you were going to condense the SDGs down into a more manageable set of goals, what goals do you think would represent sustainable development, and why?

Use the space provided below to set out your own, more manageable, set of goals, and explain the reasons behind your choices.

The below not loading? Click to refresh the page.

- Interlinking of the SDGs

How do your chosen goals relate to each other? We've seen how the SDGs are interlinked, and noted how this both addresses a critique of the MDGs, and ensures a holistic approach to development. The interlinked nature of the Goals presents two challenges: firstly how the goals could be realised in development policy and secondly the contradictions that they represent.

As a 2019 working paper by the Overseas Development Institute stated:

Le Blanc (2015) noted that 60 of the SDG targets refer explicitly to at least one Goal other than the one to which they belong. Seven targets across four of the SDGs refer to more than 10 other Goals. Thus, action required to achieve the Goals doesn’t fall neatly into the remit of one ministerial section; they will be achieved only through holistic action which is significantly more difficult to achieve and could have negative as well as positive impacts. In a recent blog post Kohl (2018) used the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle to consider linkages between different SDGs and, moreover, which ones could be used to address the others. As illustrated in the image below, Kohl suggests, for example, that achieving zero hunger may require an understanding of SDG 9 “industry, innovation and infrastructure” coupled with “gender equality” and also special research of future “life on land” and the “climate actions”.

Fig 04: How the SDGs might fit together

Source: Kohl, 2018

A critique that could be levelled against this approach is that it illustrates a process. Each jigsaw piece has limited connectors leading to a hierarchy in presentation of the other goals and a limit to the number of links that could be made.

Other interesting ways of illustrating these linkages between SDGs include the The SDG Climate Action Nexus tool (SCAN-tool) which you can access below. The SCAN tool is designed to provide high-level guidance on how climate actions can impact achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Have a look at it for a moment - but don’t panic! The tool is presented here because it nicely illustrates the incredible level of possible interactions between SDG 13 Climate Action and the other 16 Goals.

Fig 05: Screenshot of the SCAN tool which illustrates how SDG 13 Climate Action links to other SDGs

Source: Ambition to Action, 2019

Click here to access the interactive tool.

You can imagine the scale of the ‘spider's web’ that would result if you then linked the 17 goals to each other. As we’ve already observed, if the goals are so incredibly interlinked – which they need to be to achieve sustainable development for all - action required to achieve them won’t fall neatly into the remit of one ministerial section; they will be achieved only through holistic action which is significantly more difficult to achieve and could have negative as well as positive impacts. The positive and negative impacts of responding to the linkages between the goals are known as ‘synergies’ and ‘trade-offs’.

In their Overseas Development Institute Working Paper, Donoghue and Khan (2019) used SDG 13 to illustrate synergies and trade offs. Sustainable forest management is an example of a synergy, which can interact with other dimensions of sustainable development by providing food and clean water (SDGs 2 and 6) and protecting ecosystems (SDG 15). An example of a trade-off would be if ambitious climate action mitigation measures change land-use in ways which have negative impacts on sustainable development, such as the transfer of land to plantations for bioenergy production, which could ultimately threaten food and water security and cause biodiversity loss. Trade-offs can be minimised if they are effectively managed – for example, taking care to improve bio-energy crop yields to reduce harmful land-use change (IPCC, 2018). The image below of Murchison Falls National Park in Uganda illustrates the trade-off around the economic benefits of eco-tourism, which puts huge resource pressure on land and all of those living there, but in turn brings in vast revenue to enhance the natural habitat.

Fig 06: Trade offs and synergies of sustainable development in action in Murchison National Park, Uganda

Source: O’Brien, 2016

Think back to the example we drew upon in Core Module 1 of food consumption. There are synergies involved in becoming vegan because it will enhance climate action by reducing the carbon output generated by the dairy industry, but the trade off is that greater demand might be placed on the need for alternatives such as jackfruit or soya, which have their own impacts on the environment.

Hickel (2019) developed the idea of synergies and trade offs even further to consider some of the contradictions within the SDGs, suggesting that there are two sides to the Goals. One calls for humanity to achieve ‘harmony with nature,’ to protect the planet from degradation, and to take urgent action on climate change, with specific targets laid out in Goals 6, 12, 13, 14, and 15. The other calls for continued global economic growth at existing levels or higher through 2030, as outlined in Goal 8, on the assumption that growth is necessary for human development and the eradication of poverty and hunger (as in Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4). A number of studies have commented on the tension between the sustainability and growth objectives of the SDGs. Gupta and Vegelin (2016) noticed that the SDGs embody, ‘trade‐offs in favour of economic growth over social well‐being and ecological viability.’

- Progress in implementing the SDGs

A challenge is also presented over where to start with implementing the SDGs. Whilst all parts of the 2030 Agenda are deemed to be equally important, and no hierarchy or priority-setting is officially entertained (i.e. health is not seen to be more important than education, or good governance), there is a need to start somewhere and set priorities within the resources available. Governments risk taking decisions in particular areas which might have negative impacts on the prospects for progress in other areas. As we will see in the next chapter, this also generates questions around how to fund the SDGs.

There is a need, therefore, to critically consider the linkages within, and between, the SDGs and what that then represents for ‘good governance’ to make them happen. There is also a need to think critically about how we can measure progress towards goals that are not yet underpinned by methodologically sound analysis.

Bearing that in mind, in the next film Professor David Hulme shares his thoughts about progress towards the SDGs so far.

David is an optimist and cites the decrease in global poverty as a major success for the SDGs. The UN’s Sustainable Development Progress Report (2019) supported this by showing that extreme poverty has declined considerably. It also showed that the under-5 mortality rate fell by 49 per cent between 2000 and 2017. The report highlighted enhanced global partnership with a wide range of other actors—international organizations, businesses, local authorities, the scientific community and civil society – taking the SDGs on board, and 71 countries and the European Union adopting more than 300 policies and instruments supporting sustainable consumption and production. Furthermore, 186 parties have ratified the Paris Agreement on climate change.

However, the report also recognised the many challenges that the SDGs have to address that require urgent collective attention. For example, the report shows that global hunger is on the rise, and that at least half of the world’s population lacks essential health services. More than half of the world’s children do not meet standards in reading and mathematics; only 28 per cent of persons with severe disabilities receive cash benefits; and women in all parts of the world continue to face structural disadvantages and discrimination. Still other challenges are linked to the physical world and the impacts of anthropogenic climate change, such as rising sea levels, accelerating ocean acidification, mass extinction of animal and plant species and unchecked land degradation.

And that was before Covid 19. In the next film, David Hulme talks about the impact of Covid -19 on global development:

David highlights how the entire world has been impacted by Covid 19. Unlike the usual challenges to development that we might consider, such as a lack of clean water, or malaria, Covid 19 has impacted us all, positively and negatively. The Global North perhaps has more resilience to respond to the crisis and it is encouraging to hear Professor Hulme frame the pandemic as a potential learning experience.

In the Global South, beyond the immediate health threat there are longer term challenges of threats to livelihoods, particularly given the informal systems upon which so many people depend. The next film, produced by the Global Development Institute, where David is Executive Director, summarises the challenge.

It is clear that Covid-19 has accentuated existing patterns of social, economic, spatial, and racial inequalities, and is likely to heighten these interconnected aspects of inequalities in the future.

A questions to think about...

The pandemic is a global leadership challenge that illustrates the imperative of SDG 17, Partnership for the Goals.

David Hulme made the point that a lack of leadership, particularly from the US, has accelerated the rise of the emerging powers such as China and India.

...What do you think? Do you agree?

...What does that mean for SDG 17 and the question of ‘global governance’?

Drawing upon our critique of the role of data in Core Module 1, Professor Hulme illustrates a concern for the data that is registering the impact of Covid-19 and the potential that it is leaving some behind. Why is data so important in development thinking?

- The importance of data

In Core Module 1 we introduced the importance of data in sustainable development for setting targets, measuring success and prioritising action. Indeed, to track progress towards the SDGs it is necessary to measure how these indicators are changing for all countries around the world. A bold statement of the Sustainable Development Goals is that they aim to ‘leave nobody behind’. In Core Module 1 we used the example of Dr. Jonny Huck’s Huckathon, which locates people physically, mapping homes in previously war torn Northern Uganda to enable the delivery of medical care in areas where would otherwise not be available. We also touched upon the critique by Dr. Billy Tusker Haworth that technology can enhance inequities of gender, ethnicity and sexuality. Earlier in this module we discussed how, for some SDG indicators, specifically the ‘third tier’ indicators, the methodology for measuring the indicators, which will inform progress towards the Goal targets, is still being developed. In fact, many datasets that might inform progress towards the SDGs are incomplete. Our World in Data was the first organisation to develop an interactive hub where it is possible to explore global, or country-level, progress towards the SDGs in an engaging way through the OurWorldinData-integrated SDG Tracker.

Let’s look at an example for SDG 1: No Poverty. The interactive image below illustrates progress towards Indicator 1.2.2, the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions. Note that it is not clear what is meant by ‘all its dimensions according to national definitions.’ One interpretation – and the one that Our World in Data used - may be that it refers to the multidimensional poverty index (MPI), which is an aggregate measure of deprivation taking into account poor health, lack of education, inadequate living standard, lack of income, disempowerment, poor quality of work and threat from violence. Hover over the horizontal scale to engage with the map.

Did you notice just how many gaps there were in the data? Given our discussion about the role of data in development, what problem does this then present? How can we measure progress towards a target when we have no data to indicate the baseline, let alone progress? What does this mean for ‘leaving nobody behind’?

Activity

The SDG Index lists attainment toward the goals by country. There is lots to challenge around the methodology but it is interesting to see where different continents and countries are in terms of attaining the different SDGs and familiarise yourself with the way the SDGs are reported.

1. Pick a country or pick an SDG:
2. What progress has there been?
3. Where should the focus be going forward?

- Filling the gaps in the data

If analytical data has to be utilised carefully, what other alternatives might there for capturing the voices and needs of people impacted by sustainable development? Let’s have a look David Hulme’s answer to that question:

Professor Hulme illustrated the need to talk to people, and in turn, to actually ‘collect data on the people who really face the problem.’ This methodological approach moves beyond large scale technology enabled quantitative datasets (which we have critiqued) to engage with individuals at grass roots level. In many ways that bottom up approach is the absolute gold standard of Development, which enables individual voices to be heard and acted upon. Later in the course, when you work through the individual Goal modules, you might notice that Dr Sarah Marie-Hall, who discusses her work on austerity for SDG 1, and Dr Natalie Ross, who discusses the cultural role of the sea in SDG 14, both focus on individual ‘voice’ and experience by using ethnography as a method.

Ethnography is a prolonged immersion into somebody’s life from which you can glean a rich insight into their lived reality. Drawing upon our earlier discussion of the benefits of technology-enabled quantitative data, can you think of any critique of the ethnographic approach? Collecting individual voices is expensive and time consuming. It can be difficult to capture everybody’s voice, or sufficiently representative voices. This idea of participation, working with people on the ground, has been critiqued for some time precisely because it is difficult to achieve full representation. For example, there is a question about whether any two voices are the same. You might have similar demographic characteristics to a fellow student but have a different lived experience of University. It becomes difficult then to apply policy which will benefit all or leave no one behind.

Leaving no one behind is a recurring and overarching objective of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. The pledge to leave no one behind is a commitment to end extreme poverty in all its forms and to act explicitly to ensure that those who have been left behind can catch up to those who have experienced greater progress. As people who are left behind are likely to include more than just the income-poor, countries implementing the pledge will need to go beyond single-factor metrics in order to understand the severity, multiplicity and distribution of disadvantages within their societies. As we’ll see in the next chapter, , implementing the pledge to leave no one behind does not imply a separate course of action, but is intrinsic to the action required to achieve the SDGs through new partnership. In the next film, Jen asks David to talk about the reality of capturing the views, and thus needs, of everybody in Development, and who might get left out.

David identifies some key groups that tend to be left out of standard data collection, and thus often left behind in the development process, namely women, ethnic and religious minorities and, perhaps surprisingly, the very wealthy. The SDGs specify that whilst “no one will be left behind”, they “endeavour to reach the furthest behind first.” The UNDP report suggests that, in practice, this means taking explicit action to end extreme poverty, curb inequalities, confront discrimination and fast-track progress for the furthest behind. According to the UNDP, to understand who is being left behind and why, and to shape effective Development responses, five key factors should be assessed. The next interactive examines these five factors.

David’s point about the data often excluding the most wealthy is really interesting in the context of the UNDP’s approach to leaving no one behind. As David explained, leaving the very wealth out of data collection can dramatically skew inequality data, which in turn can generate informal, illegal, financial spaces. Leaving nobody behind means bringing everybody into the Development process, including the most wealthy. David’s point also illustrates the need to apply, or customise, the goals to the development ‘space’, the people on the ground, and touches upon the complexity of doing so. Let’s discuss that further in our next chapter.

The next film, created by the United Nations, serves as a timely recap of what the SDGs are, and how they relate to the key concepts of sustainable development that we discussed in CM1. The film goes on to explain how the SDGs have added two additional P’s to the triple bottom line of sustainability: partnership and peace.

The film uses the example of health to illustrate how the SDGs are interlinked and illustrates the need to think creatively about the challenges that the SDGs pose and, in turn, to think differently about the new partnerships required to tackle them. The SDGs are framed within the triple bottom line of sustainable development but with added Ps of partnership and peace. Think back to the exercise which asked you to place the SDGs within the categories of people, profit and planet. Part of the challenge of that exercise was that the SDGs don’t necessarily sit neatly in one category. Let’s take a few moments to critically consider the reality of partnership at multiple scales and how to ensure long term engagement with the goals. The UN film suggests that we need to ask the right questions and seek the right answers and take our responsibilities seriously in order to achieve the 2030 Agenda and leave no one behind.

Khalid Malik former director of the United Nations Development Project (UNDP) and now co-chairman of the Global Sustainability Forum was part of the discussion around the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which led to the SDGs. In the next film Khalid talks about what the SDGs mean for Development and how we move from this grand political project to making development happen on the ground through partnership.

As Khalid said, ‘economic, social stuff and environment are fundamentally connected, one affects the other.’ Whilst the MDGs focused on reducing poverty in the developing world, the SDGs bring the world together in a framework which applies to all countries - and has to be customised to each country. But that’s the tricky part. The universality of the Goals makes them challenging to deliver. Khalid praised the UN for uniting the globe in a set of development targets, but what does that mean in political reality? Professor James Evans makes the point that the SDGs are limited by a lack of global government:

In the next film, Professor David Hulme affirms the achievement of a global partnership, but also questions whether everybody’s concerns are actually global in today’s turbulent political world.

David suggests that the idea of global partnership could be undermined by the rise of nationalism and neopopulism. In Development terms, Nationalism refers to when a nation has developed exclusively with their own interests in mind. Often the examples of China and India are cited here as both nations have experienced rapid economic growth enabled through powerful nationalist movements. A nationalist approach can generate forms of exclusivism and competition that make it hard to resolve shared global problems. The key point here is that national interests are internal, which is contrary to the notion of global partnership.

- Funding the SDGs

A further challenge of the SDGs is how to fund the required development action. The UN estimates that the SDGs will require somewhere in the region of $5 to $7 trillion to implement; $4 trillion of which is required by countries in the (so-called) ‘Global South’. This is a huge bill, which raises the question, ‘who is responsible for payment?’ In the next film, Jen discusses the challenge of funding the SDGs with Professor David Hulme.

Unlike the MDGs the SDGs were constructed with consideration of the contentious funding challenges that they would represent. Some SDG funding is internal, and an expectation of the commitment to the SDGs is an increase in resource input from governments. This becomes an acute challenge in poorer countries where tax revenues can be extremely low and will need to rise rapidly for the funding commitment to be met. This is why some international agreements, like the COP, focus on support from the international community to strengthen infrastructure, for example to strengthen countries’ tax collection systems and to curb international tax evasion.

Traditionally official development assistance (ODA) through the UN would play a pivotal role in financing a development agenda like the SDGs. ODA is the overseas aid budget that is used to support Aid Strategy in the Global South. In 1970 the work of Nobel-Prize winner Jan Tinbergen was used to estimate the inflows of capital required for developing countries to achieve desirable growth rates. This was believed to be 0.75% of gross national product. The long-term aim was to hope that all official aid donors of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) would contribute this as bilateral, or country to country, aid. In 2017 only five DAC members – Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom – met the United Nations target of at least 0.7%. Having achieved the target in 2016, Germany slipped back in 2017 to join 24 other DAC donors under the threshold. In the film, David also mentioned that Goal 16 explicitly refers to reducing elicit and illegal financial flows and how there is increasing expectation for wealthy groups, whether countries, industries of businesses, to contribute more to global finance. A recent study even suggested that the UN should think like a startup and launch a crowdfunding platform, along the lines of Indiegogo or GoFundMe, specifically to raise money for projects that align with the SDGs.

ODA draws upon the notion of responsibility, with which we opened this chapter. In turbulent times, or within a very nationalist movement, ‘charity’ typically begins at home. There has been some debate about whether the expectation that individuals will contribute to development compensates for the lack of action by the State. A parallel argument exists around sustainability action. For example, the expectation that we should reduce the consumption of single use plastics situates the responsibility for sustainability with the consumer rather than the producer, when, in fact, more top down, structural change is required. There is a discussion here as to the motivations behind sustainable development. In the last film Professor Hulme talked about the benefits to governments of investing in health and education, which in turn lead to a more productive, economically active society, which draws on resources less, for example through ill health. Beyond altruism, this argument suggests, it is in a country’s best interests to invest in its own development. This approach can be scaled up to argue that it is in the best interests of the global community to enhance general levels of development to reduce global threats of war, disease and so forth. In the next film, Khalid Malik draws upon this thesis to challenge the notion of ‘leaving nobody behind’, suggesting that it is an aspirational statement, that should inspire, rather than guide, action, and needs careful consideration.

As Khalid says, ‘poverty reduces your voice in a very profound way; it affects politics, it affects the way you go about living your life’. Nonetheless, he challenges poverty reduction strategies that focus entirely on the poorest of the poor, arguing instead for strategies that bring everybody along in the development process together. Certainly enhancing the livelihood of the poorest of the poor will have greater benefit for the rest of society, for example by enhancing economic activity through increases in disposable income. Khalid’s warning against just transferring money to the poor reflects the SDG focus on inequality, rather than poverty. Inequality applies to all, rich people and poor people and everybody in between.

- Charity and the SDGs in the shadow of austerity

As mentioned earlier, delivering ODA was set at 0.7% of GNP. This was enshrined in UK law by the coalition government in 2015. In 2017, Britain was the only member of the G7 to meet the 0.7% target, contributing a total of £14.5bn to the international aid budget according to figures published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The £487m year-on-year rise reflected a 3.5% growth in the UK economy, with the total ­budget equal to more than £10 a week for every household. The only donors more generous than Britain by proportion of their economies are Sweden (1.01%), Luxembourg (1%), Norway (0.99%) and Denmark (0.72%). There has been much debate, not least in the British press, about the UK’s commitment to 0.7% ODA in times of austerity.

In our next film, David Hulme unpacks the idea of charity, particularly in times of austerity, and the role of other organisations in partnership to fund the SDGs.

Certainly more work needs to be done to strengthen our understanding of how the SDGs might be financed, particularly in areas such as food security and agriculture, social protection, infrastructure and ecosystems, and especially if you link them to our earlier critique about missing data. That said, it is interesting to hear David Hulme talk about his pleasant surprise that the UK has not only met the ODA target of 0.7% but maintained it during austerity and the uncertainty of Brexit. Due to Covid-19, Britain cut its global aid budget by £2.9 billion but still meets the ODA commitment.

David also makes the interesting point that ‘when people are experiencing problems, they seem to be concerned about other people in deeper problems and they're then prepared to take action’ to explain why charitable contributions have continued. David’s argument suggest that people are motivated by a moral imperative to care, rather than self interest. The numbers bear this out. Recent research by Brockington and Banks (2017) illustrated that the public is the most important source of revenue for non-governmental (NGO) income, contributing 40%, but that charity is increasingly focused at home. Their research found that in 2015 of the £68billion spent on charities, £50billion was spent on those whose remit is only within the UK. It is interesting to juxtapose that information with the point Dr. Rory Horner made in chapter 1 of this module, that one of the tensions of seeing all countries as ‘developing’, is that it challenges the idea that we need to help others and, in turn, focuses attention and investment inwards.

This discussion highlights the role of the individual in the SDGs - both the individual as contributor and the individual as recipient. In the next film David goes on to talk about applying the SDGs at home, and the reality of leaving nobody behind.

Note how David reframes the SDGs as a set of values that should inspire action, starting at the individual level. Using the idea of the 'Good Life', and a good life for all, he illustrates the role of the individual in the bigger project that is development and the capacity, therefore, an individual has to instigate change. If we think back to the table we looked at earlier in the module, which summarised David Hulme's own paper about the different types of critique of the MDGs, we might characterise David himself as a 'high modernist', an optimist about the potential of the SDGs to transform the human condition.

- What is the potential of the SDGs?

The SDGs are a massive development project and, as we have discussed, they pose a number of challenges in their funding, application, delivery and measurement of success. Whilst the MDGs really split opinion as to whether they were a popularist gimmick or had real development potential, the SDGs are generally recognised as ‘a good thing’, but a good thing that requires global partnership and good governance if they are to be achieved. In our discussions with influential experts who are affecting change through research and policy, we asked what is exciting about the SDGs and what potential they might have to make positive change that leaves no one behind. You can listen to their answers in the next film.

So, how can we bring about change through the Sustainable Development Goals? The rest of the course will help you to critically consider that question.

We hope that Core Module 1 and Core Module 2 have given you a foundational understanding of sustainability and how that underpins the Sustainable Development Goals. We want you to draw upon this understanding as you work through the Goal Modules that make up the rest of the unit content. As you do, keep in mind the challenge of moving from the SDGs as a thinking device, to the SDGs as a platform for action, and how to operationalise that through partnership with new actors at multiple scales. We hope that considering your own role within the bigger picture will empower you, and enable you to recognise your potential to live ‘the Good Life’.

- A note on practicalities

Please note: this information is for UCIL20311 and UCIL20411 students only.

UCIL20311 Students - 10 credits

The 16 Goal Modules which make up the rest of this unit will be released at intervals, starting at 12.00 on Wednesday 28th October (Week 4). See unit calendar for details.

Remember, you must complete six Goal Modules, of your choice. Each Goal Module should take around 2 hours to work through. We hope that releasing the modules at intervals will help you to plan your route through the unit content, and work through them at a pace that suits you.

Do take a moment to study the release schedule in the Unit Calendar, and think about the Modules you’ll choose.

There might be some benefit to choosing a goal that is outside of your normal area of expertise – it could be fascinating to consider Quality Education (SDG4) from your perspective as an engineer, for example, or consider Industry, Infrastructure and Innovation (SDG 9) from the perspective of a social anthropologist. We are interested in your insights into, and understanding of, sustainability as informed by the SDGs.

You will be expected to draw on Goal Modules, as well as the Core Modules, in all unit assessments from Week 4 onwards.

UCIL20411 Students - 20 credits

The 16 Goal Modules which make up the rest of this unit will be released at intervals, starting at 12.00 on Wednesday 28th October (Week 4). See unit calendar for details.

Remember, you must complete all 16 Goal Modules, but you can work through them in any order you like. Each Goal Module should take around 2 hours to work through. We hope that releasing the modules at intervals will help you to plan your route through the unit content, and work through them at a pace that suits you - don’t try to do them all at once!

You will be expected to draw on Goal Modules, as well as the Core Modules, in all unit assessments from Week 4 onwards.

- Over to you

UCIL is the University College for Interdisciplinary Learning.  We see the opportunity to bring together students, future change makers, from across disciplines, as truly exciting and a unique partnership for change.  The  16 goal modules that make up this unit have been constructed by expert researchers, and bring together interdisciplinary voices from practice, policy and academia.  Of course, there is no limit to the number of voices that we could hear, and the range of case studies that we could draw upon, to illustrate the potential role of the SDGs in sustainable development - but we have to start, and indeed stop, somewhere.  If an economist had constructed the module about poverty rather than Ed and Matt who are development researchers, the module would be different.  Marc, who has written SDG 13, Climate Action, is a self declared climate activist.  That module would be very different if it had been written by a policy maker.  This course is living and breathing, it will evolve as the world around us does.   So, we invite you to partner with us, to shape the future of this course and to create a more Sustainable World.  

At the end of each module you will find a Feedback form, and an ‘Activating Learning’ section.  Activating Learning provides examples of practical things that you can do to move from learning content to potential action, if you wish. We'd like you to sue the feedback form to tell us what you think about the module, but we'd also like you to take it as an opportunity to contribute to future iterations of this course.  So, if you find interesting case studies, or papers that you would like your colleagues to read, or would like to share different perspectives, please add ideas and links in your response to the question 'How can we improve this module?' 

- Feedback

We'd very much like your feedback on this module. Please take a moment to complete the short feedback form below.