ÃûæÂÖ±²¥

The SDGs to date

The UN’s  notes the progress that has been made to date, with social protection now reaching over half the world’s population, up significantly from a decade ago, a reduction of new HIV infections by nearly 40 per cent since 2010 and 110 million more children in school since 2015.

However, ten years on, the international landscape has changed considerably, and the SDGs are suffering because of it.  or making moderate progress, while almost half are ‘moving too slowly’ and, shockingly, 18 per cent of targets have gone backwards. The wide-ranging impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic – both social, political and economic – have hit hard. Plus, the 30-year peace dividend enjoyed in the Northern hemisphere abruptly came to an end after Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine, which has also setback many economies. In the global South, unequal tax policies and debt burdens are restricting growth. All of this means that the already large finance gap for the SDGs has grown, and countries are struggling with fewer resources.

The UN estimates that $5–7 trillion is needed annually to achieve the SDGs by 2030. But at the same time as costs are increasing, we’ve seen more challenges to mobilising finance, including unprecedented  – used to secure other types of funding for SDGs as well as contributing to them directly.  However, the ODA budget cuts indicate not only economic constraints but also a lack of political will. Sadly, President Trump’s view of the world has exacerbated and accelerated a downward spiral of belief in a shared international project. In fact, the  put it in stark terms when it said (ironically on the ‘International Day of Peaceful Coexistence’) that “the United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course.”

Geopolitical tensions

The very concept of the SDGs has of course been debated extensively since they were established, and geopolitical tensions and the rise of self-interest politics mean that even the idea of ‘global goals’ as a viable initiative are coming even more into question.

The rules, and norms, which underpin development cooperation – and the SDGs – have been undermined for decades (as discussed in ). There is welcome, growing emphasis from on the value of equitable, long-term partnerships as core to the future of “development”, yet this should not supplant the importance of focusing on shared and common purpose, and achieving impact towards a more equitable and sustainable world through collective action.

Sadly, such efforts are being constantly undermined by nation-first, aggressive actions. Continual breaches of international law such as Israel committing an ongoing genocide in Gaza and its attack in Qatar and the US’s fatal attacks on boats in Venezuela is upending international order and undermining the UN’s stature and ability to tackle crises – or global initiatives.

New international alliances

But not all is lost. With the urgent need to make progress on so many of the SDGs – which millions of people in the world are relying on for access to clean water, food to feed their families, education and a life free from gender-based violence – we need to galvanise those who still have a genuine desire for accelerating progress on the SDGs in the next five years.

The new alliances coming to the fore offer an opportunity for a new approach to the SDGs. In the news recently, we have seen diverse alliances emerging, most evidently led by China, alongside India and Russia. China, now an established investor in development, through its trillion-dollar infrastructure-based Belt and Road Initiative and the China International Development Cooperation Agency. But this investment varies between countries and is often contentious and is .

Examples of progressive new alliances can also be seen through the , launched by Brazil at last year’s G20, and through leadership seen by Spain, who hosted the Financing for Development summit this year, and South Africa’s presidency of the G20 – recently launching the . Recent elections in a number of donor countries are also revealing  of popular support for more progressive politics, even whilst far-right political movements continue to pose an existential threat to global cooperation.

Participatory and synergistic

As these new alliances emerge, it is important that they are held to account to ensure that they deliver for justice and equity, and that they incorporate the views and needs of people across the world who are marginalised and underrepresented. Decades of IDS research demonstrates the power of participatory decision-making, the power of sharing knowledge, and the key role played by civil societies around the world.  Listening to those who are living with the consequences of not achieving many of the targets and goals in their everyday lives is essential to make maximum progress over the next five years.

Another area of practice to harness is the concept of  – championed by IDS and ÃûæÂÖ±²¥ colleagues at the Sussex Sustainability Research Programme. In a time of few resources, it focuses on ‘making the most with the least’ and helping countries identify and implement policies and measures that accelerate progress across two or more goals simultaneously. It is an approach we should all get behind, promoting efficiency and effectiveness, with an equity lens.

What comes after the SDGs

The UN is understandably keen to focus on what can be achieved now, is itself likely to go through significant change processes, and is delaying formal discussions about what might come after the SDGs until 2027.  However, debates continue and it is important that we learn from the past decade of the SDGs. Will the SDGs prove to be a basis for ongoing cooperation around global development challenges, or a reason to change the approach entirely?

 shows that the framework provided by the SDGs has helped frame the challenges globally and acted to steer efforts and focus minds. So perhaps there is still an argument for a global framework, but of a quite different kind, more suited for a “post-Aid world”. Should there, for example, be more control, accountability and priority settings at the regional or country-level, with a focus on local priorities and local ownership – set through initiatives such as citizen assemblies, and prioritising greater engagement of civil society?

But right now, we need to be ready to act in ways which enable us to move beyond managed decline which feels now associated with the remaining period of the SDGs. Instead, we need to be ready and willing to take the risks needed to move towards a revolution in thinking and practices, which shapes our priorities and choices. Morally, it feels inadequate to keep repeating the mantras and principles that have not been adhered to over many decades of development cooperation. We’ll need to do much better, together and in genuine solidarity, if we want to achieve more than we’re now expecting from the SDGs.