SDG Progress Beyond the Averages
The long-story-short of SDG progress is that only 17% of the targets are on track toward their 2030 deadline; progress is moderate or minimal on close to half of the targets; and more than a third are either stalled or regressing. While overall progress is clearly insufficient, this “assessment by averages” can hide important success stories.
Progress in one group of countries can be offset by regression in others, and many SDG indicators amalgamate multiple trends that can hide success on a specific issue. In education, for example, the UN’s 2024 SDG report indicates girls have reached parity or even surpassed boys in school completion rates, while overall completion rates have been increasing steadily. However, a part of this success is offset by declines in student skills and a decrease in completion rates in some regions.
Similarly, in health, the world has seen significant reductions in HIV infections alongside improved access to HIV medications. Child mortality has reached a historic low. At the same time, the impacts of COVID-19 continue to show as a reduction in life expectancy. Grouped with several other troubling health metrics, this leads to an “average” finding of decelerating progress in health—hiding the first two wins.
These examples provide several lessons to keep in mind when we judge the value of the SDGs. First, the broad scope of the SDG framework leads us to look only at the highest levels of aggregation of both data and issues, almost systematically overlooking success stories in certain areas that would have been reason to celebrate under earlier hyper-focused development agendas.
Second, we must acknowledge the world is failing the very rationale for designing a comprehensive and universal agenda. Progress is highly uneven between countries and across issues.
Add to this that the impacts of COVID-19, conflict, and climate change are disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable, and we must admit the world is still not setting the right priorities that would unleash the SDGs’ true potential.
Looking Beyond the SDG Framework
While the SDG framework tries to articulate a holistic vision of the world we want, events and discourse over the past years have revealed changing perspectives on principles like inclusion, equality, and life in harmony with nature.
The international community has dramatically failed to live up to its promise to leave no one behind and address the needs of those most behind first. Underneath the dire assessment, however, attention has shifted from defining targets that are thought to reflect outcomes—like reduced poverty, equality and prosperity for all—to reforming processes such as inclusive governance and economic decision making. For example, Indigenous voices advocating for a rights-based approach to self-determination have increased our awareness that we must address multi-dimensional barriers to participation in the decision-making process to empower marginalized groups in devising pathways out of poverty and discrimination.
This discussion is accompanied by a perceived shift from objectives defining equality—often framed as equality of opportunity—to equity in outcomes. This acknowledges those who have been pushed back by complex causes should receive direct support based on their specific needs to guarantee their well-being.
Related Articles: A Short History Of The SDGs | All SDGs ‘Seriously Off Track,’ UN Report Finds | A (Non) Modest Proposal for the G20: A Sustainable World Commission to Achieve the SDGs | Bleak Outlook for UN’s Sustainable Development Goals | Maximizing Progress on the 2030 Agenda
The key to achieving equity is giving agency to those with lived experience in poverty and marginalization. They should decide how marginalization is defined and measured so that their voices are heard and counted in decision making. This is also reflected in a growing debate among NGOs, academia and some governmental donors about the need to localize international development aid.
Our understanding of our relationship with our environment is also changing. For example, the Global Biodiversity Framework recognizes that humans are part of nature and that ecosystems are also livelihoods. This is a departure from older concepts that pitched conservation objectives against the rights of those living in the areas to be conserved. Similarly, the concept of ecosystem goods and services—which focused narrowly on the monetary values of ecosystem benefits—has been replaced by the broader concept of nature’s contributions to people, which recognizes non-monetary benefits as well as negative consequences of human-environment interactions, such as spreading new pathogens.
The SDG Framework has also inspired shifts in the governance of implementation, especially on the role of local governments in monitoring and reporting. SDG localization is taking hold.
The SDGs Are the Future
The Summit of the Future is an opportunity to rally behind the SDG framework, readjust priorities and restore trust and commitment in the multilateral system, making it fit for the next decades.
While recognizing that progress to date is insufficient, we should acknowledge the successes the 2030 Agenda has delivered. The SDG framework is not perfect, but there is still time to improve its track record.
** **
This article was originally published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and is republished here as part of an editorial collaboration with the IISD. It was authored by Stefan Jungcurt, Elena Kosolapova, Eleonora Bonaccorsi.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed here by the authors are their own, not those of Impakter.com — Cover Photo Credit: UN SDGs.
