SDG Target #3.2

SDG #3 is to “To ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.”

Within SDG #3 are 13 targets, of which we here focus on Target 3.2:

By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births

Target 3.2 has two indicators:

  • Indicator 3.2.1: Under‑5 mortality rate

  • Indicator 3.2.2: Neonatal mortality rate

The under-5 mortality rate measures the number of child deaths occurring in a given population for those under the age of 5, whereas the neonatal mortality rate measures the number of infant deaths in a population.

Both indicators measure within a population for every 1000 live births, therefore excluding fetuses which did not survive the perinatal period. The definition of neonates, or newborns, for the purposes of Indicator 3.2.2 is within the first 28 days of birth, after which, the death of a child older than 28 days, but less than 5-year-old, would fit into the definition of Indicator 3.2.1

Data used for these measures is reported by UNICEF, the UN agency for aid for children. The source of data and estimates for child mortality and stillbirth estimates is collected by United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (IGME), led by UNICEF, but supported by the WHO, the World Bank and the UN Population Division. The data is collected from a combination of deaths registered by the relevant civil bodies in a country, as well as census data and household surveys of full birth history. A full birth history is a list of all children a woman has given birth to, including their date of birth, sex, whether the child survived, the child’s age, if they’re still alive, or the age of death if they died. Another measure, summary birth history, only asks mothers for the number of children ever born and the number who died. Adjustments are made in calculating the mortality rate in areas with high prevalence of HIV/AIDS, as mothers who’ve died from AIDS are unable to report on the mortality of their children.

As of 2020, the child mortality rate for the world is 36.6 deaths per 1000 live births, down from 42.6 in 2015, the adoption year of the SDGs, and from 93.2 in 1990, yet still short of the 2030 target of 25 deaths of children under-5 per 1000 live births.

For the neonatal mortality rate, with an aim of 12 neonatal deaths per 1000 live births by 2030, the 2020 neonatal rate is 17, down from 19.3 in 2015, and 36.7 in 1990.

SDG Target #3.1

SDG #3 is to “To ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.”

Within SDG #3 are 13 targets, of which we here focus on Target 3.1:

By 2030, reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births.

Target 3.1 has two indicators:

  • Indicator 3.1.1: Maternal mortality ratio

  • Indicator 3.1.2: Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel

The causes of maternal death are manifold. Many of the deaths relate to complications of the cardiovascular system of the blood vessels and the heart. These include postpartum bleeding, which can be treated with intravenous blood transfusion in countries and communities where healthcare coverage is sufficient to offer this. 

Mothers can experience high blood pressure in their arteries as a result of the pregnancy, in some instances identified by proteinuria, an abundance of proteins found in the urine. High blood pressure accompanied by proteinuria may indicate a form of high blood pressure related to pregnancy known as pre-eclampsia.

Strokes are possible, whereby blood flow is unable to reach the brain in sufficient amounts, leading to the death of cells. Likewise, embolisms can form in the pulmonary artery, impeding the heart from sending blood toward the lungs.

Other reasons can include obstructed labour and unsafe abortions.

In countries with high prevalence of HIV/AIDS, this is the leading cause of death during pregnancy and postpartum. 

Relevant to this, those countries with low GDP per capita are more likely to have less healthcare coverage, making poverty an obvious risk factor for maternal mortality. Another risk factor related to this is the fertility rate, reflecting a phenomenon whereby the birth rates of poor countries are higher because of the poverty trap. When compounded by low health care coverage in these countries, a high fertility rate, low levels of income and low health care coverage form a recipe for high maternal mortality rates.

In terms of prevention of maternal deaths, complications in the term of a pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period can be mitigated by the presence of skilled birth attendants, in communities where doctors specialised in obstetrics and gynaecology are absent.

Other worthwhile preventions are family planning methods and birth control, to prevent unwanted pregnancies putting a potential mother at risk of death.

Prenatal care can also act as a form of preventive healthcare

Healthcare coverage also tends to ensure an aseptic medical environment, free of pathogenic bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites which cause septic infections in tissues from these pathogens

Complementing the existence of health care coverage are public health campaigns, which can promote preventive behaviours and mitigate the risks of maternal death.

The Millenium Development Goals, the UN goals which preceded the SDGs, had an entire goal devoted to maternal health. Millenium Development Goal #5 set the objective to improve maternal health. Target #5A of the MDGs corresponds with the SDG target we’re looking at here, focused upon the maternal mortality ratio. Target #5A was to “Reduce by three-quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio”

In setting a global standard for diagnosing health issues, the World Health Organisation classifies diseases according to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). According to this classification, maternal death is defined as deaths occurring whilst a mother is pregnant, or within 42 days following the termination of the pregnancy. 

The most recent global data for maternal mortality ratio is from 2017, 211 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, down only a little from the 2015 baseline of 219 per 100,000, and 342 per 100,000 from the start of the MDG period in 2000. To reach this target’s objective, we need to reduce this down to 70 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births by 2030. 

To offer an example of a country which is on has achieved this target, and is on track to achieve SDG #3 overall, Australia had a maternal mortality ratio in 2020 of 5.5 deaths per 100,000, or the equivalent of 16 maternal deaths.

The proportion of births attended by skilled health attendants worldwide is 80% as of 2018, up from 62% in 2000.

SDG Target #2.C

SDG #2 is to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”

Within SDG #2 are eight targets, of which we here focus on Target 2.c:

Adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets and their derivatives and facilitate timely access to market information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food price volatility.

Target 2.c has a singular indicator:

  • Indicator 2.c.1: indicator of food price anomalies.

An indicator of food price anomalies is a measure of market prices which deviate much higher-than-normal prices. One of the means to measure this is via a consumer price index, or CPI. A CPI is a statistic measuring the inflation experienced by households, or the price changes of household expenditure. Within this, different categories of household expenditure can be broken down from the total, such as food expenditure. 

At the international level, FAOSTAT, the statistical body of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) collects this data. 

This responsibility is a function of Article I of the FAO Constitution, which calls on the FAO to “collect, analyse, interpret and disseminate information relating to nutrition, food and agriculture.”

The FAO uses the FPMA, or Food Price Monitoring and Analysis, a tool which holds information and analyses of consumer prices of basic foodstuffs over the years across developing countries. Thanks to such tools and data, this evidence can be used to help make political decisions about food and agriculture at the national and international level.

SDG Target #2.B

SDG #2 is to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”

Within SDG #2 are eight targets, of which we here focus on Target 2.b, which is:

Correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets, including through the parallel elimination of all forms of agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development Round.

Target 2.b has a singular indicator: 

  • Indicator 2.b.1: agricultural export subsidies. 

First of all, what is the Doha Development Round? 

The Doha Development Round is a so-called round of negotiations within the World Trade Organisation, which began in 2001 at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha, the capital of Qatar, focused on the topic of lowering barriers to international trade. Whilst the WTO is an intergovernmental organisation, it is not part of the UN System

WTO Ministerial Conferences were subsequently held in Cancun and Hong Kong, but the contentions hindering agreement between developed and developing countries, particularly around agriculture subsidies paid by governments to agribusinesses, has been a relative constant, and is currently at an impasse.

Trade in goods and services between countries is generally considered a good thing. But when countries adopt protectionist economic policies such as taxes on imports or exports, import quotas, or any other hindrance at customs, other countries may consider such policies to put themselves at a relative trade disadvantage, in terms of the effect such policies could have on farmers and consumers in their own country.

Not all countries are members of the WTO, though 164 of the UN Member States are WTO Members. Largely, the organisation exists with the purpose of members collectively lowering tariffs and trade barriers, for both goods, as well as services and intellectual property, as well as setting out the procedures for settling disputes, whilst allowing for special treatment for developing countries. 

An important WTO treaty in the context of Target 2.b is the Agreement on Agriculture. This brings up another round of international trade negotiation, this one known as the Uruguay Round, under the aegis of the General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade, the forebear of the WTO.

The culmination of the Uruguay Round was the Marrakesh Agreement in Morocco, which established the WTO itself, as well as the Agreement on Agriculture was signed in April 1994.

It’s common for countries to support their domestic agriculture sectors, including subsidies for agricultural goods to be exported. In the jargon of Article 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture, this support is measured using the term the “Aggregate Measurement of Support”, for the annual monetary outlay in favour of an agricultural product. The idea is any support of income or price which boosts exports, or limits imports from another country, in a free trade environment, other countries are going to want to know why such support for the given product was necessary if they’re not to do likewise in their own countries. 

By definition of the WTO’s Subsidies Agreement, subsidies are any benefits conferred by government in the forms of transferring funds or guaranteeing loans, tax credits, providing goods or services outside of infrastructure, or otherwise purchasing goods, as well as financing a body outside of government to emulate the aforementioned functions. Per the Subsidies Agreement, WTO members are not to use subsidies causing adverse effects to other members, in the form of “injury to the domestic industry of another member”, or “causing serious prejudice to their interests of another Member”. Under Article 6 of the Subsidies Agreement, this is deemed as subsidisation greater than 5% of its value, debt forgiveness, and covering losses of an industry or a business, with the exception of once-off instances.

Measuring the target of eliminating agricultural export subsidies by 2030, using data from the WTO, the world has reduced this amount to the equivalent of $58 million as of 2019, down from $217 million at the adoption the SDGs in 2015, and a height of $6.69 billion in 1999.

SDG Target #2.A

SDG #2 is to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”

Within SDG #2 are eight targets, of which we’ll here focus on Target 2.a, which is:

Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular least developed countries

Within target 2.a are two indicators:

  • Indicator 2.a.1: The agriculture orientation index for government expenditures.

  • Indicator 2.a.2: Total official flows (official development assistance plus other official flows) to the agriculture sector.

Investment in general is central to the SDGs, with the implication monetary or other value is allocated with the incentive of a future return, suggesting the intergenerational aspect of the concept of sustainable development.

For the world’s most vulnerable, it’s a far stretch for most of our imaginations to suspend the ubiquity of money and finance in our daily lives to consider the lives of those tilling the soil for subsistence, far-flung from markets. For these people in such communities, the importance of their assets used for their livelihood, and the appreciation of such capital, can be life or death. Whilst in the developed world, talk of investment may bring to mind corporate profits dispensed as dividends to shareholders, for small-scale farmers, investment can mean a hand on the bottom rung of the development ladder out of penury.

But government investment in agriculture needn’t necessarily be financial. It can come in the form of investments in physical capital, such as infrastructure. For a small-scale farmer in the developing world to participate in the economy, they must be connected with markets. If the farmer lives isolated from towns and cities to reach markets, they require roads and railways. To figure out if making the trip to market is worth the bother depending on prices they can fetch, they can save themselves travelling with access to telecommunications, and electric grids to power them. The importance of rural development also ties in with SDG #9 for Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

Aside from investing in physical capital, governments can invest in human capital, via education among other means. Amid the context of this goal, this means educating farmers, a practice known as agricultural extension. Cutting-edge techniques, skills and tools, and the fruit of science and knowledge can be imparted to farmers to better their yield and income, and more efficiently use inputs. The agricultural revolution was humanity’s first wave of technology after all, but in the modern era, its practice can still benefit from the internet and telecommunications to better participate in the global economy, and to better manage the environment.

Also of importance are gene banks, where specimens of DNA are kept in repositories. A type of gene bank for plants are seed banks, where seeds are kept as a means of protecting genetic biodiversity in agriculture. For animals, sperm and egg cells of species are kept frozen.

For much of the developing world working in the agriculture sector, shocks from exchange rates from distant lands, fickle to the impact upon developing country food prices, can ruin lives and livelihoods. These reasons make the importance of governments acting as public investors for their own agriculture sector all the more important, as what financial profit can a private investor expect to make upon an agricultural sector in a given country which is barely productive? This would be too risky for the investor, for the smallholder would be too likely to default on any financing received.

Therefore, low-income governments need an investment strategy for agricultural development due to its centrality to rural development and poverty alleviation, and as we’ll see, statistics are central to its successful implementation.    

Looking closer at Indicator 2.a.1, the Agriculture Orientation Index (AOI) for Government Expenditures is defined as the portion of government spending toward agriculture, per the Classification of the Functions of Government, divided by agriculture’s contribution to the value-added share of a country’s GDP, according to the UN’s System of National Accounts. According to this definition, ‘agriculture’ includes the forestry, fishing and hunting sectors, per Section A of the UN’s International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC), the classification of all economic activities. Also, according to this definition, government spending is considered to be all expenditure, as well as acquiring non-financial assets in support of the agricultural sector. The data to measure this indicator on government spending is collected by an annual questionnaire by the FAO, whilst the data on value-added agricultural output originates from national accounts.

Included in government spending on agriculture for the purposes of this indicator includes policies and programs on soil improvement and mitigating soil degradation, managing animal health, research on livestock and animal husbandry; research on marine and freshwater biology, and afforestation and forestry. This spending increases the agricultural sector’s productivity and income growth, as well as increasing capital, both human and physical. The public sector is able to fill this void, commonly receiving less investment than the private sector, with the markets failing to provide for income redistribution. 

For Indicator 2.a.2, we return to the topic of ODA, which we explored in the video for Target 1.a. The wording of Indicator 2.a.2 also mentions ‘other official flows’, which in the jargon of the OECD are official transactions not meeting the criteria of ODA, either because they’re not aimed at financing sustainable development, or are not concessional.

The OECD’s Development Assistance Committee identifies what specific sectors a transfer to a recipient is intended to foster, with transfers for this indicator targeted to the purposes of the agricultural sector. The OECD maintains all this information in its Creditor Reporting System, to compare where aid from DAC member countries has gone, the purpose the donor intended to serve, and which policies were used to implement such intentions.

SDG Target #2.5

SDG #2 is to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”

Within SDG #2 are eight targets, of which we’ll here focus on Target 2.5: 

By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and promote access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed.

Within target 2.5 are two indicators:

  • Indicator 2.5.1: Number of (a) plant and (b) animal genetic resources for food and agriculture secured in either medium- or long-term conservation facilities.

  • Indicator 2.5.2: Proportion of local breeds classified as being at risk of extinction.

The UN agency overseeing the topic of genetic resources for food and agriculture is the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

Much of this conservation occurs in gene banks, which are biological repositories of the DNA and RNA of life forms, which exist to maintain the diversity of genes of various lifeforms. One of the reasons for this is because biodiversity - explored in greater depth in Goals #14 and 15 - is necessary for food security, in line with the aims of Goal #2 to end hunger and ensure sustainable agriculture.

Genebanks maintain such samples outside their natural environment (or ex situ) rather than protected or managed on the farm (in situ). The FAO maintains two systems to help account for the genes maintained by gene banks, each system pertaining to the respective use of animals and plants for food and agriculture: the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS) and the WIEWS (World Information and Early Warning System on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture).

The management of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture is guided by International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, a global treaty aiming to ensure food security, nature conservation, and the sustainability of plant genetic resources. This treaty is implemented via the Second Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, adopted by the FAO in 2011.

The corresponding agreement for animal genetic resources for food and agriculture is the Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources, adopted by the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in 2007, as well as the Convention on Biological Diversity.

SDG Target #2.4

SDG #2 is to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”

Within SDG #2 are eight targets, of which we here focus on Target 2.4, which is:

By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality.”

Within target 2.4 is a sole indicator:

  • Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture.

We touched on the importance of the future of sustainable agriculture in an earlier SDG #2 target. It’s a complex issue, and very much sensitive to the varied unique agro-ecologies the world over.

Sustainable agriculture seeks to meet the challenges of scarce freshwater resources, erosion, surface runoff, salinisation, imbalances in the environmental cycles of nitrogen, phosphate and carbon, slash-and-burn practices clearing forests, using advanced techniques of irrigation and water efficiency, crop rotation.

Whilst not at scale, the practices of urban agriculture emphasise local food like roof gardens, community gardens, sharing gardens. Other concepts of importance include organic farming using natural manures and other techniques in contrast to synthetic fertilisers. Regenerative agriculture is another field receiving more attention recently for its emphasis on protecting biodiversity and ecosystems, a philosophy shared with the discipline of permaculture. 

Standards and certification have also made recognising food grown sustainably easier for consumers, such as organic certification, the Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade certification.

At a political level, the European Commission’s European Green Deal sets forth to make European food systems sustainable, whilst the US Department of Agriculture has historically been a driver of intensified agriculture, with attendant ills for human diet and ecological damage.

Sustainable food systems don’t just encompass how food is produced, but its distribution, with local food being environmentally better, as well as benefitting the sustainability of our diets and food loss and waste

In acknowledging the importance of agriculture’s relationship with ecosystems, climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters, we see SDG #2’s interplay with Goal’s 13 through 15 - all topics we’ll examine further in the targets within those respective goals.

Without agriculture our civilisation never could have reached the levels of population size nor prosperity many of us experience. Advances in agronomy have proffered more food, fuel and fibre for humankind. Examples are agrochemicals, pesticides to keep pests away from crops, fertilisers to provide plants the chemical nutrients they need to grow.

Yet agricultural practices do not come without an environmental impact. The welfare of animals beside humans is largely neglected or ignored. Agriculture has been, and continues to be a major drive of climate change, the practice itself in its current form a large greenhouse gas emitter. 

The importance of forests to heading off climate change is widely understood, yet deforestation still occurs on a massive scale for the purposes of creating pasture for grazing.

Can our aquifers, which sustain our vital freshwater supplies contend with what agriculture draws from it, and pollutes it with? Will the degradation imposed on the land put us at greater risk of desertification, turning once healthy soil mixtures, supporting life itself, into drylands. 

Can the environment handle what we take from it and feed into it, or are we risking the depletion of resources necessary for human survival? Are we risking the compromise of the quality of our air, water and soil - even entire ecosystems? Do our patterns put at peril the destruction of habitats, the extinction of species of wildlife, biodiversity loss and pollution at large? Is the production of animal feed for livestock an inefficient use of precious resources?

Have we placed ourselves higher on the food chain than is necessary to live healthy lives? Do we need to slaughter cattle, pigs and sheep? Do we need products from the milk of cows, buffaloes, goats and sheep? Do we need textiles derived from sheep, cashmere and mohair from goats and animal skins for clothing? 

Both humans and animals are affected by the use of antibiotics, growth hormones and genetically engineered lifeforms in the meat and dairy industry.

We humans need fuel to work; raw materials to turn goods into products; grains, vegetables and oils for cooking.

Yet our policies around agriculture need to change, and we need to harness the science and economics of agriculture to be sustainable.

SDG Target #2.3

SDG #2 is to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”

Within SDG #2 are eight targets, of which this episode will focus on Target 2.3:

By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment.

Within target 2.3 are two indicators:

  • Indicator 2.3.1: The volume of production per labour unit by classes of farming/pastoral/forestry enterprise size.

  • Indicator 2.3.2: Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status.

Target 2.3 is the first target focusing on agriculture, an aspect of sustainable development perhaps undervalued for its impact on all facets of human life.

The cultivation of crops and rearing of livestock was not always inherent to human culture. It sprung forth when humans shifted from hunter-gatherer lifestyles, settling into the land in fixed civilisations, tilling the land to make it arable to sow seeds, and domesticating animals around them on farms, eventually producing crop harvests to a surplus level beyond mere subsistence. 

In the modern era, agriculture has shifted from smallholding to industrialised farms, characterised by crop monocultures and animals selectively bred through science for the optimal traits, farming crops and animals intensively. The practice of animal husbandry of livestock produces commodities such as meat, milk, eggs and animal fibres like fur, leather and wool for human use.

So, while target 2.3 is asking us to double agricultural productivity and crop yield for the purposes of food security, we must do so sustainably, both in terms of the environment, but also economic inequality, mindful of the effects of the market value on the factors of production and outputs affecting those at the bottom distribution of wealth and income in society. Making this balancing act trickier is the trend of human overpopulation at unsustainable levels, predominantly in countries facing the most acute food security challenges.

In parallel, target 2.3 is asking the world to double the money received in exchange for the agricultural goods of farmers in each given country operating in the bottom 40% of land size in hectares, number of livestock, and revenue from agriculture.

In particular, it singles out women, indigenous people whose farms may have been historically compromised by settler colonialism, family farms, nomadic pastoralists tending herds of sheep or cattle and fishermen.

Quantifying this, within Indicator 2.3.1, is the volume of agricultural output of crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry per day of labour, measured in dollars. 

The means of measurement are the FAO’s AGRISurvey, or the World Bank’s Integrated Surveys of Agriculture, a household survey financed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as part of the broader Living Standards Measurement Study.

Another of the UN’s specialised agencies working toward the ends of this indicator is the International Fund for Agricultural Development, tasked with the financing of poverty and hunger in the rural areas of developing countries. The IFAD, in tandem with the FAO and World Bank have developed a system called RuLIS, or the Rural Livelihoods Information System to harmonise the household surveys on rural poverty. 

The importance of this data is consistent with Article I of the FAO, outlining the organization’s functions, i.e. “Collect, analyse, interpret and disseminate information relating to nutrition, food and agriculture.”

Indicator 2.3.2 looks at a similar measure of smallholder agriculture incomes.

As is to be expected, small-scale farmers have produced lower output per day of labour in the SDG period than their larger counterparts, with larger producers earning two or three times the income of small-scale producers.

In addressing the disaggregation by sex of Indicator 2.3.2, male-led households have been achieving higher productivity and larger incomes than female-led households.

SDG Episode #6 - Guillaume Lafortune, SDSN

In this episode, we’re joined by Guillaume Lafortune, Vice President and director of the Paris office of the SDSN, the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, under the auspices of the UN. Guillaume also coordinates, and is a co-author, of the SDSN’s Sustainable Development Report, published each year since 2016

Dominic Billings: Guillaume, what was your path to your current career? I know that you studied Economics and Public Administration in Quebec. But what was your path to where you are now?

Guillaume Lafortune:  Well as you said, Dominic, I’m an economist by training. I've always been also interested in public policies. I would say, at large. Did a very classic path from a school of public administration to entering government, the Ministry of Economic Development, in Quebec, Canada, working with small and medium enterprises, and trying to see how we can support them in scaling up, and including looking at international opportunities also abroad, Quebec being a small market. There's always this idea that it's important also for Quebec companies to be in touch with what's going on elsewhere in the world. So, both this sort of focus on economics, but also the international dimension, has always been sort of part of my background, and broad interest in public policies. 

And then I think the other thread would be I’ve always been interested in doing research. But doing research that you can actually present to those that are eventually taking the decisions. That's why, for me, it was very good to enter, after my experience in government, to join the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris, where you do a lot of statistical analysis studies. But then you do present to the people in their governments, who are in charge of the respective portfolio? Whether it is about governance reform - I've worked quite a bit in the Public Governance department - but also, people in charge of the environmental portfolio in their country, education, health, and so on. You do present your studies to those that make decisions. 

And finally, that's also the link with my current work at the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, since we are a network of scientists that try to establish this sort of link with policymakers, with the UN system. We've been the knowledge brokers between what science is saying we should do, some of the solutions that science can bring, and also what the UN System and national governments can do. So, this focus on science on one side, but also the direct connection with decision-making, has always been an important part, I would say, in my career.

Dominic Billings:  You're one of the co-authors of the SDG Index - now titled the Sustainable Development Report. What was the story behind the formative stages of that? I know you collaborated with Guido Schmidt-Traub in particular, and Christian Kroll, one of the progenitors of the original. What was that process like in the very beginning for you?

Guillaume Lafortune:  So, in a nutshell, what the SDG Index does is, every year we track the performance of all the UN Member states on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. These are the goals that have been adopted by the international community, actually by all UN member states, back in 2015. We have to remember that this is the only comprehensive vision adopted internationally that looks at both social and economic progress, but also environment, climate, biodiversity and governance issues. So, it's a very comprehensive framework. There are 17 goals, 169 targets, and what we do at the SDSN, working of course with partners, is to look every year how countries are performing on those 17 SDGs. So, in terms of major stages, at the very beginning when we started doing this, there were really a lot of technical questions that needed to be resolved. Which indicators do you select? How do you aggregate across goals? How do you create an overall ranking, scoring and so on. So, we did quite a bit of work, both internally, but also in making sure that we were getting the necessary external checks to ensure that was scientifically robust 

So, we were peer reviewed by Nature Geoscience, Cambridge University Press, but also, we got in touch with the European Commission, and said, “Could you do a statistical audit of that report, because we really want to make sure that we're doing this right?” And also, that effort of comparing our results, via-a-vis other assessments that are being done by other organizations to really understand why, for certain Goals, our assessment was slightly different than what the OECD is presenting, or what Eurostat is presenting, for instance. So, the first step was really to make sure we were doing it right, and now the methodology is stable - we've been doing this since 2016-2017, so it's been a couple of additions now - it's really about how do we connect the findings with policy messages and the broader discussions around “How do we finance this agenda?”. One illustration of that second phase is we move from the report, which was called the ‘SDG Index’, to a report which is now called the ‘Sustainable Development Report’, because there is more than SDG Index. The Index remains the backbone, but there's much more policy discussions and sections.

Dominic Billings: How do you feel about the progress of the SDGs? The data and the report speak for itself, but on a personal level, how do you feel?

Guillaume Lafortune: Well, first of all, I continue to think that it is an incredible idea. This idea that we establish goals for humanity as a whole, that called for eradicating extreme poverty; hunger; access to social protection; healthcare and education for all; fight against income and wealth inequalities; access to water and sanitation, and then also move towards responsible consumption and production; climate action, and then strengthening institutions and international partnerships. I continue to think that this is an incredible idea, and it's the first time in human history that we were able to agree on a common set of goals. 

Despite differences in cultures, history and approaches to economic and public policy, all governments around the world managed to say “These are goals we should all be pursuing”. I really hope that this idea of goal-based development can continue. Obviously, now we should maintain our effort to try to do major breakthroughs on this Agenda until 2030. But then beyond 2030, I think it will be very important to also have an agenda that continues this sort of goal-based development. 

In terms of how the world is doing on the Sustainable Development Goals, it's very clear that the multiple crises we've been facing - from COVID-19, geopolitical tensions, security crises, now inflation, probably recession in many parts of the world, which is to come, budget pressures - these led to major setbacks and reversal in SDG progress. So, we were seeing overall, from the moment the SDGs were adopted to 2019, the world was making progress year-on-year. The overall SDG Index was progressing year-on-year until 2019, which was notably led by progress in some of the countries and regions in the world that were starting from very low points on the SDGs. So major progress in terms of fighting extreme poverty, for instance. But also access to basic infrastructure and services as well. Even before COVID-19 hit, we were still saying progress was too slow, certain Goals were not moving in the right direction, and there were major disparities across countries. But on average, the world was progressing on this Agenda. Since 2020, worldwide, we do not see any more progress on this agenda. 

It's stagnated and even reversed in progress in many parts of the world. What's a little bit sad is that reversal in progress is happening in particular in countries that are poor and vulnerable, and did not have the ability, for instance during COVID-19, to mobilize large amounts of money to finance the urgent expenditure related to the pandemic - but also, those recovery plans, as we have been able to do in a lot of the high-income countries. That's why all those international summits have happened -we're right after COP 27, there was an important G20 meeting also a few days ago - but also, we're heading towards a Heads of State Summit on the SDGs in September 2023

These are all very important to recognise where we've made progress since 2015 - because we're at halftime now in this agenda. But also come up with solutions and renewed commitments on how we are going to restore and accelerate SDG progress over the next couple years?

Dominic Billings:  You mentioned what was the ‘SDG Index’ is now been expanded to the ‘Sustainable Development Report’, and one of the features of the most recent report was financing, and another was spillover effects, of which the SDSN, with you as co-author, have published many reports, including as recent as this week

What about spillover effects requires the focus you’ve given it?

Guillaume Lafortune: The basic idea behind the spillover effects is, if we consider the SDGs as a global responsibility, and if countries aim to decarbonise their energy system and move towards more responsible consumption and production, the decarbonisation effort should not be achieved by outsourcing high-emitting sectors - whether it's cement or steel - to another country, and then re-importing production, so the emissions happen outside of our borders. 

So, on paper, everything looks good. We're” moving forward” in terms of decarbonising our economy, but in terms of overall carbon emissions, these are being outsourced and they happen elsewhere. The idea behind spillover effects - to capture those impacts embodied into trade and consumption. There are other types of spillover effects - for instance, financial flows and financial spillovers e.g., tax evasion, profit shifting, unfair tax competition, that can undermine the ability of other countries to mobilize resources to, to move towards those Goals.

And so, as you said, Dominic, at the SDSN, we've always considered integrating those spillover effects. Again, considering the SDGs are a global responsibility, and it makes no difference for climate change whether greenhouse gas emissions are generated within a country’s borders, or in another country for satisfying production. 

And by the way, that explains also why our results can sometimes be different from other assessments, because we include those types of indicators. On the spillover aspect, it's not only about environmental spillovers, but increasingly we also document deforestation embodied in our consumption. We also look at how much consumption, especially in rich countries, is leading to resource depletion, including water scarcity, in the rest of the world - but also social impacts. So, we're able to track now that each year, through the consumption of textile products, there's about 400 people that die in the world to satisfy the European Union's consumption of textile, and more than 20,000 people that have non-fatal accidents at work. We released a study earlier this week where we've identified that each year European consumption is associated with 1.2 million cases of forced labor around the world.

And we did a deep dive into fossil fuels and mineral materials, which is one of the supply chains where those impacts happen. So, the point here is to say, we need to track the effect we have through consumption, and we also need to adopt policies to curb those spillover effects and work with partner countries so we reduce our global footprint from consumption.

Dominic Billings: You mentioned the recent UNFCCC COP in Sharm El Sheik, but I know you’re going to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal. The Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC is enmeshed as part of SDG 13, but the ethos of the Convention on Biological Diversity underpins SDG 14 and 15. How do you feel about the outcome of COP 27 in Sharm El Sheikh, and how do you feel about the forthcoming CBD COP in Montreal?

Guillaume Lafortune:  On the COP in Egypt, the outcome is mixed. On the positive side, there's been quite a good breakthrough when it comes to recognizing some of the historical responsibilities, in terms of emissions for climate change, and the fact we need to move into a financial mechanism to share more fairly globally, the costs of losses and damages related to natural and climate events. But also, the costs of adapting infrastructure especially, so the most vulnerable countries that are often not responsible for climate change, can finance losses and damages and adaptation. So, at least the political consensus that emerged this year is a move in the right direction. The major aspect where we're not seeing enough progress is commitments, pledges and trajectories on the mitigation side, in terms of accelerating the decarbonization of the production system and economies globally.

So that remains an important loophole, and it's becoming, you know, harder and harder to stick to that 1.5-degree objective, as part of the Paris Climate Agreement. But on the biodiversity side, it's also really important. On the climate side, we have the Paris Climate Agreement - a global target has helped to mobilize actions, energy and momentum around that goal. 

The fact that we don't have the equivalent of a Paris Climate Agreement for biodiversity might explain why we're still a little bit lagging behind when it comes to global actions on biodiversity. The numbers are terrible when it comes to biodiversity loss, deforestation, and so on. To give a very practical example, when we look at the bees, 70% of what we eat requires pollination. So, as we see the number of bees dropping, there's a real question around, “What are we gonna do?” This is where I'm not sure innovation and progress - for instance, replacing bees with drones - will really help us out. It's really an issue around how do we prevent this from happening, and how do we also put a price on the natural services that nature is providing?

So, there's big discussions right now around pricing the natural services. But beyond that, I really hope Montreal can become for biodiversity what Paris has been for climate.

So big hopes for the biodiversity conference in Montreal, and it's very important, because we see it every year when you do the SDG Index. The biodiversity indicators are really not moving in the right direction at all.

Dominic Billings: Guillaume, on a personal level, if you trace your life from maybe the beginning of your tertiary education through to now, what's driven you? What's brought you to where you are now a person?

Guillaume Lafortune: I've always wanted to try to work for the common good. At least do my best to do something that has a positive impact on the world. Now I have two kids - they're very young, a small baby and a four-year-old - but in 10 or 15 years, when I’ll be explaining to them what I'm doing professionally, I'll be able to demonstrate or show them I've done my best. 

So, they can live in a world where you have opportunities, you are safe. You're not being hit by droughts and heat waves and natural disasters all the time. We live in a world where there's partnerships, where the multilateral system is able to address some of the challenges of our time. So, all of those things, in my view, can help, and address those big challenges. My hope is to have a positive impact by making that connection between what science and data evidence tells us.

This is important, in this post-truth era, and fake news and so on, to try to have groups of people and networks of scientists, that can try to bring the evidence to the policymakers, and then see how we can move forward on those Sustainable Development Goals.

Dominic Billings: Thank you so much, Guillaume, for your time - so appreciative. I feel like both yourself and the co-authors of the Sustainable Development Report in particular have done as much for sustainable development, and the SDGs, then anyone. 

Guillaume Lafortune:  Thank you very much, Dominic. 

SDG Episode #5 - Mick Hase - SEVENTEENx

In this episode, we’re joined by Mick Hase, founder of SEVENTEENx.

SEVENTEENx are speaking events championing the SDGs to educate, engage and enable the business community to change the way of business, drawing on Mick’s own expertise as a business coach and management consultant, as well as an entrepreneur himself.

Inspiring change-makers from each city SEVENTEENx holds events has the opportunity, for 17 minutes each, to tell their story of impact and social outcomes relating to one of the SDGs, along with a Q&A panel of all speakers.

On November 10, the first SEVENTEENx event since the start of 2020 will be held, both live in Brisbane at QUT Business School, as well as online. Tickets can be found at the SEVENTEENx website.

Additionally, Mick Hase has his own podcast, titled ‘SEVENTEENx’, which you listen and subscribe to on Spotify and most podcast platforms.

SDG Target #2.2

Sustainable Development Goal #2 is to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.

Within SDG #2 are eight targets, of which this episode will focus on Target 2.2:

By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons.

Within target 2.2 are three indicators:

  • Indicator 2.2.1: Prevalence of stunting (height for age <-2 standard deviation from the median of the World Health Organization (WHO) Child Growth Standards) among children under 5 years of age.

  • Indicator 2.2.2: Prevalence of malnutrition (weight for height >+2 or <-2 standard deviation from the median of the WHO Child Growth Standards) among children under 5 years of age, by type (wasting and overweight).

  • Indicator 2.2.3: Prevalence of anaemia in women aged 15 to 49 years, by pregnancy status (percentage).

We looked at the definition of malnutrition in the previous target. Stunting is the prevention of the development of height in a child due to malnutrition, often caused by diarrhea or infection by parasitic worms from living in conditions characterised by unsanitary drinking water, open defecation in the absence of toilets and sewage systems.

Wasting means the progressive loss of muscle and fat tissues.

The nutritional necessities of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women are addressed in this target, whereby upon ingestion of food to the digestion system of our organs, not all vitamins and minerals are successfully absorbed into our blood.

Indicator 2.2.1 is the first mention so far of the World Health Organisation, which the world’s come to know more familiarly with the COVID-19 pandemic. The unit of measurement for this indicator is for each year of age below 5, a ratio of height to weight assessing if stunting has occurred, with the global aim of zero stunting.

Whereas Indicator 2.2.1 measured stunting by 2 standard deviations from the median of the WHO Child Growth Standards for height, Indicator 2.2.2 measures 2 standard deviations from weight - both underweight, in the form of wasting, and overweight, in the form of childhood obesity. Again, the objective for this indicator is zero prevalence by 2030.

Of note is within the UN process of selection, a target or indicator for the prevalence of adult obesity was omitted, meaning a body mass index greater than or equal to 3.0.

Indicator 2.2.3 focuses on anemia, a treatable condition whereby lab testing reveals an individual's blood is below a certain value of hemoglobin, often due to iron deficiency, disallowing the normal functioning of blood, the brain and muscles, and often compounded by deficiencies of other nutrients. 

For the purposes of this indicator, the measure is the portion of women aged 15-49 years old with a concentration of hemoglobin below 110 grams per litre for pregnant women, and 120 grams per litre for the remainder, including lactating women.  

This hinders one’s ability to productively work, thus to earn income, as well as academic performance for children, which has flow-on effects into adulthood. Research demonstrates the efficacy of treating anemia with iron supplements to remedy the effects on childhood development.

Furthermore, alongside children, women of reproductive age disproportionately experience anemia, largely from menstruation. Thus, women ought to be targeted for anemia treatment for the benefit of furthering gender equality via academic performance and workplace productivity 

In regard to anemia’s role in maternal and newborn health, the condition carries with it a greater risk of death for the mother, as well as the child either before or after the birth.

With the target of elimination of stunting and wasting, 149.2 million children under 5, or 22 percent of all children, suffer from stunting (low height for age), down a quarter from 2015.

7 per cent, or 45.4 million children under 5 suffered from wasting, and a similar amount were overweight. It’s anticipated perhaps 15 percent more children will experience wasting due to the current pandemic.

As of 2019, 30 percent of non-pregnant women of reproductive age suffered from anemia, with pregnant women reporting 7 percentage points higher, with the highest portion seen in South Asia and Central Asia, at close to half of all reproductive age women.

SDG Target #2.1

Sustainable Development Goal #2 is to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

Within SDG #2 are eight targets, of which this episode will focus on Target 2.1:

By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.

SDG #2 flowing on from SDG #1 implies the obvious interrelationship between poverty and hunger, with the poor most sensitive to fluctuations of food prices.

Target 2.1 flows on from target 1.C of the Millenium Development Goals, which was to “halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.” 

This target was met, but left 795 million people undernourished, including 90 million children under the age of 5.

Within target 2.1 are two indicators:

  • Indicator 2.1.1: Prevalence of undernourishment.

  • Indicator 2.1.2: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale.

Hunger, in the context of sustainable development, is obviously differentiated from the sensation of being less than satiated. In the context we’re looking at, it is the global leading cause of death. It is to be unable to meet the essential nutrients humans require to sustain healthful lives over a long period of time.

Dismayingly, the global areas most vulnerable to acute hunger are those experiencing wars, pandemics and extreme weather.

Looking closer at the concept of undernourishment underpinning Indicator 2.1.1, undernourishment is a diet with insufficient nutrients. By this we mean calories providing us energy, but also the right biochemical combination to allow for proper metabolism, in the form of proteins, carbohydrates, fat, vitamins and minerals. Tragically, at the most extreme end of undernourishment is starvation.

Also worthy of mention is the more specific instance of micronutrient deficiency, whereby an individual is experiencing undernourishment of a particular vitamin or mineral necessary for healthy functioning. 

Target 2.1 specifically mentions infants, as nutrition during pregnancy can affect the gestating baby for life, highlighting also the importance of breastfeeding for newborn’s nutrition.

Many of us are familiar with the heart-rending images of starving children displaying the hallmarks of malnutrition in the poorest parts of the world. The medical term, marasmus, is often characterised by the wasted mass of emaciation for overall energy deficiency.  For children no longer nursing with the proteins of breast milk, and have instead moved to a diet of starchy carbohydrates with little other nutritional value, we recognise the symptom of distended abdomens, caused by swelling of fluid retention and a liver overwhelmed with fatty deposits. This condition, termed kwashiorkor, is caused by sufficient calories, but protein deficiency. In the following target, we’ll also look at the high prevalence of stunting, caused by undernutrition.

In subsequent SDG #2 targets, we’ll also look at the role of agriculture, particularly sustainable agriculture, to feed a global population approaching a trajectory of 9-10 billion without abutting the planetary boundaries, as well as the systems for which food is produced and distributed.

Despite the prevalence of malnutrition as described being overwhelmingly associated with the developing world, some developing countries are beginning to see another form of malnutrition far more common in the developed world: the inverse of undernourishment - overnutrition, overeating and obesity.

Development aid, from the developed countries to the developing world, is a clear remedy to preventing and reducing undernourishment in the form of dietary supplements, food fortification to enrich foods with micronutrients, and other forms of food aid. 

Aid is also required for developing countries to provide medical care for those in critically ill conditions requiring intensive care for undernourishment, perhaps compounded by an infectious disease. 

Furthermore, aid can assist the development of sanitation systems to ensure drinking water and sewage do not mix, which can lead to infectious diseases causing undernourishment. This can again be compounded by undernourishment leading to dehydration, further exacerbated if the drinking water isn’t sanitary, and contaminated by infectious pathogens. 

To meet the definition of undernourishment for the purposes of Indicator 2.1.1, using household surveys, we’re looking at regularly not having access to food sufficient to provide the energy for a normal, healthy and active life, given their own dietary energy requirement.

Often due to the geographical isolation, hunger acutely affects the most vulnerable regions of the world, represented by the UN’s list of least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, and small island developing countries.

Food insecurity, the focus of Indicator 2.1.2, is the ability of households and individuals to access food. It measures the percentage of individuals in the population who have experienced food insecurity at moderate or severe levels in the period of the SDGs. It’s measurement tool, the Food Insecurity Experience Scale, is a survey of 8 questions.

With the aim by 2030 to achieve zero hunger as part of SDG #2, as of 2020, a tenth of the global population, equivalent to 811 million, experienced hunger and was undernourished. Tragically, the World Food Program, the food aid branch of the UN, has estimated that due to the effects of COVID-19, the number of people suffering acute hunger may have doubled by the end of 2020. COVID-19 may also have pushed between 83 and 132 million into chronic hunger. 

Though the trend of hunger experienced globally had been steadily decreasing, since 2015, when the SDGs were adopted, the UN’s agency focused on alleviating hunger and ensuring food security, named the Food and Agriculture Organisation, or FAO, has identified the total number of those living in a state of hunger has risen, predominantly in Africa and South America, with the main culprits being climate, conflict and recessions.

An estimated 2 billion people, or a quarter of the global population, experienced moderate or severe food insecurity in 2019, up several percent since 2015. Much of the increase came from Latin America and the Caribbean, though the largest numbers remained in sub-Saharan Africa. 

SDG Target 1.B

Audio Block
Double-click here to upload or link to a .mp3. Learn more

Sustainable Development Goal #1 is to end poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Within SDG #1 are 7 targets, of which this episode will focus on Target 1.b, which is:

Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions.

To measure target 1.b, there is only one indicator, 1.b.1:

  • Pro-poor public social spending 

Pro-poor is a term from the jargon of development studies meaning policies targeting the poor and poverty reduction.

Gender-sensitivity is a term surrounding efforts to create awareness around how the notion of gender, and gender roles affect our behaviours, and modifying them, if necessary, to engender a better sense of equality. 

Similar to an indicator reference in the previous target, Indicator 1.b.1 is defined as the share of government expenditure on health, education and cash transfers for the direct benefit of those living below each respective country’s poverty line, which we explored in Target 1.2.

These measures of health, education and transfer payments are used to measure the Target 1.b as these three areas are key to poverty alleviation, and evaluates whether governments are focusing spending on the poor.

To best measure Target 1.b’s wording of ‘policy at the national, regional and international level’, Indicator 1.b.2 can be disaggregated at each of these levels where the data exists. 

In 2019, the 30 developed country donors of the Development Assistance Committee spent only 0.2 percent of their collective gross national income in aid toward basic social services and food aid for the intention for poverty reduction, far below the 0.7% of gross national income continually committed by these countries across decades, though ongoingly reneged upon. 

Dismayingly, in 2020, the only exceptions among the DAC members to meet or exceed the 0.7% commitment were the Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, as well as the small country of Luxembourg, and the UK. Further disappointingly, the UK has announced they will no longer meet the 0.7% measure from 2021, flouting a UK law enshrining this commitment.

SDG Target #1.A

Sustainable Development Goal #1 is to end poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Within SDG #1 are 7 targets, of which this episode will focus on Target 1.a, which is:

Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions.

Target 1.a is the first example of a target designated by letters, rather than the previous targets’ designation by numbers (for example, 1.1 and 1.2). For all the SDGs, number-designated targets measure outcomes, whereas letter-designated targets represent means of implementation.

To measure target 1.a, there are two indicators: 

  • Indicator 1.a.1: Total official development assistance grants from all donors that focus on poverty reduction as a share of the recipient country’s gross national income.

  • Indicator 1.a.2: Proportion of total government spending on essential services (education, health and social protection).

Indicator 1.a.1 focuses upon the concept of official development assistance, or ODA, synonymous with international aid. 

The aim of development aid is to improve the economic and social development of humans living in countries which have not yet fully industrialised and are therefore considered ‘developing’ in the parlance of the field of international development. 

The degree to which a country is ‘developing’ is often defined by a country’s score in the Human Development Index, a composite measure of life expectancy, education, and per capita income. 

Separate, though entwined, to development aid, is humanitarian aid, more synonymous with logistical assistance in the face of disaster or conflict.

Official development assistance (ODA) is a concept defined in 1969 by the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, or Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development.

The OECD, headquartered in Paris, France, is an international organisation of 38 member states, predominantly developed countries, with a focus on economic policies. 

The Development Assistance Committee, or DAC, consists of 30 OECD members, constituting the largest aid donors, as a forum to discuss aid and poverty reduction efforts. 

The predominant means of measuring donor amounts is as a percentage of the donor country's gross national income (GNI) otherwise known as gross national product (GNP).

Gross national income is very similar to the concept of GDP, but by contrast, GNI includes the economic output of foreign residents of the country.

The OECD DAC has an official List of ODA Recipients, all the developing countries and territories eligible to receive ODA. Included are dollar flows made via so-called ‘multilateral institutions’, such as the World Bank or International Monetary Fund

To be counted as ODA, donor flows must come from government agencies, with the aim of economic development and welfare of developing countries, and must be concessional i.e., either outright grants with no obligation to be repaid, or loans with much more generous repayment terms than loans available commercially in the market.

The sectors counted toward poverty reduction for the purposes of Indicator 1.a.1 include food aid, basic health, education, water and sanitation, population programmes and reproductive health.

Indicator 1.a.2 is defined as the total expenditure on all levels of education, health, and social protection from all levels of government, as a percentage of overall government expenditure.  

The rationale of Indicator 1.a.2 is to evaluate the priority given to each government’s focus on improving wellbeing via public expenditure on education, health, and social protection in comparison to in other sectors.  

As the Millennium Development Goals ended in 2015, with it did UNESCO’s Education for All campaign. Subsequently, at the 2015 UN World Education Forum in Incheon, Korea, the Education Framework for Action was adopted, to ensure SDG #4 is met by 2030. 

Relevant to Indicator 1.a.2 was the Education 2030 Framework for Action’s recommendation of 15-20 percent of public expenditure spent on education.

However, between 2015 and 2018, only 30 percent of countries had spent the recommended 15-20 percent of expenditure on education.

Furthermore, ODA grants intended for poverty reduction toward basic social services and food aid represented only 0.02 percent of gross national income of the donor countries of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee in 2019.

SDG Target #1.5

Sustainable Development Goal #1 is to end poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Within SDG #1 are 7 targets, of which this episode will focus on Target 1.5:

By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.

The interrelation of disaster and poverty represented by target 1.5 acknowledges the reality that disasters in developing countries are responsible for 95% of the deaths resulting from global disasters, as well as visiting loss and damage 20 times greater as a percentage of GDP of developing countries in contrast to their developed counterparts.

To measure target 1.5, there’s 4 indicators: 

  • Indicator 1.5.1: Number of deaths, missing persons and persons affected by disaster per 100,000 people.

  • Indicator 1.5.2 is Direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP).

  • Indicator 1.5.3: Number of countries that adopt and implement national disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030.

  • Indicator 1.5.4: Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies.

The year 2030 has been set as the deadline for this target, to be met in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals as a whole. 

Looking first at indicator 1.5.1 measures the number of people who died during, directly afterward or as a direct result of a hazardous event. 

It also measures those whose whereabouts is unknown since such an event, as well as those who’ve suffered injury, illness, or other health effects. 

It additionally measures how many people were evacuated, displaced, relocated, or suffered direct damage to their livelihoods and assets of many forms.

Indicator 1.5.2 measures the relation between economic loss attributed to a disaster, whether direct or indirect. Examples of such assets physical assets are homes, hospitals, schools, and other buildings; various forms of physical infrastructure, such as transport, energy and telecommunication; industrial plants, crops and livestock.

Indicator 1.5.3 focuses on a global policy relevant to all indicators of Target 1.5. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030., adopted by all UN member states in 2015, the year of the SDG’s adoption, pertains to worldwide goals responding to disaster risk reduction. The framework was taken up within the Third World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, hosted in Sendai, the largest city in Japan’s north-eastern Tōhoku region, the epicentre of the catastrophic 2011 earthquake and tsunami. 

Under the purview of the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, the period of the Sendai Framework is parallel to the SDGs, from 2015 through to 2030, articulating four priorities for the prevention and risk reduction of new disasters, as well as 7 targets, several of which bridge with SDG target 1.5’s indicators. 

The four priorities of the Sendai Framework are:

  1. Understanding disaster risk

  2. Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk

  3. Investing in disaster reduction for resilience and

  4. Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response, and to "Build Back Better" in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.

Lastly, indicator 1.5.4 relates to the previous indicator, but in contrast to 1.5.3 which measured the number of countries which had adopted disaster risk reduction strategies like the Sendai Framework, 1.5.4 measures the percentage of local governments within each country who’ve adopted and implemented disaster risk reduction strategies in alignment with the national strategy.

Looking at the progress of target 1.5, in 2019, 24,000 people were reported as disaster fatalities, down from 126,000 in 2018. 

Though the mortality trend had been downward since 2005, the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to reverse this progress. As such, disaster risk reduction including biological risks such as pandemic’s is crucial.

Direct economic loss of $70 billion was reported in 2019, 60% in the agricultural sector.

In 2020, 120 reported they had developed and adopted either national or local disaster risk reduction strategies, an improvement from the 48 countries reporting such strategies at the adoption of the Sendai Framework in 2015.

SDG Target #1.4

Sustainable Development Goal #1 is to end poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Within SDG #1 are 7 targets, of which this episode will focus on Target 1.4, which is:

By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance.

To measure target 1.4, there’s two indicators:

  • Indicator 1.4.1: Proportion of population living in households with access to basic services

  • Indicator 1.4.2: Proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land, (a) with legally recognized documentation, and (b) who perceive their rights to land as secure, by sex and type of tenure.

The year 2030 has been set as the deadline for this target, to be met in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals as a whole. 

To better break up this lengthy target, let’s look at each of the indicators at a time. 

Indicator 1.4.1 is looking at households’ access to basic services. 

The definition ‘access to these basic services’ implies “sufficient and affordable service is reliably available with adequate quality.”

As a measure, the portion of a population’s households is used, whether a family, one person, or a group of unrelated people in the same dwelling. What is meant by the broad term ‘basic services’ though? As we explored in the Target 1.2, poverty has many dimensions. We also looked at a similar definition in the Target 1.3, in the context of the basic needs provided by welfare and social security. Without meeting these basic needs, it is likely one may meet the definition living in extreme poverty, bereft of drinking water, sanitation, healthcare, and education. 

As we saw in the previous target, more developed countries which value welfare withing their state can provide services allowing for more equal opportunities and the distribution of wealth via tax revenue. These services could be homeless shelters for those experiencing homelessness. Charities can play a role, independent of, or in tandem with the state, to run food banks to ameliorate hunger, and meet nutritional needs. Services can focus on the vulnerable, such as disability or care for the elderly. In some countries, or via some charities, education is provided free of charge to the student. Rather than collecting fees as a fare to move around by bus or rail, in some public transport systems, passengers ride for free. In the Information Age we live in, helping bridge the digital divide is a more recent basic service now considered necessary universally.

These services can be provided by the centralized government of a sovereign state, in a policy of service to the public. Or it could be provided by more localized forms of government.

Under the UN definition for this indicator, basic services mean government provision of drinking water services within a 30-minute round trip; sanitation facilities not shared with another household; availability of a handwashing facility on premises with soap and water; clean fuels, which don’t contribute to unhealthy indoor air quality, as kerosene and coal can; convenient access to transport, whether in rural or urban contexts; waste collection, whether from the municipal government or other means; basic health care and education, and broadband internet access.

Also mentioned in Target 1.4 is such as microfinance, the provision banking and lending facilities, to individuals or small businesses, in a way they otherwise would not be able to access, due to their low levels of income.

Turning our attention to Indicator 1.4.2, we’re looking at what portion of adults in each country’s population have secure tenant rights to the occupation and ownership of land and buildings, as well as the passing on of such property, often between generations of families. 

Indicator 1.4.2 measures secure tenure rights by two necessary concepts, and disaggregates the measures by sex, recognising the prevalence of inequality for women in matters of tenure and inheritance laws and protections. 

1.4.2 is also disaggregated by types of tenure. An example of a type of tenure is a leasehold, whereby a lessee contracts with a lessor to use the property for payments over the period of the lease. Another type of tenure is customary, according to the customs of indigenous communities. The other two tenure types by the definition 1.4.2 is public tenure i.e., property owned by the state, as well as freehold, which is owning the property, it’s land and the space above it. 

The two necessary concepts to meet the definition of secure tenant rights for the purposes of Indicator 1.4.2. is the backing by legally recognized documentation, as well as individual’s perception of the security of their tenure, for instance, a fear of involuntary loss of land due to a disagreement over land rights, irrespective of such tenure’s official recognition

Due to global stresses on food security, urbanization, and environmental degradation of natural resources, tenure systems face challenges, providing the rationale for this indicator. Additionally, there is now greater demand for land reforms in favour of the poor.

SDG Target #1.3

Sustainable Development Goal #1 is to end poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Within SDG #1 are 7 targets, of which this episode will focus on Target 1.3:

Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.

To measure target 1.3, there’s one indicator, 1.3.1:

  • Proportion of population covered by social protection systems, by sex, distinguishing children, unemployed persons, older persons, persons with disabilities, pregnant women, newborns, work-injury victims and the poor and the vulnerable”.

The year 2030 has been set as the deadline for this target, to be met in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals as a whole. 

So, what is meant by ‘social protection’? Basically, these are government-sponsored programs designed to shield the vulnerable from impacts which could affect their position of poverty and wellbeing. This includes mitigating any factors which could prevent someone from participating in the labour market, whether due to experiencing unemployment, being socially excluded because they belong to a marginalised minority, are disabled, afflicted by sickness, or otherwise are in old age.

To promote and protect citizens, interventions are made in the labor market, via social safety net programs, for instance, Medicare and Medicaid in the US, as well as Social Security and unemployment benefits.

Though this model of social protections is common to European countries who pioneered the model, with a European tradition of taxing and transferring larger portions of the country’s economic output to provide for the social safety net, the degree and robustness of social protection varies from country to country.

As the indicator 1.3.1 identifies, the vulnerable are characterised by sex, essentially suggesting societies where women are more vulnerable than male counterparts, and in particular, women in pregnancy, as well as newborns in the first months of life, and children and teens in general. Additionally, this indicator encompasses as vulnerable those experiencing unemployment, disability, injuries or accidents at work, as well as older persons, especially in the wake of COVID-19.

Whilst the aforementioned demographics may be exposed to vulnerabilities that at times require social protection, not all countries have the ability to tax the population, then transfer the revenue from such taxation to the vulnerable. This is very true of the least developed countries. The logic behind this is, if the average citizen lives on barely subsistence, enough to survive hand-to-mouth day-to-day, they do not have a surplus of income beyond survival for the government to tax, and the government has a meagre tax base to collect from and provide services to improve wellbeing with.

In other instances, there may be less of an appetite from the government or electorate to either tax enough to support such transfers, or political obstacles to make such transfers, perhaps due to societal stigmas toward certain vulnerable groups. This could be an example of political wrangling in countries where enough surplus income exists to provide for a potential tax base, but taxpayers have resistance to their tax payments being transferred to others as welfare.

These gaps are exactly what Target 1.3 aims to remedy. As of 2016, the year of commencement of the SDGs, 55% of the global population, approximately 4 billion individuals, were not living with a social safety net below, thus exposed to economic shocks in the market for wage labour which could impact their quality of life. 

The ‘floor’ of social protection mentioned in Target 1.3 are human rights which aim to guarantee a minimum of services to provide a threshold of guarantees for all citizens, as set out by a country or international organisation such as the UN, to provide for a lifetime of the essentials: health care, income sufficient to provide for food security, education, housing and other goods and services necessary to an adequate standard of living.

When we look at progress toward Target 1.3, its intersection with COVID-19 has demonstrated many developed countries were able to adapt by tapping in to global capital markets for lending to provide income support accompanying the effects of the lockdowns, yet such income support was less accessible to developing countries with more circumscribed ability to borrow to finance such protections, affecting incomes, jobs and health. 

As of 2020, the proportion of the global population with access to a minimum of one social protection payment was 47%, down only 8% since the start of the SDGs in 2016, and with the population total still around 4 billion.

However, from the onset of the pandemic in the early months of 2020 through year-end, among all countries, 1500 social protection efforts were announced, albeit many on a short-term basis in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

SDG Target #1.2

Sustainable Development Goal #1 is to end poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Within SDG #1 are 7 targets, of which this episode will focus on Target 1.2, which is:

By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.

The year 2030 has been set as the deadline for this target, to be met in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals as a whole. 

For this particular target, distinct from the previous target 1.1, of eliminating ‘extreme poverty’, we need to understand how this target defines ‘poverty’. As we learned in the previous target, extreme poverty is defined as living under $US1.90 a day, an international poverty line for extreme poverty.

So, what does the more generalised term ‘poverty’ mean in the context of target 1.2?

The term ‘relative poverty’ comes in handy here. Whereby the definition of ‘extreme poverty’ is the same internationally at $1.90, ‘relative poverty’ depends on the cost of living in different countries. Each country has its own individual poverty line, and therefore is also a reflection of the economic inequalities within a country.

Thus, the phrasing of target 1.1, “...according to national definitions,” meaning the threshold each country - both developed and developing - holds for an individual or household to live adequately to meet their basic needs: a minimum standard of living for food, clothing, shelter, health care and toilets.

Whatever its causes, poverty leaves individuals and communities vulnerable to hunger, disease, climate change, slavery and forced prostitution, open defecation, slum conditions in urban residential areas, inequities around access to health care, the freedom to participate in the economy or labour market, overpopulation, outward emigration of highly-educated citizens, corruption, and discrimination based on age, caste, race and sex.

Another aspect of target 1.1 worth exploring is the reference to “poverty in all its dimensions”. Whereas a national poverty line would traditionally be measured by an amount of income or consumption, a multidimensional approach to poverty broadens the definition from solely income or consumption, to include other important facets of development.

Another measure of poverty heavily in use is consumption expenditure equivalent to US$3.20, with data measuring this obtained by household surveys. This consumption measure includes food purchased, as well as food produced by the household itself, particularly pertinent to the least developed countries. Poverty obviously does not end once the $1.90 international extreme poverty line has been crossed. 

Yet this meagre difference of a threshold of $3.20 is common to the lower tiers of the middle-income countries. The World Bank forecasts a quarter of a billion people’s fortunes reversed, pushed back under the measure of $3.20 income per day due the COVID-19 pandemic. A quarter of the world’s population, or 1.80 billion people, live under the $3.20 poverty line, in contrast to approximately a tenth living under the extreme poverty line of $1.90. This amount is less than at the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, with 140 million living under $3.20 a day, down from more than half the global population in 1990. The number of people living under $3.20 is comparable now to the amount of people living on $1.90 a day in 1990.

Half of those living under $3.20 live in South Asia, as do a quarter of the extreme poor. This contrasts to sub-Saharan Africa, home to two-thirds of the world’s population living in extreme poverty, and a third under the $3.20 poverty line. East Asia has seen huge progress on eradicating extreme poverty in the past three decades, but as of 2018, 150 million East Asians lived under the $3.20 poverty line.

Quite separate to the severe plights of the low- and middle-income countries is the relative poverty experienced of high-income countries, generally synonymous with members of the OECD. For these countries specifically, the SDG Index has an indicator for poverty rate after taxes and transfers, or the share of the population whose disposable incomes fall below half the median income

The Human Development Index has been published by the UN for the past twenty years, using a formula to assign indexes to countries based on per capita income, life expectancy, and years of schooling.

Such indexes have since been expanded to reflect how the world now recognises development since the UN agenda moved on from international development to further overlapping factors of deprivation encapsulated within sustainable development.

Another important feature of multidimensional poverty measures allows for measures of both the prevalence of poverty, but also the depth of poverty within those proportions.

Another factor of importance in achieving this goal, not reflected in the UN’s official indicators, but proposed by the UN’s Sustainable Development Solutions Network as an indicator, is total fertility rate. The assumption is the more births per woman, the greater the population growth, a trend forecast for those countries still mired in poverty, with strong evidence demonstrating the links between high fertility and high poverty rates, eroding sustainable development efforts furthermore. As well as reflecting living in poverty, high fertility rates can be related to poor access to reproductive health options.

The two official indicators for target 1.2 are reflective of the concepts of poverty lines and multidimensional poverty indices:

  • Indicator 1.2.1: Proportion of population living below the national poverty line, by sex and age. 

  • Indicator 1.2.2: Proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.

SDG Target #1.1

Sustainable Development Goal #1 is to end poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Within SDG #1 are 7 targets, of which this episode will focus on Target 1.1, which is:

By 2030 eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day.

The year 2030 has been set as the deadline for this target, to be met in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals as a whole. With the ambitious target of eradicating extreme poverty for all people everywhere, we need to understand the definition of ‘extreme poverty’.

Extreme poverty is defined by an international poverty line as deemed by the World Bank, the international financial institution within the UN system, tasked with providing loans to developing countries with the objective of poverty eradication.

The international poverty line, as this target explains, is measured by living on $1.25 a day. That $1.25 a day is measured in U.S. dollars, using 2005 prices. Since the SDGs have been adopted, the measure of extreme poverty has been raised by the World Bank to $1.90 using 2011 prices. 

Wherever one may live, and whatever the local prices of goods and services, less than US$2 a day is scarcely enough to meet basic needs of safe drinking water, food at or below subsistence, and access to health and education.

Approximately 700 million people met the definition of living in extreme poverty when the SDGs were adopted in 2015, the overwhelming majority living in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Before the industrial era, beginning in the middle of the 19th century, close to all of the human population lived in a state of extreme poverty.

Yet, as this graph demonstrates, since the turn of the millennium, there has been a steady decrease in both the overall number of people living in extreme poverty, as well as the percentage of the global population.

One of the key reasons for this encouraging drop in extreme poverty rates was the power of the Millennium Development Goals. The Millenium Development Goals were the preceding development framework of the UN, prior to the adoption of the SDGs.

The focus of the MDGs was on the fight against extreme poverty, and its accompanying ills, with the SDGs building upon these efforts.

Conceptually, sustainable development builds upon the international development focus of the MDGs’ focus on economic development, to add two more pillars: that is, ensuring any economic growth is broad-based and socially inclusive, as well as being environmentally sustainable.

The sister goal of SDG #1 was Millennium Development Goal #1, set to halve extreme poverty levels by 2015, again using the international poverty line measure of $1.25 of income, in this case, measuring the proportion according to 1990 prices.

Millennium Development Goal #1 was met five years before its due date in 2010, largely due to the astounding growth rates of China in the 1-year period of the MDGs between 2000 and 2015. 

In total numbers, this meant MDG #1 saw a billion people lifted from extreme poverty, compared to 1990, when almost half the population of countries considered developing lived under $1.25 a day.

Yet the 800 million still left behind at the end of the Millennium Development Goals period in 2015 is an enormous number of people continuing to live in destitution and penury. 

So how do we measure this target 1.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals? 

The indicator in use by the UN is ‘proportion of population below the international poverty line by sex, age, employment status and geographical location.

The disaggregation by sex, age, employment status, and geographical location is to ensure the gains are measured evenly across all demographics, ensuring no one is left behind, and all economic development is broad-based to meet the social inclusivity pillar of sustainable development. 

According to the World Data Lab, there were at June 2021, 716, 045,000 people presently living in extreme poverty, with a rate of 0.8 people per second escaping extreme poverty.

Yet the target rate for escaping poverty for SDG target 1.1 to be met is 2.4 people per second. 

In total, that means again for June 2021, the world is off-track by 231,163,000 people approximately. 

Of course, just as some escape poverty, others enter into it.

The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly impacted progress on this goal and target, with signs of slowing progress even before this, compounded by both conflict and climate change.

In 2015, the proportion of extreme poverty rates was 10%, this dropped from a low of 8.4% in 2019, back up to 9.5%. This can be equated with up to 124 million people being thrown back into extreme poverty, meaning the global extreme poverty rate rose in 2020 for the first time in over 20 years.

Furthermore, this trend projected 6 percent of the global population, or 600 million people, would still be living in extreme poverty in 2030, missing the target 1.1.


SDG Episode #4 - John Thwaites - Monash Sustainable Development Institute

In this episode, we’re joined by Professor John Thwaites, who boasts a very impressive CV.

John Thwaites is currently the chair and Professorial Fellow of Monash University’s Sustainable Development Institute, ClimateWorks Australia & BehaviourWorks Australia.

John is Chair of Melbourne Water and a Director of Fair Trade Australia New Zealand.

John is the Chair of the National Sustainable Development Council, which has developed the Transforming Australia: SDGs Progress Report 2018. We’ll be speaking with him today predominantly about the 2020 update of the Transforming Australia report, for which John was the Principal Lead. You can find the report at sdgtransformingaustralia.com

He is a Co-Chair of the Leadership Council of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (“SDSN”) launched by the Secretary General of the United Nations to provide expert advice and support to the development and implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.

The Lancet Covid-19 Commission, one of the pre-eminent global bodies created solutions to the pandemic appointed John as a Commissioner.

John Thwaites was also Deputy Premier of Victoria from 1999 until his retirement in 2007, as well as holding Ministerial portfolios including Health, Planning, Environment, Water, and has the honour of being Victoria’s first Minister for Climate Change.

Transcript

Dominic Billings 

Firstly, John, thanks so much for everything you've done as part of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, particularly with Monash Sustainable Development Institute, as the anchor of the Australia, New Zealand and Pacific network, part of the SDSN. Obviously, we're chatting today because MSDI has released Transforming Australia, a report getting up to speed with where Australia is at in terms of the SDGs. So, John, I tend to think of Australia is languishing with the environmental SDGs, but prospering with the economic Goals and one of the most things I found most striking about the Transforming Australia report was have woeful the picture portrayed of reality of Australian socio-economic life. That was something I wasn’t expecting to come out of the report. But obviously, the data is there. Some of the indicators off-track included on inadequacy on welfare payments, elevated levels of psychological distress, high household debts, high rent burdens, homelessness, underemployment, and victims of sexual assault. And obviously, many of those topics were negatively affected by COVID. Do you see COVID as both a driver, which has been combating those issues, but also on the other hand, an opportunity to address some of those shortcomings seeing is they're so obviously in the public eye now and perhaps experienced more broadly, among the broader population

John Thwaites 

COVID-19 has had a negative impact on women, on young people and on lower-income households. And from that point-of-view, it's exacerbated pre-existing inequalities. So, I think we've got to see COVID as a huge challenge, but also there are some opportunities. And one good thing about the COVID pandemic has been the way in which Australians have come together, largely collaborated, to respond to the health demands of the pandemic, and largely relied on expert health advice on the science. And we've shown that when we do that, we can have huge achievements. And Australia is performing better on COVID than most countries in the world. And I think we can learn from that, as we meet some of these other challenges that we've highlighted in the report like climate change and embedded inequality.

Dominic Billings 

Another I issue I probably wasn't expecting Australia to stand out in was that we're off track in investment in knowledge-based capital, which obviously has flown effects to the resources that are made possible to even capture the data for the Transforming Australia report. And a lot of the work I imagine on the Monash Sustainable Development Institute is doing. It's a bit of a qualitative question, but what would you attribute to Australians' reticence to not invest more in in R&D?

John Thwaites

This is really one of the most shocking findings in the report, I believe, for a country that is so advanced and put such a high priority on education, that we invest less in knowledge-based capital than most of our comparable countries. Now, when we say invest in knowledge-based capital, we mean things like in IT, in human capacity building, research and development. So in those things that build up knowledge in the community that are very much the core of the knowledge economy, which is the future economy, we spend much less on that, for example, in most European countries, but also much less than the United States. And the disturbing finding in the report is that our expenditure on research and development, for example, is reducing now. We're spending less now than we were five years ago, and we're spending considerably less than the OECD average. So, in Australia, we're spending about 1.79% of GDP on research and development. The OECD average is 2.4%. And that's a significant difference. Unfortunately, that's going to mean we're not going to be as prepared as we should be for the future economy, which is based on knowledge, digital technologies, and human capital.

Dominic Billings 

I suppose like you mentioned, the knowledge-based capital indicator was probably one of the surprises, but I suppose one of the indicators, which was less of a surprise was the continued prevalence of obesity, which as the Transforming Australia report indicated was about a third of the population. And I just want to ask you, firstly, kudos on your role as Commissioner on the Lancet COVID-19 Commission. That's a very prestigious role to hold. So, congratulations. But I was curious whether the slow-moving nature of an epidemic such as obesity, whether at the level of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, whether there had been much discussion as to the relation between obesity and a fast-moving, infectious pandemics, such as COVID-19 has had - if the interplay between those two have been discussed at that level of the Commission.

John Thwaites 

There has been some discussion of that. And there's certainly been some evidence that obesity is a risk factor for those who are infected with COVID-19. And can lead to higher cause of mortality or morbidity as a result. So certainly, obesity is a risk factor for COVID, as it is for numerous other conditions. And that's a real concern, because the health story in Australia is generally a very positive one. We've seen increasing life expectancy, our life expectancy has actually increased more in Australia than in most comparable countries, were now sitting on life expectancy of around 83 years, which is one of the top in the OECD. So, we're doing generally very well. Obesity is this black mark that we have. And it's something that if we're not careful, we'll turn around that very good result we've had to date. So much of the improvement in life expectancy has been linked to better health care, to access for all to health care that we have here that they don't have in, for example, the United States. But in the future, health care itself isn't going to be enough. It's how we take care of ourselves. That is, how healthy we are, what our well-being is, our mental health. What we need to look at is some of these non-communicable diseases as someone are ironic at a time, when we're all focused on the first major infectious disease that's affected my life and probably most people's lives in a really big way. But the non-communicable diseases, linked to things like obesity, are the sort of ticking time bombs that are going to potentially lessen life expectancy and certainly increase ill health into the future.

Dominic Billings 

Another one of a couple of indicators that some fell under SDG 10 - Reducing inequality both in Transforming Australia report, which you've just released, and also the broader SDSN's SDG Index. I'm conscious that in the Gini coefficient for both reports, and the upper two quintiles in net worth, that we're off-track in both of those. And it strikes me that, I'm not sure whether it's a symptom of the media narrative. But do you think, again, this is quite a qualitative question, but would you say that recognition of that trends towards inequality...Again, we're familiar with that in the US, that I tend to less  associate it with Australia, unless I see those stark indicators exhibiting that were off-track. Do you feel like it's under-represented in a more public space, like the media, for instance?

John Thwaites 

It's a mixed bag, and certainly some elements of the media have highlighted inequality. But I don't think there's a full realisation of the extent, or what the real focus of that inequality is. Australia hasn't done too badly in terms of income inequality. It hasn't improved, but it hasn’t gotten a lot worse. Where we've really got a lot worse in terms of net worth or wealth. How much of the total wealth of Australia is owned by different segments of the population and the bottom 40% of the population now only own about just over 5% of the total wealth. And that's come down very substantially in the last 20 years. So, it's really in access to wealth. Now, why does that matter? Well, it matters. first, of course, because it's unfair and equitable. But it is wealth that gives people access to funds that they might need, if they have a rough patch, if they're unemployed for a period, rather than just living hand-to-mouth. So, while incomes, haven't shown a huge increase in inequality, wealth has, and I think we've got to really focus some of our policies and strategies on that. Now, unfortunately, we're doing some things that are probably going to make that worse. The fact that people were able to access their superannuation during COVID seemed like a good idea at the time, but it means for the lower-income people who did that, they're going to have significantly less wealth that they can call on in future years. Similarly, I think a lot of our policies around housing are very much focused on people who already have a house and protecting them. And some of our social security policies are very focused on that. Whereas people who don't have a house, they don't have an asset - they're renters largely - are losing out. And another thing that we point out in the in the Transforming Australia report is that lower-income renter households, are now paying a greater proportion of their income on housing costs. We're seeing more and more of those lower-income renters paying more than 30% of their income on housing costs. So, I think the big story here is about wealth and assets, and how we can make that fairer across the community.

Dominic Billings 

I suppose the following questions, a bit more of a question of your personal opinion, when you just kind of you feel like you took the pulse of Australia. I know you were Deputy Premier of the state of Victoria in the past. And I guess coupling that with knowing that the Federal Government haven't seemed to fully embrace the SDGs or the Paris Agreement, for that matter. Do you feel optimistic about the decade ahead? Or instead you feel like institutions like the SDSN and Monash Sustainable Development Institute are the key drivers of Australia shifting, having a greater consciousness of the SDGs to one to reach the Goals?

John Thwaites 

Are you talking generally or in relation to climate change?

Dominic Billings 

More looking toward the SDGs by 2030, in contrast to, let's say, like a decarbonisation by 2050.

John Thwaites 

So, like a lot of things, it's a mixed bag. And I believe that there are some positive signs, as I said, the response to COVID in Australia has been pretty good. The immediate economic response by the Federal Government was appropriate. And the fact that JobKeeper was at a reasonable level across the whole community and JobSeeker was increased well beyond Newstart, were all very positive policies. What's depressing is that the Federal Government seems to be turning back from those good directions, and now threatening to go back to the old, totally inadequate level of Newstart, which will put tens of thousands of people below the poverty line. So I think that's where I say there have been some green shoots of hope. But what we don't want is for them to be snuffed out across other SDGs. We're seeing, I think, good efforts in health and education, we're certainly seeing attempts at improving areas in the economy. Where we're really seeing very little substantial progress, at a national level least, is in climate change. And reality is our emissions as a country today are pretty much the same as they were in the year 2000. We've improved very little since then. There have certainly been some positive steps in renewable energy for electricity. And so, we're seeing now more than 20% of our electricity is when renewable, but in transport and industry, there's almost no step forward at all. So if you ask me, am I optimistic, I see some positive signs, but I'm not optimistic that we're going to be anywhere near the targets that we need, if we're going to have the sort of healthy society, the safe environment that we need, and that are set out in the Sustainable Development Goals.

Dominic Billings 

In the past few years, you've taken on the role as the head of Monash Sustainable Development Institute, which, when the SDSN was established became, like I mentioned at the beginning of the show, the anchor of the SDSN, for this region of the world, Oceania. And obviously, you've taken on the commissioner role of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission. And also, you're the co-chair of the worldwide SDSN Leadership Council. I guess like from the point where you left politics, and took on the role of head of MSDI and also the head of ClimateWorks, to kind of reach where you are now on I guess, again, just on a very kind of personal human level, what's kind of been that experience to be working alongside the people that you are, who are preeminent in the field of sustainable development. What's been the emotional, life trajectory of realising that if you ever do smell the roses,

John Thwaites 

(inaudible) ...very inspiring to be around people who are very smart, very knowledgeable and very passionate about sustainability and sustainable development. Politics was very different. Obviously, the great advantage of being in politics is that you can do stuff. I mean, it's where the power is. And to a degree, it's sometimes frustrating in academia, or outside government, that you can't implement the things that you think need doing. But on the other hand, you have a lot more time to really learn from others and to get the best ideas. Whereas in politics, you're so time poor that you have to jump at a solution probably too fast, most of the time. So, it's just a very different lifestyle, and a very different (inaudible)...some of my practical experience in politics to work of academics and others who have (inaudible). So I see my role really is a bridge between the two using my background in politics, but my current job embedded in a university to help bring those two cultures together.

Dominic Billings 

Again, John, really appreciate your time, especially considering carrying on counting all those really important roles. So yes, thank you so much, John. Really appreciate time and thanks for everything you do.

John Thwaites 

Pleasure.