The UN’s “Sustainable Development Goals” is a Misnomer
Kelly Aves 
• Bookmarks: 301
How do countries pursue socioeconomic development in a sustainable and equitable way? This question has received considerable attention, more so with the COVID-19 pandemic bringing about discussion of a green (economic) recovery. The United Nations formulated 17 Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 to provide a framework for global development, ranging from climate action to gender equality. The 17 SDGs are further broken down into 169 targets and 247 indicators which measure success and provide performance metrics.
A recent study published in Nature Sustainability by Zeng et al. examined the extent to which the SDGs indicated actual progress towards sustainability — more specifically, towards the conservation of biodiversity. Human development’s threat to biodiversity is broadly acknowledged; approximately 6,000 species are at risk of extinction due to direct human action. The SDGs strive to achieve a balance between conservation and the needs of local peoples. However, according to the study, the SDGs may be biased towards promoting socioeconomic development over preserving biodiversity.
Using available data at the country level, Zeng et al. created an index ranging from 0 to 100 that measures achievement at the indicator level for each goal. Of the 247 indicators, only 75 of them were relevant to environmental protection and had sufficient data for analysis. If a country scored over 75 on the index, it was listed as performing well for that specific indicator. The authors also used the index to score external measures of socioeconomic development, such as poverty and income indices; and biodiversity, such as marine wilderness, intact forest, and temperature anomalies.
While most countries scored over 75 for many of the SDG indicators, only in one independent biodiversity measure — human footprint — did a majority of countries perform well. In fact, for 7 of the 11 external biodiversity measures, fewer than 10 countries performed well. This discrepancy suggests that SDG indicators are a poor reflection of actual environmental success as measured by the independent metrics: otherwise, countries would also have performed well for the external biodiversity measures.
The correlations between the SDG indicators and the external measures also bear out the contention that the SDGs are poor measures of environmental protection. The researchers found that only 7% of SDG indicators were positively correlated with other biodiversity measures, and that 14% of SDGs were negatively correlated. The remainder of the SDGs were not significantly correlated with external measures, suggesting that good SDG scores have no relationship with successful conservation efforts. By contrast, 41% of the indicators exhibited a positive correlation with outside socioeconomic measures. Clearly, even when ostensibly aimed at environmental protection, the SDGs are better at promoting socioeconomic development than they are at protecting biodiversity. Zeng et al. conclude with the remark that “the SDGs could unknowingly promote environmental destruction in the name of sustainable development,” if these flaws are not addressed.
One of the main problems identified by this study is that the SDG framework is complex and nuanced, making targets confusing and evaluation of success difficult. A key point to remember for environmental policy is that the monitoring of outcomes and iterative evaluation are crucial. With that in mind, Zeng et al. suggest that, in the short term, more technical guidance and funding for data collection would improve performance. International assistance is necessary because many countries lack the administrative capacity for this evaluation.
The re-evaluation and creation of simpler indicators are long-term goals for the UN General Assembly. During the re-evaluation phase, it is essential that the process serves as a platform for scientists and policymakers from a variety of backgrounds. This helps place equity, especially between developing and developed nations, at the forefront, and ensures that the new indicators are easy to understand, easy to measure, and encourage the conservation of biodiversity. Both these short- and long-term goals can be achieved by utilizing and tweaking already existing networks within the UN, such as the Technology Facilitation Mechanism, which engages stakeholders and promotes information sharing. While the SDGs have good intentions, like many other sustainability policies, the devil is in the details — science is tricky, which is why constant evaluation of the outcomes and indicators is a must.
Zeng, Yiwen, Sean Maxwell, Rebecca K. Runting, Oscar Venter, James E. M. Watson, and L. Roman Carrasco. 2020. “Environmental destruction not avoided with the Sustainable Development Goals.” Nature Sustainability 3: 795–798. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0555-0.
