Finance is a keystone to the successful implementation of the Agenda 2030 but significant barriers exist to securing adequate public and private financing to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. A broader strategy is needed to align the systemic features of finance and its relationship with the universally-embraced 2030 Agenda. The G20 has a central role in shaping the future direction of the global financial system, and given G20 Leaders commitment to further align the G20’s work with the 2030 Agenda, the policy brief considers ways in which the G20 could advance such a systemic strategy.

The co-directors of the Future UN Development System Project, Stephen Browne and Thomas G. Weiss, authored an article asserting that the agenda put forth by the “first UN” (Member States) now needs to be implemented by the “second UN,” which consists of professionals from across the system. Titled, ‘Delivering the SDGs,’ the article highlights five areas for which the UN development system is responsible, and where reforms are currently underway.

There is a growing recognition that progress on the SDGs and mobilising the capital to fund them is far too slow.

How the sustainable development goals (SDGs) interact with each other has emerged as a key question in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, as it has potentially strong implications for prioritization of actions and their effectiveness. So far, analysis of interactions has been very basic, typically starting from one SDG, counting the number of interactions, and discussing synergies and trade-offs from the perspective of that issue area. This paper pushes the frontier of how interactions amongst SDG targets can be understood and taken into account in policy and planning. It presents an approach to assessing systemic and contextual interactions of SDG targets, using a typology for scoring interactions in a cross-impact matrix and using network analysis techniques to explore the data. By considering how a target interacts with another target and how that target in turn interacts with other targets, results provide a more robust basis for priority setting of SDG efforts. The analysis identifies which targets have the most and least positive influence on the network and thus guides, where efforts may be directed (and not); where strong positive and negative links sit, raising warning flags to areas requiring extra attention; and how targets that reinforce each others’ progress cluster, suggesting where important cross-sectoral collaboration between actors is merited. How interactions play out is context specific and the approach is tested on the case of Sweden to illustrate how priority setting, with the objective to enhance progress across all 17 SDGs, might change if systemic impacts are taken into consideration.

Este manual abreviado tiene como objetivo proporcionar orientación a las organizaciones de la sociedad civil para fortalecer el compromiso de los parlamentos y los parlamentarios en la promoción, apoyo y monitoreo de la implementación de la Agenda 2030 de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo Sostenible. Este manual abreviado explica por qué, dónde y cómo participar para luego proporcionar una guía orientada a la superación de desafíos comunes. Incluye, al final, una lista de recursos adicionales para futuras lecturas. Este documento constituye una versión abreviada de “Comprometiendo a los parlamentos con la Agenda 2030 y sus ODS: representación, rendición de cuentas e implementación. Un manual abreviado para la sociedad civil”, cuya versión completa se encuentra disponible en inglés en el sitio web de Together 2030.

A tres años del inicio de la implementación de la Agenda 2030, América Latina y el Caribe enfrenta grandes desafíos. Más de la mitad de los países de la región cuentan con mecanismos nacionales de coordinación para la implementación y el seguimiento de dicha Agenda. La mayoría de estos mecanismos han designado a la institución de planificación como coordinadora o responsable técnica encargada de coordinar a los distintos sectores, convocar a los actores y definir las estrategias y alianzas para el logro de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS), su monitoreo y la correspondiente rendición de cuentas. La CEPAL propone esta guía metodológica con el objetivo de aportar insumos conceptuales y prácticos que permitan a los países —ya sea a nivel nacional o subnacional— formular estrategias para la implementación de la Agenda 2030.

The SD2015 partners have produced a toolkit for civil society and other stakeholder organisations, coalitions and individuals that wish to influence the post-2015 development agenda, including the design of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It aims to equip you with relevant information and tools to enable you to develop and implement an effective post-2015 advocacy strategy. You can either follow its step-by-step approach or simply consult the tips, tools and case studies most relevant to your existing activities.

Se hace un llamado urgente al Estado mexicano a cumplir con sus obligaciones dimanantes del PIDESC, de la Agenda 2030 y otros compromisos internacionales, para adoptar políticas, regulaciones, programas y medidas en materia económica, hídrica, energética, ambiental y de desarrollo urbano –esferas estrechamente relacionadas con los ODS reportados este año- congruentes con los tres pilares del desarrollo sostenible. Así también, apelamos al gobierno mexicano a priorizar los derechos humanos y la protección ambiente para mantener la integralidad, indivisibilidad y universalidad de la Agenda 2030. Finalmente, reiteramos la urgencia de garantizar la participación sustantiva y crítica de la sociedad civil en la implementación y monitoreo de la Agenda 2030 en México.

Este documento presenta el informe final del proceso de adaptación del Objetivo de Desarrollo Sostenible 16 “Paz, justicia e instituciones sólidas” (ODS 16) en la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (CABA). El Gobierno de la Ciudad se ha propuesto acompañar la Agenda 2030 de Desarrollo Sostenible a través de la incorporación, y el monitoreo, de dicha agenda en sus estrategias, planes y acciones. En esta etapa, el foco se ha puesto en el ODS 16 y particularmente en las dimensiones referidas al gobierno abierto, uno de los ejes estratégicos de la gestión (metas 16.5, 16.6, 16.7 y 16.10).

This report presents evidence of the involvement of Local and Regional Governments (LRGs) in the ‘localization’ of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It complements the Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) and ‘Main Messages’ submitted by 103 countries to the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) in 2016, 2017 and 2018. It delivers first-hand information from LRGs in 61 different countries. It is the second in an annual series coinciding with national reports to the HLPF and provides an update on the active engagement of LRGs in the dissemination and implementation of the SDGs at the local level. The report is facilitated by United Cities and Local Governments within the framework of the Global Observatory on Decentralization and Local Democracy (GOLD) and on behalf of the Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments, a consultation mechanism of the constituency that gathers over 25 networks. The report counts with special contributions from many cities and associations around the world.

In recent years, the rapidly growing presence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in virtually every aspect of life in the industrialized world has led to important questions on how AI can help achieve the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The conversations on AI in the context of human development are nascent, with many interesting ideas being proposed. However, the discussions to date have largely been abstract, with little specificity about where big data and AI can help. Indeed, we believe there is a significant knowledge gap between the AI community and the development community, which needs to be closed in order to separate fact from hype, and to ensure resources are dedicated to initiatives with a meaningful likelihood of impact.

The formulation of the SDG education targets was more inclusive than the processes linked with the MDGs. Key constituencies making representations through the Open Working Group and other consultative processes succeeded in formulating targets that stressed inclusion, quality and equality in all phases of education. However, the development of the global indicators for SDG4, has resulted in metrics that miss many of the values of the targets, most notably with regard to quality and free education and substantive, not simply distributive, meanings of equality. The article analyses why some of these slippages took place, and what potential there may be to mobilise for metrics that better depict the key tenets of the education goal and targets. The analysis thus considers ways forward for exploring measurement of the many meanings of quality and equalities in education, reflecting on numbers as instruments that impose power and hierarchy, and the possibility of using reflections on numbers and indicators for critical dialogue and an enhancement of participation, accountability, and work to change injustices in education.

This paper presents a procedure that would enable a country to describe national targets with associated benchmarks that are appropriate for the country. The procedure builds on precedent set in other countries but in particular on a procedure developed for the setting of Resource Quality Objectives in South Africa. The procedure focusses on those SDG targets that are natural resource-security focused, for example, extent of water-related ecosystems (6.6), desertification (15.3) and so forth, because the selection of indicator methods and benchmarks is based on the location of natural resources, their use and present state and how they fit into national strategies.

Official statisticians around the world are faced with the herculean task of populating the Sustainable Development Goals global indicator framework. As traditional data sources appear to be insufficient, statisticians are naturally considering whether big data can contribute anything useful. While the statistical possibilities appear to be theoretically endless, in practice big data also present some enormous challenges and potential pitfalls: legal; ethical; technical; and reputational. This paper examines the opportunities and challenges presented by big data for compiling indicators to support Agenda 2030.

The papers in this Special Issue raise a number of relevant and important questions, of which three particularly deserve comment. Are indicators reductionist? They might be indeed, both regarding the process of defining them and in their use, which is why it is essential that each be based on a deep and sufficient knowledge of the phenomenon concerned. The human development index illustrates both the pitfalls and potential of global indicators. Are there dark forces behind the selection of indicators? The agreement of the 2030 Agenda was the outcome of a political process that led to a negotiated consensus accomplished by the Open Working Group. In determining the indicators, the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG SDG) was asked for a simple and robust framework which would not affect the political equilibrium reached in the Open Working Group (OWG); no easy task. Is the IAEG SDG an arcane bureaucratic entity? In the face of this immensely challenging task, it has sought a balance between what is feasible in the short term and what is required in the long term. The IAEG SDG has become a space for open and constructive dialog between national statistical offices and international agencies.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) constitute a truly transformative agenda which provides a framework to help useffectively confront the fundamental challenges of development in a way that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) didnot. This commentary briefly describes the very demanding, at times antagonistic, process that produced the SDGs, includingthe crucial role of the Open Working Group (OWG). It points out the strengths of the SDGs by comparison with the MDGs,with respect to both process and product. The SDGs, proposed and championed by a country from the Global South, for thefirst time defined development as a universal agenda, and upended the traditional division of countries into those who needto act and those called primarily to provide development assistance. Many countries across the development spectrumrejected this proposal, which wasfinally agreed thanks to persistence, lengthy negotiations and consensus building. In theend, the adoption of the SDGs also broke down the divide between environment and development, offering an integratedand inclusive framework for structuring solutions. Yet an agenda of such deep transformative potential faces implementationchallenges, and this commentary emphasizes the need for the sort of analysis contained in the papers in this Special Issue inorder to ensure that the SDGs are strengthened and continue to evolve.

This brief article comments on the special issue on SDGs - Knowledge and Politics in Setting and Measuring the SDGs. Acknowledging that the articles in the issue show how reliance on indicators changes the way development is conceived,Merry asks why is it so difficult to produce better indicators. If they are too narrow, why not simply produce more? She arguesthat conceiving of measurement as an infrastructure provides important insight into these questions.

The process of designing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was intensely political, as it can be expected of United Nations negotiations of that magnitude. Inevitably, those politics have spilled over into the technical process of formulating global indicators to monitor the Sustainable Development Goals. This commentary explores some of the tensions between competing priorities and various constituencies that affect the design of the global SDG indicator framework.

The article critically analyses how the transformative ambition of the SDGs may be threatened in the process of moving from vision, through goals and targets to indicators. This is exemplified by a case study concerning sustainable agriculture, and most specifically indicator 2.4.1, where two contrasting approaches – industrial agriculture and agro?ecology – stand in opposition, each with its associated discourse and interests. The process is analysed in great detail, noting the complex interplay of political and technical considerations. FAO has played a central role in establishing a compromise with regard to the wording of indicator 2.4.1 which papers over the disagreements and does not explicitly promote either of the two competing approaches. And the organisation has facilitated a technical process which, instead of one simple indicator, has led to a composite, multidimensional version with nine sub?indicators, as a result of which it has been relegated to ‘Tier III’ status, implying that it will not be used for global monitoring purposes. The article concludes that – owing to a combination of political and technical factors – the transformative potential of the SDGs may, in this instance, be lost. In order to transform the debate it is necessary, and should be sufficient, to show that–already today–agro?ecological approaches can achieve high yields.

This article argues that the environment was extensively incorporated into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with broad and ambitious targets, reflecting environmental concerns throughout the SDGs. Many environment?related targets – including some of the most important ones – were placed under ‘non?environmental’ goals. The SDGs also adopted the view that economic growth can be made environmentally sustainable using ‘decoupling’ and ‘resource efficiency’ as key technological solutions. Governments rejected a more transformative objective ‘beyond GDP’, the concept of planetary boundaries, and strong implementation mechanisms. Most disappointing, the environmental elements in many targets were not included in indicators, or the indicators lacked ambition, or were watered down. Key factors in achieving the strong and integrated approach to environment and development at the level of goals and targets were: (1) the role of new ideas on the importance of the environment and an integrated approach to sustainable development which was promoted by the science and research community; (2) a group of norm entrepreneurs, who promoted these ideas; and (3) the institutional structure and working modalities of the Open Working Group (which drafted the text of the SDGs) whose special characteristics facilitated the final agreement. The dilution of the indicators resulted from a very different institutional structure and process with different actors and from the development focused legacy of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that had not resulted in sufficient capacity for thoroughly measuring environmental concerns.