Conceptual summarize of 2018 SDG report & methodology
Introduction
Sustainable Development Goals is a universal agenda that applies to all countries. Set by the United Nations, the goal is to call to action on the above 17 dimensions. Hoping to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity. The global SDG Index score and SDG Dashboard helps signifying the current implementation outcome of the goal.
Objective and Framework
Good data and clear metrics are critical for each country to take stock of where it stands, devise pathways for achieving the goals and track progress. However, it has always been an issue on building a statistical system to acquire comprehensive cross-country data with agreed statistical definitions.
Some governments have begun voluntary national reviews of progress on the SDGs, but they use indicators that are not harmonized internationally and lack comparability. In order to assist countries in measuring their SDG baselines and to measure future progress, the Bertelsmann Stiftung and the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) jointly released the first SDG Index and Dashboards in July 2016.
The conceptual framework corresponds to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals adopted by global leaders at the United-Nations General Assembly in September 2015. The 17 SDGs include 169 more specific targets and means for implementation.
Fundamental Assumptions
There are five fundamental assumptions underpinning the methodology and construction of the SDG Index and Dashboards:
- Number of indicators evolves when new evidence become available. First, the authors of the report acknowledge that the SDGs are part of a dynamic agenda including inside the statistical community. Therefore, the basket of indicators evolves from year to another as new evidence become available. The methodology for certain indicators is also revised based on efforts at the global level to improve the quality of the measures to monitor the SDGs. This means that the SDG Index and Dashboards results are not directly comparable from one year to another.
- The 17 SDGs are the final overarching framework (no re-clustering of the goals). The SDG Index and Dashboards uses the 17 SDGs as the final overarching conceptual framework. The report does not reorganize goals into sub-categories such as the 5Ps (People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnership) or between economic, social, environmental and governance related goals . Beyond the fact that there are no agreements on the re-clustering of these goals, the authors also argue that the SDGs are an overarching framework that encourage policymakers to incorporate each dimension into the policy making process for each sector and not see these issues as independent issues to be addressed within each siloes. The report uses expert judgement to deal with overlaps between goals.
- Non-official data help bridge current data gaps. The report focuses on data available at the moment. Considering that official indicators are not sufficient to monitor comprehensively the implementation of the SDGs and that non-official data sources can help bridge this gap. Non-official data sources include data produced in research institutions, Universities, civil society and other partners. They sometimes use new data collection methods such as satellite imagery data and other forms of data. The use of non-official datasets to measure some of the SDGs complements on-going efforts taking place in international statistical committees to generate new standardized measures in NSOs to monitor the SDGs.
- Monitoring the SDGs requires estimating absolute country performance based on distance to invariant sustainable development targets. The report focuses on absolute country performance (not relative to other countries performance) and normalizes each indicator from 0–100 where 100 corresponds to determined “technical optimums”. Therefore, the report measures what it aims to measure which is the distance to achieving sustainability. The detailed method for calculating these technical optimums is presented in next section.
- Results need to be accessible for a wide audience. The SDG Index and Dashboards aims to strike a balance between scientific soundness and easily communicable results accessible for a wide audience (policymakers, civil society, layman citizens etc.). Therefore, as a general rule, when two methods yield similar results the easier method was retained. The SDG Index and Dashboards result are accessible for free online so that users can replicate the results. A number of sensitivity tests and robustness tests to various methodological assumptions are also presented for transparency.
Indicator Selection
Where insufficient data is available for an official indicator and to close data gaps, we include other metrics from official and unofficial providers. Five criteria for indicator selection were used to determine suitable metrics for inclusion in the global SDG Index and Dashboards:
- Global relevance and applicability to a broad range of country settings: The indicators are relevant for monitoring achievement of the SDGs and applicable to the entire continent. They are internationally comparable and allow for direct comparison of performance across countries. In particular, they allow for the definition of quantitative performance thresholds that signify SDG achievement.
- Statistical adequacy: The indicators selected represent valid and reliable measures.
- Timeliness: The indicators selected are up to date and published on a reasonably prompt schedule.
- Data quality: Data series represent the best available measure for a specific issue, and derive from official national or international sources (e.g. national statistical offices or international organizations) or other reputable sources, such as peer-reviewed publications. No imputations of self-reported national estimates are included.
- Coverage: Data have to be available for at least 80% of the 149 UN Member States with a national population greater than 1 million.
The SDG Index
The SDG Index score signifies a country’s position between the worst (0) and the best or target (100) outcomes. If a particular country scores at 85, this means the country is on average 85% of the way to fulfill across 17 SDG goals.
The SDG Dashboard
The SDG Dashboard shows the overview of each countries current implementation outcome across 17 SDG goals. According to the 2018 report, there are six general finidngs:
- Most G20 countries have started SDGs implementation, but important gaps remain. Results from the novel survey on national SDG implementation mechanisms show large variations among G20 countries in how the SDGs are embraced by the political leadership and translated into institutional mechanisms. Some countries have established dedicated coordination units, strategies and action plans, and accountability systems, while others lag behind on some or all of these dimensions. More data and analyses are needed to gauge the level of ambition and effectiveness of SDG strategies, tools, and processes.
- No country is on track towards achieving all SDGs. For the first time, we are able to show that no country is on track to achieve all the goals by 2030. For example, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland top the 2018 SDG Index, but they need to significantly accelerate progress towards achieving some goals, including Goal 12 (Sustainable Consumption and Production) and Goal 13 (Climate Action).
- Conflicts are leading to reversals in SDG progress. Most developing countries have experienced significant progress towards ending extreme poverty in all its forms, including income poverty, undernourishment, access to health and education services, and access to basic infrastructure. Achievement gaps are greatest towards universal completion of secondary education. Countries experiencing conflict have experienced some of the sharpest reversals, particularly towards achieving Goal 1 (No Poverty) and Goal 2 (No Hunger).
- Progress towards sustainable consumption and production patterns is too slow. High-income countries obtain their lowest scores on Goal 12 (Sustainable Consumption and Production) and Goal 14 (Life Below Water). While no trend data are available for Goal 12, the data for Goal 14 suggest that most of high-income countries have made no progress in recent years towards achieving the Goal. Trends on Goal 15 (Life on Land) are also insufficient. They show that further efforts are needed to protect the biodiversity and support sustainable production and consumption.
- High-income countries generate negative SDG spillover effects. High-income countries generate significant environmental, economic, and security spillover effects that undermine other countries’ efforts to achieve the SDGs. Yet, there is high variation in spillovers among countries with a similar per capita income. This suggests that countries can reduce their negative spillover effects without reducing their per capita incomes.
- Inequalities in economic and social outcomes require better data. Newly added indicators for OECD countries focusing on inequalities in economic, health, and education outcomes lower the SDG Index scores for some countries. This suggests significant shortfalls in ensuring that no one is left behind, which are hidden by aggregate data. Such disaggregated data are unavailable for most non-OECD countries, so greater investments are needed to fill these data gaps.
Applications on SDGs in Taiwan
Owing to I couldn’t find the latest report of 2018 Taiwan‘s Voluntary National Review, let’s take a look at the previous version. According to the report, Taiwan has been working on SDGs proactively even though we’re not an official member of the UN. The figure below shows a high level structure on how the Taiwanese government implemented the goals in each field. (More details can be find in the Chinese version as well)
Take one of the most remarkable examples from my point of view. I grew up in a cross-cultural family. My mom is from China, and my dad is from Taiwan. Under the baptism of intercultural environment, I discovered the importance of new immigrants’ education program and social inclusiveness:
The revision of the Talent Cultivation and Education Program for New Immigrants (in line with SDGs 1, 4, 10, 11, 16).
On December 14, 2016, the Ministry of Education revised the talent cultivation and education program for new immigrants, so as to provide them with lifelong learning opportunities, facilitate their quick adaptation to the local environment, help them build a new life, and offer job opportunities. The program enables immigrants to employ their linguistic and cultural advantages, develop their skills and potential, and quickly assimilate into Taiwan’s society.
As part of the program, their languages are incorporated into elementary school curriculums, and priority is placed on matching relevant children or students proficient in related languages with internships or jobs offered by overseas Taiwanese businesses. In addition, the recent progress made by Taiwan encourages new immigrants to share the culture and traditional customs of their home countries in order to give the Taiwanese people a better understanding of other cultures, which in turn contributes to greater cultural diversity and social inclusiveness.
Call to action on SDG Individually
Rather than depending on the government or corporate to respond actively on SDG goals, why not start to call to action from each individual? See below “Good Life Goals”, a personal SDG handbook developed by WBSCD. Be the change you would like to see in the world!
