Report on the Intersection of Governance and Sustainable Development Goals in Virginia

Executive Summary

This report analyzes the critical link between local governance and the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It highlights community concerns regarding the lack of transparency, integrity, and accountability among elected officials. The report posits that fiscal policies favoring corporate and wealthy interests over vulnerable populations directly impede progress on key SDGs. Effective, accountable, and transparent governance, as outlined in SDG 16, is identified as the foundational requirement for advancing a broader sustainable development agenda that includes reducing inequalities, ensuring quality education, and promoting well-being.

The Foundational Role of SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The principles of good governance are central to achieving sustainable development. Community observations indicate a deficit in political practices that align with SDG 16, which calls for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.

• Accountability and Transparency: There is a perceived failure by many political candidates to commit to basic principles of transparency, such as disclosing positions on campaign finance and conflicts of interest.
• Responsive and Inclusive Decision-Making: Current fiscal policies, including tax breaks for corporations and billionaires, are viewed as prioritizing special interests rather than the needs of the community, particularly its most vulnerable members. This contradicts the goal of responsive and representative governance.
• Fiscal Responsibility: A call has been made to return to principles of fiscal responsibility that ensure government resources are used to protect and support communities, directly aligning with the objectives of SDG 16.

Impact of Governance on Key Sustainable Development Goals

Ineffective or inequitable governance directly threatens the attainment of several critical SDGs at the community level. The allocation of public funds is a primary mechanism through which these impacts are felt.

Fiscal Policy and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

Current legislative trends that reduce financial support for struggling families while providing tax advantages to the wealthy are seen as a direct challenge to SDG 10. To advance this goal, a strategic shift is required to close tax loopholes for the affluent, thereby generating revenue to support programs that reduce economic and social disparities.

Community Infrastructure and Services

Sufficient and equitable funding is essential for the infrastructure that underpins numerous SDGs. Areas of concern include:

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Sustaining programs that ensure food security and provide a safety net for low-income families.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Ensuring community-wide access to healthcare services.
• SDG 4 (Quality Education): Adequate funding for public schools and childcare facilities.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): Support for public libraries, the arts, recreation, and environmental stewardship initiatives that enhance community life.

A Proposed Mechanism for Accountability: The Virginia Good Governance Scorecard

To address the gap in political transparency, a nonpartisan tool, the Virginia Good Governance Scorecard, has been introduced. This mechanism promotes the principles of SDG 16 by evaluating candidates on their commitment to:

1. Campaign finance transparency.
2. Avoiding conflicts of interest.
3. Protecting democratic institutions and processes.

The willingness of candidates such as Yvonne Rorrer, Sam Rasoul, and Donna Littlepage to complete the Scorecard demonstrates a commitment to these principles. Conversely, the refusal of other candidates to participate raises concerns among voters about their dedication to accountable government. It is argued that participation in such initiatives should be a prerequisite for any individual seeking to represent the public, as it provides essential data for voters to make informed decisions aligned with sustainable development values.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article primarily addresses issues related to two Sustainable Development Goals, with several others being connected through the consequences of the main issues.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The author’s core argument revolves around the need for “transparency, integrity and accountability” in government. The text explicitly calls for “good governance,” mentions “campaign finance transparency, avoiding conflicts of interest, and protecting democracy,” all of which are central tenets of SDG 16.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article directly connects governance issues to economic inequality. It criticizes politicians for giving “tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, while cutting support for our vulnerable families who are already struggling.” This highlights a concern for fiscal policies that exacerbate inequality, which is a key focus of SDG 10.

• Other Connected SDGs

  The article implies connections to other SDGs by listing the community services that suffer from a lack of equitable funding, which results from poor governance and inequitable policies. These include:

  • SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Mentioned through “cutting support for our vulnerable families” and the need for “food security.”
  • SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Mentioned through the need for funding for “access to healthcare.”
  • SDG 4 (Quality Education): Mentioned through the need to fund “schools” and “libraries.”
  • SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The overall theme of needing “sufficient, equitable funding to sustain its infrastructure” including schools, childcare, libraries, and recreation relates to creating sustainable and inclusive communities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s focus, the following specific targets can be identified:

1. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   This target is directly addressed throughout the article. The author’s main plea is for “accountable government” and “transparency.” The promotion of the “Virginia Good Governance Scorecard” is a tangible effort to build more transparent and accountable institutions by making candidates’ positions clear to voters.

2. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

   The article emphasizes the need for elected officials who “put people over special interests” and represent the community’s values. The call for candidates to complete the scorecard so that “Voters of all parties deserve to know who truly believes in accountable government” is a call for more responsive and representative decision-making.

3. Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.

   The author’s criticism of “tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, while cutting support for our vulnerable families” and the call to “focus on closing tax loopholes for the wealthy” are direct references to the kind of fiscal policies this target aims to influence.

4. Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.

   This target is implied through the call for candidates to demonstrate their stance on “avoiding conflicts of interest,” which is a key measure in preventing corruption.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions one explicit tool and implies other indicators for measuring progress.

• The Virginia Good Governance Scorecard

  This is an explicit indicator mentioned in the article. It is described as a “nonpartisan tool showing where candidates stand on basics like campaign finance transparency, avoiding conflicts of interest, and protecting democracy.” This scorecard serves as a direct measurement tool for assessing the commitment of political candidates to the principles of Target 16.6 (accountable and transparent institutions).

• Number/Percentage of Candidates Completing the Scorecard

  The article implies this as a key performance indicator. The author notes, “I’m grateful that local candidates like Yvonne Rorrer, Sam Rasoul, and Donna Littlepage have filled out the Scorecard,” but laments that “many others remain silent.” The rate of completion of this scorecard can be used as a metric to gauge the level of transparency and accountability among candidates in the region.

• Adoption of Equitable Fiscal Policies

  An implied indicator for Target 10.4 is the nature of fiscal policy. The article suggests progress could be measured by tracking whether policies are enacted to “clos[e] tax loopholes for the wealthy” and increase, rather than cut, “support for our vulnerable families.”

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: roanoke.com