1. Introduction

The 17 sustainable development goals established in 2015 incorporate several dimensions, which represent a political commitment to achieving by 2030 economic and human progress in the world’s countries through viable actions that will endure over time. As Rickels et al. (Citation2016) indicated, the SDGs have been integrated into international and national policies, looking for coordination, monitoring, and assessment of sustainable development policies. Additionally, the SDGs may provide helpful assistance for the inclusion advocates, a common language, and a framework to bolster international collaboration, and space for contestation (Siegel and Bastos-Lima Citation2020).

The SDGs are global and represent an indivisible set of international priorities. However, at the same time, they can be adjusted to the different national realities, cultures, demographic dynamics, and ways of life of the various societies in the world, respecting the targets set by each country to advance in the framework of the 2030 Agenda. Thus, each SDG is an umbrella term that can be multi-faceted and contain numerous policy goals (Kroll, Warchold, and Pradhan Citation2019). The aim is to perform annual monitoring of the progress made towards the various aspects that are measured, and in the 15 years since the establishment of the SDGs, substantial progress has been observed in industrialized countries (Lange et al. Citation2019).

This more significant progress has resulted of their high purchasing power and the effectiveness of their governmental policies to assess, monitor, and control SDG performance on its various fronts. Instead, in developing countries, the assessment of the progress made in the 2030 Agenda is less encouraging, and corruption looms large as one of the main risks for achieving the goals related to economic growth and the reduction of poverty because of the diversion of resources further accentuates inequality (Lalama-Franco and Bravo-Lalama Citation2019).

Regarding the countries’ current progress in achieving the SDGs, it is also necessary to consider that the global COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 has forced many countries to reset their priorities and reallocate investments to care for their populations’ health. The full impact the pandemic will have on achieving the goals of the 2030 Agenda is not yet known, but the COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as a poverty-related neglected disease on at least two fronts. First, is its significant impact on low-income regions and rural areas. Second, its affects poor South America, Asia, and African urban areas. On both fronts, the pandemic contributes heavily to the loss of public health gains that we achieved globally during the last two decades (Mejia, Hotez, and Bottazzi Citation2020).

Despite preliminary studies, reports, and the data presented to date (Cardoso et al. Citation2022; Özsoy and Gürler Citation2022; Yildirim Citation2022), the United Nations has not yet estimated or officially reported the impact that COVID-19 will have on achieving the SDGs, and efforts by all the governments of all countries in the world will be required to assess it. The 2021 Sustainability report indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic is a setback for sustainable development everywhere. For the first time since the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, the global average SDG Index score for 2020 has decreased from the previous year. Nevertheless, the decline in SDG performance globally is likely underestimated in this year’s report, with many indicators for 2020 not yet available due to time lags in international statistics (Sachs et al. Citation2021).

Given all the above, this study assesses 40 SDG indicators reported in 2021 by 125 countries, intending to determine, based on the existing interdependencies between the goals of the 2030 Agenda, the opportunities the countries have to achieve them. For this reason, this study is exploratory, descriptive, and correlational because it seeks to determine how the indicators are related to each other from a comparative perspective between countries, and without setting predefined hypotheses on the causes for their covariations nor their possible effects on a given group of countries.

From a practical point of view, the analyzes are carried out using the HJ-Biplot technique, seeking to contribute to the existing literature on the interrelationships between the SDGs with data analysis. It seeks not to emphasize the significance of the bivariate correlation between the different aspects examined but to analyze the variations and covariations between the indicators, interpreting the results by countries, regions, and their economic level.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive results

To exemplify the current status of the SDGs in the world, Figure 1 displays a comparison between countries and their income levels for three indicators: universal health coverage index of service coverage (% G3.UHC), population with access to electricity (% G7.PAE), and mean an area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (% G15.PTB).

Figure 1. Comparison of the SDG indicators by countries income level (UHC, PAE, and PTB).

Display full size

In Figure 1, the first aspect that stands out is the lower variability observed as the countries’ income levels increase. Especially among African countries for all the graphed indicators, the variability between counties is high, which reflects the major challenges faced by the region in advancing toward the SDG goals due to the low-income level of most of its countries. Instead, in Europe, greater uniformity is observed between countries, although some of its middle-income countries face challenges in specific aspects to improve the life quality of their populations.

Regarding the universal access to healthcare indicator, the best performance is currently observed in high-income countries. In European countries and the countries of the Americas region, over 74% of the population has medical coverage. In the countries of Asia and Oceania, the average percentage of indicator G3.UHC is 69.2%, and this value is only 47.9% in Africa. A similar pattern is observed in terms of the percentage of the population with access to electricity, where coverage is high in most countries except in Africa, where further work must be done to make this essential service available to households, given that it is estimated that only 53% of the population has access to electricity. This percentage is 38% in low-income African countries.

Lastly, regarding the description of the patterns observed in Figure 1, opportunities are observed throughout the world in terms of the percentage of mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity, particularly in countries where the G15.PTB indicator is below 10%, as in the case of Moldova (MDA), Iraq (IRQ), China (CHN), Turkey (TUR), Mauritius (MUS) and Mali (MLI).

Figure 2 presents the matrix of bivariate correlations between the 40 studied SDG indicators. Positive associations are colored orange and negative ones are colored green, and the intensity of the color reflects the strength of the correlation, where the lightest shades indicate correlations that approach zero.

Figure 2. Bivariate correlations between SDG indicators.

Display full size

In the context of the development indicators analysis, the associations can be interpreted as aspects that jointly contribute to or mutually limit the attainment of sustainability, whereas inverse relationships represent offsets, i.e. aspects that should not have high values simultaneously. For example, a country should not destroy the environment for economic development.

Figure 2 displays high covariations between the SDG indicators. Of the 780 pairs of correlations that were calculated, 434 (55.6%) were positive. The highest correlation found was 0.946 between the mortality rate of children under the age of 5 and the neonatal mortality rate (G3.MRU5 and G3.NEOM), both of which are indicators of Goal 3, related to ensuring the health and well-being of the world’s population. The strongest inverse correlation found was −0.885 between G7.PAE and G1.PHR3 indicates that when a country’s poverty rate is high (percentage of people who live on less than $3.20/day), the percentage of the population without access to electricity is also high.

Regarding the indicators on conservation of the environment and economic growth, the correlations found in this study indicate that the countries with the highest purchasing power are the ones that most contribute to the degradation of the environment. For example, a high correlation of 0.671 is observed between the indicators G17.GSHE and G12.PNE implies that the higher the investment in education and healthcare as a percentage of GDP, the higher the production-based nitrogen emissions and, therefore, lower responsible production.

4.2. Results of the multivariate analysis

Below are the interpretations of the multiple associations found between the indicators, the countries, and both, using Biplot representations (Figures 3 and 4). Figure 3 presents the variation and covariation structure of the studied SDG indicators (variables) represented by vectors. The position of the countries (observations) is graphed as points in different colors depending on whether they belong to the global North or the global South. Initially, the names of the countries are not shown to focus on the interdependencies between the indicators. Figure 4 displays the positions of the 125 studied countries to draw conclusions on their relative proximity and relative positions compared to the distribution of the variables.

Figure 3. Plane 1–2 in the HJ-Biplot analysis of the SDG indicators by global North and South.

Display full size

Figure 4. Countries by regions in the JK-Biplot of the SDG indicators (plane 1–2).

Display full size

Figure 3 indicates that the variability explained by the first axis is 47% of everything that the data could explain, so it can be said that the first axis represents sustainable development, given that the vectors located towards the left (in quadrants II and III) are the SDG indicators on conditions that limit progress towards the 2030 Agenda.

On the other hand, most of the indicators located in the direction of axis 1 favor the countries’ economic and human growth. Quadrant II of the plane includes four conditions measured under Goal 3, closely associated with a target of Goal 2 and with Goal 1. This high covariance between the vectors G3.MATM, G3.MRU5, G3.NEOM, G3.AFR, G2.PSC5 and G1.PHR3 is associated with the countries of the global South with high poverty levels because maternal, neonatal, and under-5 death rates, stunted child growth, and adolescent pregnancy are highly related to each other in populations with a high percentage of people living on less than 3.2 USD per day.

Quadrant III of the plane in Figure 3 displays the targets that belong to the goals that characterize middle-income countries, in which challenges are still found for achieving sustainable development. It is in aspects such as inequalities in salaries and between people, differences in the quality of life between the country’s rich and poor (measured through the indicators G10.GINI and G10.PAL); death rate due to cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease in adults aged 30–70 years (indicator G3.DCCD); high homicide rate (G16.HOM); and limitations in freedom of the press or expression (G16.PFI).

Quadrant IV of the plane displays a combination of medium and high-income countries from the global North and global South that have made efforts in advancing towards achieving the 2030 Agenda, which stand out, among other aspects, for their populations’ access to essential services such as electricity, gas, clean water, sewage, internet, and healthcare coverage (indicators G6.PWS, G6.PSS, G7.PAE, G7.CFC, G9.INT and, G3.UHC). These countries feature high percentages of people who complete their secondary education (G4.SEC), women have the opportunity to study in similar conditions as men (G5.FME); children receive the vaccines recommended by the World Health Organization (G3.I2VA), and infrastructure has been arranged so that the population is satisfied with public transportation (G11.TRA). An opportunity observed in this group of countries is to promote a healthy diet to control the prevalence of obesity (G2.OBES).

To conclude the description of the patterns observed in the plane of Figure 3, in the developed countries of the global North, the people do not perceive high levels of corruption or misappropriation of public funds (G16.CPI). A substantial percentage of GDP is allocated to education and health (G17.GSHE), and the trade and transport-related infrastructure are highly quality (G9.LPI). However, urgent measures are required to mitigate the adverse effects of the production and importation of consumer goods and services that produce high emissions of nitrogen or CO2 (G12.PNE, G12.NEI, G13.CO2I). These countries also display a high indicator of fatal work-related accidents embodied in imports (G8.FWI).

Lastly, it is important to mention the vectors that are observed to contribute to axis 2 of the plane, which explains 10% of the variability of the information. G5.FML, G8.UNE, G15.REDL and G15.PTB display small angles compared to this axis and, consequently are the indicators that most contribute to this second multidimensional characteristic, which is associated with the search for gender equality in the labor market (G5.FML), the unemployment rate of the population (G8.UNE), the survival of endangered species (G15.REDL) and the protection of biodiversity (G15.PTB). All these characteristics promote equality between people and all living beings inhabiting the planet.

To complement the description made up to this point, the plane in Figure 4 includes the names of the countries, color-coded by continent. Their positions on the plane indicate the challenges they face in their search for sustainable development. For example, of the 140 studied countries, the greatest contrast can be seen between Chad and United Arab Emirates (TCD and ARE), which are on the opposite ends of axis 1. This difference results from the behavior of several SDG indicators: Whereas in Chad currently, 67.9% of the population lives on less than 3.2 USD per day, this percentage in the United Arab Emirates is only 0.28%. Chad reports 1,140 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, whereas, in the United Arab Emirates, this indicator is about three women.

The difference between both countries in terms of the percentage of female members of parliament is 15% compared to 50%. In terms of the availability of potable water services for households, the percentages are 38.7% versus 98.04%, respectively. Regarding accessibility to internet service, the contrast is 5.6% vs. 99.15%, among other aspects that contribute to the considerable difference between both countries.

Figure 4 shows that most African countries are in quadrant II of the plane. The countries from Asia, Oceania, Latin America, and the Caribbean are observed covarying in the opposite direction of axis 2, near the axis. The European countries are seen in quadrants IV and I of the plane, in the direction of axes 1 and 2 (from left to right and from bottom to top), depending on their purchasing power and development level, where eastern European countries are located in quadrant IV, and the countries with high SDG performance are located in quadrant I (in the top right of the plane), including Norway (NOR), Netherlands (NLD), Switzerland (CHE) and Denmark (DNK).

The coronavirus pandemic stalled the limited progress made in the years after United Nations member states adopted the goals in 2015. Now, halfway through the 15-year time frame, not a single one of the goals is on target to be met.

“We’re at the risk of a lost decade for sustainable development,” said Guillaume Lafortune, a lead author of the report and vice president and head of the Paris office of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, the nonprofit launched by the UN to foster and track sustainable development. “And there’s actually a risk that the gap between rich and poor countries on sustainable development might be bigger in 2030 than it was in 2015.”

The goals, which the authors described as “an ethical imperative,” cover a range of areas, including threats to the climate and environment but also basic human rights such as food, health and education.

The authors noted that goals for reducing hunger, improving health, and protecting biodiversity are particularly off-track. They said changing global governance mechanisms and global finance architecture are critical for improving progress on all the goals.

The report analyzed countries’ progress on the sustainability goals by assigning them scores from zero to 100. They examined factors like poverty, hunger, disease, carbon dioxide emissions, subjective well-being scores, and dozens of other indicators. Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Austria ranked highest. South Sudan ranked lowest, followed by the Central African Republic, Chad, Yemen, and Somalia.

Lafortune called particular attention to the “disappointing” United States scorecard, which he said was below average for developed countries. He said the U.S. was one of the worst performers in terms of its commitment efforts and was one of only five member countries that did not present action plans and priorities to the international community. But Lafortune did note that some U.S. cities voluntarily provided local reviews.

Kimberly Marion Suiseeya, an associate professor of political science and environmental policy and culture at Northwestern University who did not work on the report, said that while she sees pressing global development shortfalls on issues like the climate emergency, she thinks the Biden administration is taking climate seriously. She also saw signs of optimism in China’s progress on renewable energy. Though the country ranked below the U.S. in the report, it has invested more in clean energy, according to research firm BloombergNEF.

Anita Ramasastry, a law professor and director of the Sustainable International Development graduate program at the University of Washington, said she wasn’t surprised that the sustainable development goals are off track. Ramasastry, who had no part in the report, said she doesn’t think many governments with more advanced economies, like the U.S., have embraced the goals or made them relevant to citizens’ daily lives.

She questioned whether the goals were overly ambitious and added that it will be important to examine how the 2030 agenda is financed, as well as the role of the private sector.

“Business has been asked to fill a role. And I think there’s just an ultimate question, which is, should we have asked business to fill that role?” she asked. “Because ultimately, the SDGs are meant to be about governments and states.”

The report made the same point repeatedly, singling out several “basic failures” in global governance. Those included voluntary implementation of the goals with no enforcement mechanisms when countries fall short, international trade and finance rules not geared to sustainability, and national governments not coordinating well with smaller units of government on the goals.

Lafortune called for countries to keep the sustainable development goals in mind as they approach the Paris summit and other global conferences. He said Paris has the opportunity to act as an “accelerator” toward reforming international institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which he sees as possible elements of a global strategy for investment in tackling climate change and other sustainable development goals.

“Despite all the fragmentation right now in geopolitics, the many crises and so on, we still need to keep that sort of long-term vision and this idea of multilateralism and global cooperation alive. I think this is absolutely crucial,” Lafortune said. “I don’t think the world will be better off if we just forget about these goals because we won’t achieve them.”

Follow Melina Walling on Twitter at @MelinaWalling

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) released its ‘State of the Global Climate 2023’ report this week, with information from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Climate Risks team. It’s a chilling read – a graphic demonstration of runaway climate change and its impacts.

The year 2023 broke records, but for all the wrong reasons. Many countries experienced heatwaves and wildfires, droughts, and flooding rains, in greater numbers and intensity than ever before. The impact often on the most vulnerable was dramatic. Extreme weather events worsened food and water shortages and environmental degradation, forcing millions of people to take to the road to survive.

There are 333 million people who are acutely food insecure, more than double the number before the COVID-19 pandemic. 

These records matter. We can’t just passively observe the changing climate. Reversing this trend will require major investments in solutions that can help countries and communities build resilience, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and protect lives and livelihoods all at once.

Nowhere are these solutions more abundant and impactful than in agriculture and food systems. More sustainable and efficient farming and agriculture hold a huge potential for positive climate action. FAO is working with countries to develop and implement these solutions, including: agroforestry; restoring degraded agricultural land; supporting better soil and water management; developing more resilient crop varieties, efficient biofertilizers, and sustainable biofuels; and reducing food loss and waste, among many others. 

We have hard evidence from the field of how effective these can be.

In El Salvador, for example, the FAO-led RECLIMA project helps communities replenish water sources and improve food production by restoring degraded lands and planting native fruit trees. In 2022, more than 13,000 hectares of critical ecosystems had been restored. And we estimate the project has already reduced around 2.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).

In Senegal, FAO and other partners are working to restore degraded mangroves, threatened by rising sea levels and a growing demand for smoked fish. The project is regenerating land and replanting large areas of mangroves, while also training communities to rethink how they utilize and conserve these biodiverse environments.

FAO’s climate and weather information services are also practical and cost-effective tools, assisting adaptation to the effects of climate change. Translating scientific data available worldwide into accessible information, they improve farm management from farm to fork. Farmers and other agricultural producers can access short-term and seasonal weather forecasts to help decide in advance which crops to plant in the next season, whether and when to apply fertilizer and irrigate, and how to sell products in a more strategic way. All this builds resilience while also improving the quality and quantity of food produced and sold at market, and minimizing food loss and waste along the production process.

Collaborating since 2016, FAO and the Green Climate Fund (GCF) have significantly increased investment in projects in low-income countries (LICs) and middle-income countries (MICs), enhancing the sustainability and resilience of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors to climate change, with a portfolio surpassing USD 1 billion.

Similarly, as a partner agency for the Global Environment Facility (GEF), FAO has helped more than 120 countries in projects that deliver global environmental benefits and advance the SDGs. The partnership supports countries to sustainably manage millions of hectares of land and reduce GHG emissions by over of CO2e, bringing real benefits in terms of green jobs and livelihoods.

But even though the array of solutions offered by agrifood systems have been tried and tested, they have not so far been implemented at a scale that matches their potential. Finance is not flowing towards the solutions that can make a real difference and deliver multiple benefits for climate resilience and food security.

Global climate-related finance for development has increased over the last decade, but financial support to agrifood systems is small and diminishing. As the WMO report also mentions, adaptation finance falls well short of the estimated USD 212 billion per year needed up to 2030 in developing countries alone. The majority of this is directed to the water and wastewater sector, while agriculture and other sectors with wide-ranging adaptation potential continue to receive only a minimal share.

We need to close this financing gap. We need to scale up the solutions that bring multiple benefits, building resilience, mitigating emissions, and achieving food security. The potential for agrifood solutions in the face of an increasingly unpredictable future is enormous. The alternative, continuing to watch as climate extremes and weather events break records, is simply unacceptable.

By Malgorzata Buszko-Briggs, Senior Forestry Officer, FAO

The world’s countries, and many international organizations and forest stakeholders, will meet next week in New York, US, for the 19th session of the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF). This crucial meeting will seek to inject new ideas and further urgency into the quest to scale up forest-based solutions to global challenges.

Forests and trees are our allies in fighting climate change, conserving biodiversity, and transforming agrifood systems to make them more sustainable. Forest-based solutions are an essential ingredient for achieving SDGs 1 (no poverty), 2 (zero hunger), 13 (climate action), 15 (life on land), and many others.

UNFF 19 will review what is known as the International Arrangement on Forests and its contributions to implementation of the UN Strategic Plan for Forests 2017-2030 (UNSPF). This plan sets out six Global Forest Goals to be achieved by 2030. Progress has been made towards these goals, but there is still a long way to go.

For example, despite recent significant reductions in deforestation in some countries, the world is still far short of the target of increasing forest cover by 3% by 2030. Moreover, forests themselves are under pressure from climate change and other stressors, such as increasingly severe wildfires and pest attacks.

There is an urgent need to confront the threats to forests while scaling up solutions to match the magnitude of the challenges. This, in turn, will need innovative approaches and ever-stronger partnerships.

At UNFF 19, ministers and other high-level representatives responsible for forests are expected to adopt a ministerial declaration and what is called an “omnibus” resolution.

The Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), which is part of the International Arrangement on Forests, is an inter-agency partnership of 16 international organizations, institutions, and secretariats working on substantial programmes and initiatives around forests. At UNFF 19, it will reaffirm its commitment to the CPF Joint Call to Action, issued last year, which is a clarion call for heightened commitment and concerted efforts to fortify forest-based solutions for achieving the SDGs and the Global Forest Goals by 2030.

Fostering responsible innovation will be central to the 27th session of FAO’s highest statutory body on forests, the Committee on Forestry (COFO), which will be held in July in conjunction with the ninth World Forest Week.

COFO sessions, which are held every two years, bring together heads of forest services and other senior officials from governments around the world to identify emerging policy and technical issues and seek solutions.

COFO 27 will focus on accelerating the contributions of forests to the SDGs through innovation, led by debate on FAO’s flagship report, ‘The State of the World’s Forests’ (to be launched during the session), which analyzes forest sector innovations towards a more sustainable future.

Innovations have the potential to scale up forest conservation, restoration, and sustainable use as solutions to global challenges. They are already leading to fast-moving changes in forestry – ranging from technological innovations in data for improving forest monitoring, assessment, reporting, and management, through new means for organizing smallholders and enabling them to scale up their economic power, to astonishing advances in wood use.

There is no shortage of global challenges that forests and trees can help address, and no shortage of threats they themselves face. Fortunately, we can take steps now towards a better future. To accelerate the contributions of forests to the SDGs, the Global Forest Goals, and other commitments, we need robust policy debate that leads to the deployment of more innovative solutions on the ground. Complementing each other, UNFF 19 and COFO 27 will play important roles towards this end.

Made To Be Remade from American Beverage Association on Vimeo.

These 17 goals were defined in 2015 by the United Nations with the goal of them being completed by 2030. They are a continuation and build off of the Millenium Development Goals that were in practice from 2000 to 2015. The MDGs were incredibly successful and we are seeing success even now with the SDGs.

In 2015, the 193 countries that make up the United Nations (UN) agreed to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The historic agenda lays out 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and targets for dignity, peace, and prosperity for the planet and humankind, to be completed by the year 2030. The agenda targets multiple areas for action, such as poverty and sanitation, and plans to build up local economies while addressing people's social needs.

In short, the 17 SDGs are:

Goal 1: No Poverty: End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Goal 2: Zero Hunger: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.

Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

Goal 4: Quality Education: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

Goal 5: Gender Equality: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.

Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.

Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation.

Goal 10: Reduced Inequality: Reduce inequality within and among countries.

Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.

Goal 13: Climate Action: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

Goal 14: Life Below Water: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development.

Goal 15: Life on Land: Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

Goal 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Goal 17: Partnerships to Achieve the Goal: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.

The SDGs build on over a decade of work by participating countries. In essence, the SDGs are a continuation of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which began in the year 2000 and ended in 2015. The MDGs helped to lift nearly one billion people out of extreme poverty, combat hunger, and allow more girls to attend school. The MDGs, specifically goal seven, helped to protect the planet by practically eliminating global consumption of ozone-depleting substances; planting trees to offset the loss of forests; and increasing the percent of total land and coastal marine areas worldwide. The SDGs carry on the momentum generated by the MDGs with an ambitious post-2015 development agenda that may cost over $4 trillion each year. The SDGs were a result of the 2012 Rio+20 Earth Summit, which demanded the creation of an open working group to develop a draft agenda for 2015 and onward.

Unlike the MDGs, which relied exclusively on funding from governments and nonprofit organizations, the SDGs also rely on the private business sector to make contributions that change impractical and unsustainable consumption and production patterns. Novozymes, a purported world leader in biological solutions, is just one example of a business that has aligned its goals with the SDGs. Novozymes has prioritized development of technology that reduces the amount of water required for waste treatment. However, the UN must find more ways to meaningfully engage the private sector to reach the goals, and more businesses need to step up to the plate to address these goals.

Overall, limited progress has been made with the SDGs. According to the UN, many people are living healthier lives now compared to the start of the millennium, representing one area of progress made by the MDGs and SDGs. For example, the UN reported that between 2012 and 2017, 80 percent of live births worldwide had assistance from a skilled health professional—an improvement from 62 percent between 2000 and 2005.

While some progress has been made, representatives who attended sustainable development meetings claimed that the SDGs are not being accomplished at the speed, or with the appropriate momentum, needed to meet the 2030 deadline. On some measures of poverty, only slight improvements have been made: The 2018 SDGs Report states that 9.2 percent of the world's workers who live with family members made less than $1.90 per person per day in 2017, representing less than a 1 percent improvement from 2015. Another issue is the recent rise in world hunger. Rates had been steadily declining, but the 2018 SDGs Report stated that over 800 million people were undernourished worldwide in 2016, which is up from 777 million people in 2015.

Another area of the SDGs that lacks progress is gender equality. Multiple news outlets have recently reported that no country is on track to achieve gender equality by 2030 based on the SDG gender index. On a scale of zero to 100, where a score of 100 means equality has been achieved, Denmark was the top performing country out of 129 countries with score slightly under 90. A score of 90 or above means a country is making excellent progress in achieving the goals, and 59 or less is considered poor headway. Countries were scored against SDGs targets that particularly affect women, such as access to safe water or the Internet. The majority of the top 20 countries with a good ranking were European countries, while sub-Saharan Africa had some of the lowest-ranking countries. The overall average score of all countries is a poor score of 65.7.

In fall of 2019, heads of state and government will convene at the United Nations Headquarters in New York to assess the progress in the 17 SDGs. The following year—2020—marks the deadline for 21 of the 169 SDG targets. At this time, UN member states will meet to make a decision to update these targets.

In addition to global efforts to achieve the SDGs, according to the UN, there are ways that an individual can contribute to progress: save on electricity while home by unplugging appliances when not in use; go online and opt in for paperless statements instead of having bills mailed to the house; and report bullying online when seen in a chat room or on social media.