#Achieving SDGs

[infobrainwave]

Achieving SDGs| How Key Players Drive Accountability in Action| Roles of Key Players in SDG Tracking

In today's global landscape, achieving the SDGs is a shared responsibility that extends far beyond governments alone. Join us on this journey as we uncover the strategies and actions taken by governments, businesses, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other key players to make sure these ambitious goals are not just lofty ideals but tangible realities.

Discover how these key players collaborate, innovate, and drive progress at local, national, and global levels. From policy-making to practical implementation, we'll showcase real-world examples of how accountability is established and maintained.

[greenthestral]

Unlocking Sustainable Development: The 5 Ps of SDGs for a Better Future

In an era of rapid globalization, the concept of sustainable development has gained significant importance. As our world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is crucial to address the pressing challenges facing our planet, such as poverty, inequality, climate change, and environmental degradation. The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offer a comprehensive framework that outlines the actions needed to tackle these complex issues and create a sustainable future for all.

The SDGs comprise 17 interconnected goals, each addressing a specific aspect of sustainable development. These goals encompass a wide range of social, economic, and environmental issues, including poverty eradication, quality education, gender equality, clean energy, responsible consumption, climate action, and sustainable cities, among others. To effectively achieve these goals, it is essential to embrace and implement the 5 Ps of SDGs: People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnerships.

The 5 Ps of SDGs - People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnerships - serve as a holistic approach to sustainable development. To create a brighter future for all, we must understand the interconnections between these elements and take concerted action. Achieving the SDGs requires the collective effort of governments, businesses, civil society, and individuals worldwide. Each person has a role to play in promoting sustainable practices, advocating for change, and holding decision-makers accountable. By embracing the 5 Ps of SDGs, we can pave the way for a sustainable future where humanity and the planet thrive in harmony.

People: Placing Humanity at the Center

The first P of SDGs is People. It emphasizes the importance of eradicating poverty, promoting education, ensuring gender equality, and improving healthcare and well-being. By investing in people, we can empower communities, reduce inequalities, and create a foundation for sustainable development. Education plays a pivotal role in this regard, as it equips individuals with the necessary skills to thrive in a rapidly changing world. Moreover, promoting gender equality and empowering women not only enhances social justice but also leads to economic growth and environmental sustainability.

Planet: Preserving Our Natural Resources

The second P of SDGs is Planet, highlighting the urgent need to protect and restore our environment. Climate change, deforestation, pollution, and resource depletion pose significant threats to our planet's well-being. To achieve sustainability, we must adopt sustainable practices and reduce our ecological footprint. Transitioning to renewable energy sources, conserving water, promoting sustainable agriculture, and protecting biodiversity are essential steps towards mitigating the impacts of climate change and safeguarding the planet for future generations.

Prosperity: Ensuring Inclusive Economic Growth

The third P of SDGs is Prosperity, which focuses on fostering inclusive economic growth and decent work for all. Sustainable economic development is crucial for poverty eradication and reducing inequality. Creating job opportunities, promoting entrepreneurship, and fostering innovation are key drivers of prosperity. By ensuring fair trade, investing in infrastructure, and promoting sustainable industrialization, we can achieve economic growth that benefits all segments of society, leaving no one behind.

Peace: Cultivating a Culture of Peace and Justice

The fourth P of SDGs is Peace. Sustainable development cannot be achieved without peace, justice, and strong institutions. Conflicts, corruption, and weak governance systems hinder progress and undermine social cohesion. It is imperative to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice, and strengthen institutions at all levels. Investing in conflict prevention, promoting the rule of law, and safeguarding human rights are integral to building a sustainable future where everyone can thrive.

Partnerships: Collaborating for Collective Impact

The fifth and final P of SDGs is Partnerships. Achieving the SDGs requires collaboration among governments, businesses, civil society organizations, and individuals. Partnerships facilitate knowledge sharing, resource mobilization, and collective action. Through effective partnerships, we can leverage the strengths and expertise of different stakeholders to address complex challenges. Public-private partnerships, cross-sector collaborations, and international cooperation are vital for driving transformative change and achieving sustainable development goals.

Conclusion

Achieving the SDGs requires the collective effort of governments, businesses, civil society, and individuals worldwide. Each person has a role to play in promoting sustainable practices, advocating for change, and holding decision-makers accountable. Individuals can contribute by making conscious choices in their daily lives, such as adopting sustainable consumption patterns, reducing waste, and supporting businesses that prioritize sustainability. Civil society organizations can drive awareness, mobilize communities, and hold governments and businesses accountable for their actions. Businesses can integrate sustainability into their operations, supply chains, and products, while also fostering innovation for sustainable solutions. Governments play a vital role in creating and implementing policies, regulations, and frameworks that enable sustainable development. International cooperation and partnerships are essential for sharing knowledge, mobilizing resources, and fostering collective action.

In conclusion, by embracing the 5 Ps of SDGs - People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnerships - we can work together to unlock a brighter future for humanity and the planet. Sustainable development requires an integrated approach that addresses social, economic, and environmental dimensions. It calls for the collective effort of governments, businesses, civil society, and individuals at all levels. By addressing these interconnected areas and collaborating effectively, we can pave the way for a more sustainable, equitable, and prosperous world where all people can thrive in harmony with nature. Let us unite in our commitment to the SDGs and take action to create a better future for generations to come.

Transforming a City: A Case Study on Implementing the 5 Ps of SDGs

Introduction:

The 5 Ps of SDGs - People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnerships - provide a holistic framework for achieving sustainable development. To understand the practical application of these principles, let's explore a real-life case study of a city that successfully implemented the 5 Ps to transform itself into a sustainable and thriving urban center.

Case Study: City X

City X, a medium-sized urban area, faced numerous challenges such as rapid urbanization, inadequate infrastructure, high pollution levels, and rising inequality. Recognizing the need for sustainable development, the city government embarked on a comprehensive plan that integrated the 5 Ps of SDGs into their policies and initiatives.

People: Placing Humanity at the Center

City X focused on improving the quality of life for its residents. The government implemented programs to eradicate poverty, enhance access to quality education and healthcare, and promote gender equality. They established community centers that provided vocational training and support services for marginalized populations, empowering them to become active contributors to the city's development.

Planet: Preserving Natural Resources

To address environmental challenges, City X adopted sustainable practices to reduce its carbon footprint. The city invested in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, and implemented energy-efficient initiatives in public buildings. They also launched waste management programs, promoting recycling and composting, while reducing landfill waste. Green spaces were created, and efforts were made to protect and restore local ecosystems, ensuring a greener and healthier environment for residents.

Prosperity: Ensuring Inclusive Economic Growth

City X aimed to foster inclusive economic growth by attracting investments and supporting local businesses. The government worked closely with entrepreneurs and provided resources and mentorship to encourage the establishment of sustainable and socially responsible enterprises. Job creation initiatives focused on sectors such as clean energy, technology, and sustainable tourism, offering employment opportunities for both skilled and unskilled workers.

Peace: Cultivating a Culture of Peace and Justice

City X recognized the importance of peace, justice, and strong institutions for sustainable development. The government prioritized community policing, promoting trust and collaboration between law enforcement agencies and residents. They also invested in social programs that focused on conflict resolution, addressing issues such as discrimination, violence, and social exclusion. By strengthening institutions and promoting a culture of peace, City X aimed to create a safe and harmonious community.

Partnerships: Collaborating for Collective Impact

City X understood that achieving the SDGs required partnerships and collaboration among various stakeholders. The government actively engaged with local businesses, civil society organizations, educational institutions, and community groups. Together, they developed innovative solutions, shared resources, and leveraged expertise to address the city's challenges. Public-private partnerships were forged to fund sustainable infrastructure projects and implement community-driven initiatives.

Results and Impact:

The implementation of the 5 Ps of SDGs in City X yielded significant results. The city experienced a remarkable transformation, becoming a model for sustainable urban development. The initiatives led to a decrease in poverty rates, improved access to quality education and healthcare, and reduced gender inequalities. Environmental indicators, such as air and water quality, improved due to the adoption of sustainable practices. The city's economy thrived with the creation of green jobs, increased investment, and a more inclusive business environment. Social cohesion improved as trust and collaboration among diverse communities increased, contributing to a safer and more harmonious city.

Furthermore, City X's success attracted international attention, leading to knowledge-sharing partnerships with other cities facing similar challenges. The case study of City X became a source of inspiration and learning for other urban areas striving to achieve sustainable development.

Conclusion:

The case study of City X illustrates the transformative power of implementing the 5 Ps of SDGs in a real-world context. By prioritizing People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnerships, the city government successfully addressed social, economic, and environmental challenges. Through their integrated approach, they created a sustainable and thriving urban center that prioritized the well-being of its residents, protected the environment, and fostered inclusive economic growth. This case study serves as a valuable example of how the 5 Ps of SDGs can be effectively applied to achieve sustainable development and inspire positive change in cities worldwide.

[maroonpaper]

Sustainable Development Goals: commitment and achievement of Developed Nations

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 global objectives that were endorsed by the United Nations in 2015 as a component of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The SDGs are a collection of universal objectives that apply to all nations and address a variety of concerns, such as poverty, hunger, health, education, gender equality, access to clean water and sanitation,…

[zeldahime]

Zelda Liveblogs a Lancet Paper

Following this post, I am now going to liveblog reading the Lancet paper cited by the Economist article to predict worldwide fertility to drop by 3/4s of its current position if current demographic trends continue. It is an Open Access article, so the entire thing is open for anyone on the internet to read.

Citation:

GBD 2021 Fertility and Forecasting Collaborators (March 20, 2024). Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. The Lancet, 403(10440), 2057-2099. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00550-6.

I refuse to use Chicago style. This is mostly because I memorized APA and don't want to learn a new one.

First, my background: I am not a demographer; I am not trained as a demographer; I have studied it auxiliarily to my other academic pursuits. I fall in a sort of educated in-between. I am currently a Master's student in library and information sciences, and my undergraduate degree was in political science, both at USAmerican universities. However, the field of economics is also very close to my heart, and I would have double-majored in it if the opportunity and financial costs had not been too high to justify it. During the five years I was a college drop-out, I studied economics independently, reading broadly within the field and taking non-certificate courses online. I've been taking non-certificate courses in economics through correspondence or online since I was about nine. I'm not an expert! I do, however, think I'm a fairly well-informed amateur.

And a note on language. This paper refers to birthing parents as mothers and to the demographic that gives birth interchangeably as female and women. I acknowledge that this is a cissexist patriarchical viewpoint that erases transmen, nonbinary and intersex people, and probably others I'm not thinking of. For consistency between my reflections and the paper and ease of reading, I will do the same. I'm conscious I'm part of the problem here, but don't see a way around it without making my bits harder to understand than they have to be.

With that out of the way, here we go:

Methodology (Summary)

This is where me not being a demographer is an important thing to know. I neither know nor normally care about the statistical methods used to determine demography, just that the demographers aren't retracting papers over it. However, I do know that in general the CCF50 (total cohort fertility before the age of 50) is a neater and more accurate measurement to build projections on than the TFR (total fertility rate by year) and that's the methodology the paper's authors went with. This is good and promising. TFR for known years and CCF50 projections sounds like a solid method. 👍

We additionally produced forecasts for multiple alternative scenarios in each location: the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for education is achieved by 2030; the contraceptive met need SDG is achieved by 2030; pro-natal policies are enacted to create supportive environments for those who give birth; and the previous three scenarios combined.

I'm very hopeful about these forecasts! They'll show a few different hopeful scenarios.

To evaluate the forecasting performance of our model and others, we computed skill values—a metric assessing gain in forecasting accuracy—by comparing predicted versus observed ASFRs from the past 15 years (2007–21). A positive skill metric indicates that the model being evaluated performs better than the baseline model (here, a simplified model holding 2007 values constant in the future), and a negative metric indicates that the evaluated model performs worse than baseline.

This is a very responsible thing for the authors to have done, and I am interested to see how this is reflected in the models.

.

Findings (Summary)

During the period from 1950 to 2021, global TFR more than halved, from 4·84 (95% UI 4·63–5·06) to 2·23 (2·09–2·38). Global annual livebirths peaked in 2016 at 142 million (95% UI 137–147), declining to 129 million (121–138) in 2021. Fertility rates declined in all countries and territories since 1950,

(Emphasis mine. The numbers in parentheses are the confidence interval.) I think this is the most important takeaway from the whole damn paper. Makes sense, since it's the first line of the findings. If you read nothing else, read these three sentences. Global birthrates are barely above replacement (which, if you recall from my other essay, is generally considered to be ~2.1). To me, this implies lot of problems that traditionally have been considered solvable with population redistribution (meaning, mostly, immigration) may not be solvable that way even if fertility were to stop declining today and hold constant for the rest of the century.

Future fertility rates were projected to continue to decline worldwide, reaching a global TFR of 1·83 (1·59–2·08) in 2050 and 1·59 (1·25–1·96) in 2100 under the reference scenario. The number of countries and territories with fertility rates remaining above replacement was forecast to be 49 (24·0%) in 2050 and only six (2·9%) in 2100, with three of these six countries included in the 2021 World Bank-defined low-income group, all located in the GBD super-region of sub-Saharan Africa.

Holy shit. I cannot emphasize enough how low a TFR of 1.59 is. This is approximately the current TFR of the United Kingdom, and they're beginning to freak out even though they have relatively easy sources of additional replacement recruitment through the Commonwealth. Imagine that for the whole Earth. With only six countries as a potential source of surplus population to be redistributed.

Funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Makes sense. This is the kind of thing that foundation funds.

.

Introduction

Low levels of fertility have the potential over time to result in inverted population pyramids with growing numbers of older people and declining working-age populations. These changes are likely to place increasing burdens on health care and social systems, transform labour and consumer markets, and alter patterns of resource use.

Oh man, I wish I'd gone through this paper earlier, I could have just quoted this bit and been done instead of trying to explain it from scratch! 😂

The UN Population Division estimates of past fertility are not compliant with the Guidelines on Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) statement in important respects; notably, they do not provide all code for statistical models or explicit details on criteria for exclusion or adjustment of primary data sources. Furthermore, the validity of UN Population Division projections has been questioned due to the assumptions applied in countries experiencing low post-transition fertility dropping below replacement level.

YES GO OFF 👏 The UN Population Division is so much more cagey about their data than the World Bank, it's so annoying, and they keep predicting increases that don't happen. I thought it was so weird as an undergrad but figured it was because of ~bureaucracy~ or privacy laws or whatever. It's nice to be vindicated [redacted] years later.

Our forecasts also suggest that, by 2100, the largest concentrations of livebirths will shift to low-income settings, particularly a subset of countries and territories in sub-Saharan Africa, which are among the most vulnerable to economic and environmental challenges. Extreme shifts in the global distribution of livebirths can be partially ameliorated by improved female education and met need for modern contraception. Outside of this subset of low-income areas, most of the world's countries will experience the repercussions of low fertility, with ageing populations, declining workforces, and inverted population pyramids, which are likely to lead to profound fiscal, economic, and social consequences. National policy makers and the global health community must plan to address these divided sets of demographic challenges emerging worldwide.

This is such an important point for them to make. Demography isn't a vacuum; it has significant real-world effects. By 2100, most babies born will be born in Africa, and we need to plan for that now. By 2100, most countries will not have enough workers, and we need to plan for that now. 2100 is not that far into the future. I, personally, will live to see the beginnings of the effects of this demographic shift, and I'm an adult who pays taxes and has a college degree and shit.

.

The Data Sources and Processing section is pretty standard and unremarkable. Good job.

.

Fertility Forecasting

We produced forecasts of fertility using an updated modelling framework (appendix 1 section 3) that improved on the methods in the 2020 study by Vollset and colleagues. In our updated methods, we used not only estimates of female educational attainment and contraceptive met need as covariates, but also estimates of under-5 mortality and population density in habitable areas to account for a larger variation in CCF50 across all countries in the sub-models (appendix 1 section 3.1, appendix 2 figure S2). Similar to Vollset and colleagues, we continued to forecast fertility with CCF50 rather than TFR, because modelling in cohort space is more stable than in period space.

Niiiiice. Covariates are things that, well, vary, alongside the thing you're trying to measure. For fertility, the most obvious one might be age of the mother at first birth; if someone is 16 at first birth, she probably will have more kids than someone who is 30 at first birth, for example. This model also includes how much schooling the mother gets, whether she has contraception, the mortality rate (that is, how many of them die) of children under five, and population density! That's a lot of statistical crunching and their model will be more precise for it. Precise isn't the same as accurate, but I think that with the variables they selected, they will travel in the same direction.

What a pretty equation. I don't understand it, but it's got a certain je ne sais quois.

For the education SDG scenario, the forecasts assume that by 2030, all people will have 12 years or more of education by the age of 25 years and then maintains the same rate of change as the reference scenario up to 2100. For the contraceptive met need scenario, to reflect the SDG scenario of universal access, the forecasts assumed a linear increase in contraceptive coverage to reach 100% by 2030 and then stay constant up to 2100.

I love how optimistic these scenarios are 😂 This truly is the best-case scenario for both the education forecast and the contraceptive forecast! I do hope everybody has 12+ years of education and 100% contraceptive coverage by 2030. Make it happen, António!!!!

(Joke explained: António Guterres is the current Secretary-General of the United Nations, and these goals are absolutely not going to be met by 2030.)

In the pro-natal scenario, we assumed a country will introduce pro-natal policies, such as childcare subsidies, extended parental leave, insurance coverage expansion for infertility treatment, 33 and other forms of support for parents to afford high-quality child-care services, once TFR decreases to less than 1·75. We then made three assumptions on the effects of such policies. First, we assumed the full effect of pro-natal policies will be to increase TFR by 0·2. Second, it will take 5 years after the policy is introduced for the full increase in TFR to occur, and TFR will rise linearly over that time span. Last, we assumed that both the policies and the increase in TFR by 0·2 will endure for the remainder of the century.

The pro-natal scenario is also incredibly optimistic. This kind of response simply hasn't happened in any country that's tried pro-natal policies as envisioned by the authors (my reference cases, just off the top of my head: Japan and France).

The optimism makes sense. They represent extreme cases, in order to contrast possible outcomes versus the reference case. This is good practice! It's just also funny.

.

Results

The Reference Case

I hate the embedded tables. They have the confidence interval in the same cell as the estimate. How very dare they, that's incredibly inconvenient for me personally.

The chart in Figure 1, however, I think speaks volumes:

It speaks so many volumes that I'm gonna go up and put it above the cut, brb. This chart shows the reference case; that is, it shows the fertility rate if the fertility trends of 1950-2021 continue into the future.

At the national level, estimates of TFR in 2021 ranged from 0·82 (95% UI 0·75–0·89) in South Korea to 6·99 (6·75–7·24) in Chad, with below-replacement levels of fertility (TFR <2·1) in 110 of 204 countries and territories (table 1, figures 2A, 3).

I think this range is neat and goes to show that while the trend is world-wide, it's still not even. Chadian women still give birth to about 7ish kids on average. That's more than 3x replacement, and more than 8.5x the average fertility of South Korea. South Korea is going to have different problems than Chad; Chad probably doesn't have to worry as much about their workforce being unable to sustain a large elderly population. (Don't look so cheerful about it. They've got lots of other stuff to worry about. 😬)

These charts are fascinating to look at to me. I think this really showcases just how dramatic the projected decline is. It's not just the Europe, it's not just wealthy post-industrialized countries, but everywhere. It's in Eswanti, it's in Indonesia, it's in Burkina Faso, it's in China. It really shows just how much Chad is an outlier (adn should still be counted, btw, just because it's an outlier doesn't mean we should discard it; it's dependent on study structure and you can't just throw out entire countries because they have high birth rates on a study of birth rates).

Our estimates indicate that there is approximately a 30-year gap between the time when TFR falls below 2·1 and when the natural rate of population increase turns negative. We forecast that 155 (76·0%) countries and territories will have fertility rates below replacement level in 2050; by 2100, we project this number will increase to 198 (97·1%), with 178 (87·3%) having a negative natural rate of increase (figure 3).

A 30-year gap sounds reasonable. That's about how long it takes for people to have/not have kids, and for their own parents to potentially die, in about equalish numbers (on a global scale, anyway). I do think this gap number is likely to increase as healthcare improves in places that are worse today and as fertility technology increases the age at which people can become pregnant, but 30 is a perfectly respectable number with actual statistical backing.

Alternative scenario fertility forecasts

This is the part I'm really excited about!!!

The first scenario, which assumes meeting the SDG education target by 2030, is estimated to result in global TFRs of 1·65 (95% UI 1·40–1·92) in 2050 and 1·56 (1·26–1·92) in 2100 (table 2). The second scenario, which assumes meeting the SDG contraceptive met need target by 2030, will produce global TFRs of 1·64 (1·39–1·89) in 2050 and 1·52 (1·21–1·87) in 2100. The third scenario, which incorporates pro-natal policy implementation, is forecast to yield global TFRs of 1·93 (1·69–2·19) in 2050 and 1·68 (1·36–2·04) in 2100. The combined scenario, in which all three other alternative scenarios are applied, is projected to result in a global TFR of 1·65 (1·40–1·92) in 2050 and 1·62 (1·35–1·95) in 2100.

So recall the reference scenario projections: 1·83 (1·59–2·08) in 2050 and 1·59 (1·25–1·96) in 2100.

I find it interesting that all cases are so incredibly close to reference, with overlapping confidence intervals. Functionally, there's not a lot of difference between a TFR of 1.68 and 1.52. They're both still well below replacement. It's about the difference between Sweden (1.67) and Russia (1.51). Russia, you may have noticed, is waging war about it.*

*This is not a stated goal of the Russian Federation in the Ukraine War. This is me personally making an assertion that the shifting demographics of the Russian population, including the below-replacement birthrate beginning to put pressure on their lacking social safety networks, has contributed to the many complicated and interconnected reasons why the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine, but please do not take me to be the final authority on the matter or interpret this statement as implying that demography of all things is the sole or primary reason for the war.

Discussion

The aforementioned changes in fertility over the coming century will have profound effects on populations, economies, geopolitics, food security, health, and the environment, with a clear demographic divide between the impacts on many middle-to-high-income locations versus many low-income locations. For nearly all countries and territories outside of sub-Saharan Africa, sustained low fertility will produce a contracting population with fewer young people relative to older people before the end of the 21st century. These changes in age structure are likely to present considerable economic challenges caused by a growing dependency ratio of older to working-age population and a shrinking labour force. 42 Unless governments identify unforeseen innovations or funding sources that address the challenges of population ageing, this demographic shift will put increasing pressure on national health insurance, social security programmes, and health-care infrastructure. These same programmes will receive less funding as working-age, tax-paying populations decline, further exacerbating the problem.

This is why the Economist article talks about birthrates the way it does. It's not about white babies or whatever people in the notes are sarcastically ascribing to an article they haven't read. It's about the whole world. There are 150 countries outside of the Sub-Saharan Africa region, and 44 of the 46 countries within Sub-Saharan Africa are projected to feel the many or all of the same effects as well.

It's about the way social security nets are structured and how they're going to fail. It's about the way that elderly people are going to be treated by our societies. It's about me, and it's about you, and it's about making sure that there are enough humans to take care of the other humans that need taking care of.

If we don't increase global fertility rates above replacement, which it increasingly looks like we won't, we need other solutions. The fertility one is easy fuckin' pickings compared to a complete overhaul of society, and you saw how little difference it actually makes. So did the authors:

To date, one strategy to reverse declining fertility in low-fertility settings has been to implement pro-natal policies, such as child-related cash transfers and tax incentives, childcare subsidies, extended parental leave, re-employment rights, and other forms of support for parents to care and pay for their children.49, 50 Yet there are few data to show that such policies have led to strong, sustained rebounds in fertility, with empirical evidence suggesting an effect size of no more than 0·2 additional livebirths per female. [...] Moreover, although pro-natal policies primarily aim to increase births, they also offer additional benefits to society, including better quality of life, greater household gender equality (ie, more equal division of household labour),53 higher rates of female labour force participation,54 lower child-care costs,55 and better maternal health outcomes,56 depending on policy design and contextual factors. In the future, it will be beneficial to perform an in-depth analysis on varying impacts of pro-natal policies in selected countries that have a meaningful impact on population. [...] Importantly, low fertility rates and the modest effects that pro-natal policies might have on them should not be used to justify more draconian measures that limit reproductive rights, such as restricting access to modern contraceptives or abortions.

I just want to highlight that the study authors explicitly argue for certain pro-natal policies that increase quality of life and caution against pro-natal policies that limit rights. These people aren't heartless.

They also discuss at some length the implications of the changing distribution of live births, where by the end of the century most live births will take place in the poorest nations, which are also the ones that will be hardest-hit by climate change. These nations already face famines, military rule, civil wars, terrorism, and climate changed-caused severe heatwaves, droughts, and floods. They advise politicians to take this into account when making policy decisions but don't go into what policy decisions should be made, which is wise since they're demographers and not political scientists, but disappointed me, the political scientist reading the demography paper and hoping to find something to criticize.

.

.

My takeaway:

Incredibly interesting paper. As a non-demographer, I think it's very convincing and hope that it sparks a serious conversation about the paths we need to take forward, in our own countries and as a global community. I especially hope that it inspires us to take bold action to drastically change our systems of elder care, which are already being pushed to the limit and will simply break under pressure if fertility rates continue to fall.

[mariacallous]

Every child has a superpower. Yet, those with disabilities often do not have full access to quality education and other services that would enable them to use their superpower to positively and fully contribute to society. A recent workshop on inclusion in early childhood, held as part of the Center for Universal Education’s symposium on education systems transformation for and through inclusive education, asked whether focusing on the early years of a child’s life might offer a window of opportunity to catch, remedy, and maybe even reverse a child’s development trajectory so all countries can reach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It brought together early childhood development (ECD) and inclusion experts and those who wanted to learn more about the topic. Two key messages emerged from participants: every child matters, and early means early. Participants also suggested that the global community needs to develop a global disability-focused ECD strategy and that governments should allocate at least 3% of education budgets for children with disabilities.

Children with disabilities are not a monolith and vary greatly in the challenges they experience and their abilities to fully and positively contribute to society. Some have physical, mental, social, or sensory impairments while others have a combination of multiple challenges. Globally, it is estimated that 15% of the world population, about 1 billion people, live with some type of disability. UNICEF estimates that about 1 in every 10 children has at least one disability, with children from South Asia, East Asia, and West and Central Africa having higher incidences. Moreover, globally, almost 53 million children under the age of 5 have developmental disabilities, and many others live with hidden disabilities that may go unnoticed and, therefore, unrecorded.

The global Convention on the Rights of the Child and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) articulate the rights and equal treatment of children with disabilities. The CRPD provides a comprehensive international legal framework for the education rights of children with disabilities that has been ratified by 181 countries. These legal frameworks and the SDGs are resolute in leaving no one behind. Despite these legal frameworks, agreements, and aspirations, there are numerous challenges and insufficient investment for disabled children to enjoy full rights to education, health, and well-being. In most countries, children with disabilities face stigma and discrimination from their own governments, communities, and families. Their complex needs are often not included in policy and investment discussions. Investment in this cohort of children is usually not high on the policy or financing agenda, yet we know that increased investment and support for children with disabilities can accelerate countries’ paths to achieving the SDGs, particularly SDG 4.2. From 2007 to 2016, disability funding declined by 11.4% worldwide, and only 2% of the estimated $79.1 million invested in early childhood development was spent on young children with disabilities. Tim Shriver, Special Olympics’ Board Chair, maintains that if governments could commit even 3% of their overall education budgets to the inclusion of children with disabilities in existing classrooms, it could impact their abilities to thrive and contribute to our societies. 

2 key messages

Every child matters

All of society benefits when all children are uplifted. For the early childhood sector, that means developing inclusive classrooms that use a twin-track approach and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Instruction. Using this method, rather than having separate classrooms for children, disability-focused support is provided in classrooms that focus on equity for all, but also provide specific support for those with disabilities. Research indicates that this approach benefits all children; children with disabilities have better developmental outcomes (for example, language, social and academic skills, better behaviors), and typically developing children have increased empathy, tolerance, skills in sign language, and more. Establishing inclusive classrooms also requires investment in upskilling classroom teachers so they can support children of all abilities while working with special education teachers. These interventions cost money, yet exclusion has greater negative costs to society in reduced national GDP and higher spending for remedial programs, to name a few. It is estimated that the annual economic cost to society when a disabled child is not able to attend school or get a job can be high—more than 1% of GDP in some cases.

Early means early

The first five years of life are crucial periods of brain growth and development where about 90% of new neural connections (about 1 million neural connections per second) are made. After around 30 months of life, the brain’s ability to change in response to experiences requires greater effort than before this period. Since the brain is very malleable during this phase, evidence suggests that early screening, referrals, and intervention can halt, improve, and completely change the course of a child’s developmental trajectory. As children are mostly with parents and caregivers during the earliest months of life, investing in their ability to support their children can be important. Often support for parents and caregivers to aid their children is unavailable in communities or unaffordable. Research comparing urban and rural children’s access to early childhood education found that those with access to support before age 5 (mostly in urban areas) had higher academic achievement. For children with autism, research indicates that early intervention can greatly ameliorate symptoms, putting children closer to the development trajectory of those without autism.  

The way forward

Supporting children with disabilities is complex as their needs span multiple government and sectoral departments, there are finite resources in all government budgets, and underlying societal discrimination, even subtle, remains strong throughout the world. Yet, workshop participants suggested that supporting every child and doing so early provides the best chance for countries to meet the SDGs. Two suggested actions for supporting every child early that emerged from the workshop and recent literature include:

Establish a global, disability-focused ECD strategy: Global goals and road maps such as the SDGs, Nurturing Care Framework (NCF), and others include young children with disabilities yet provide inadequate strategy and concrete actions for how to ensure full rights and support for young children with disabilities. Thus, a strategy resulting from action by multiple sectors that complements the NCF is one agenda for progress.

Allocate at least 3% of education budgets for children with disabilities: Increasing investment will allow more to be done to support children with disabilities. These could focus on:

Supporting inclusive preschool classrooms that implement a twin-track approach and universal design for learning

Upskilling teachers that lead inclusive classrooms

Parental support so they have increased knowledge and skills to support their children

Strengthening early screening and referral systems

Research focused on young children with disabilities

Workshop participants were ready to join hands and tackle this complex challenge and suggested that commitment from stakeholders, including governments, donors, and families will be critical to light a path towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and ensuring a thriving society. 

[probablyasocialecologist]

Many citizens in the Global South need better access to material and energy resources to meet their basic needs and improve their lives – which would even entail GDP growth. However, measuring GDP growth alone tell us little about whether increased production and consumption has improved access to basic resources for the material welfare of those in need, or been captured. Research suggests that especially in places of high deprivation, a focus on wellbeing and meeting human needs is more efficient (than a GDP-growth focus) and does so within planetary boundaries. Although the Global North has experienced huge levels of economic growth since the 1970s and 1980s, this has not translated into increases in welfare because of stagnating wages and rising inequality and because consumption has mostly been spent on positional goods by higher income groups, not to meet human needs. Arguably, the positive relationship between economic growth and welfare from the start of industrialisation leading up to the 1970s, in Global North countries, was institutional – in other words it was due to political rules and institutions – as post-war public welfare was achieved in the political terrain of policy-making, in political struggles. Collective provisioning systems (health care centres, public transport, garbage disposal, as well as access to shelter, sanitation and minimum floor area) have historically been more important to the attainment of wellbeing than average income or total energy consumption.

From “Decent work and economic growth” to “Sustainable work and economic degrowth”: a new framework for SDG 8

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazil proposes global alliance to combat hunger and poverty

This week, members of the Brazilian government participated in the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development at the United Nations (UN) in New York, USA. They presented a proposal to establish a global alliance to combat hunger and poverty.

The goal is to pool knowledge, finances, and partnerships to enhance efforts toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Established by the UN in 2015, the SDGs aim to implement public policies to guide humanity through 2030.

According to the Ministry of Development and Social Assistance, Family, and Fight against Hunger, the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty "is one of Brazil's main initiatives as a member of the G20 [group of the world's 20 largest economies]." At the side event focused on implementing these policies in various countries, Minister Wellington Dias stated that the planned actions include promoting food security, increasing income, and addressing inequalities.

"The reality we are facing, with multiple crises—including climate and environmental crises, economic instability, and conflicts—is causing a resurgence of hunger, food insecurity, and poverty. Addressing this complex challenge requires numerous strategies and actions," said the minister.

Continue reading.

[zvaigzdelasas]

"I propose to end the war to have time to save us. As soon as possible, the United Nations should sponsor two peace conferences: one on Ukraine and the other on Palestine," he said. Petro then pointed out that these peace conferences would teach the international community "to make peace in all regions of the planet" because only by ending the conflicts in Palestine and Ukraine simultaneously would "hypocrisy as a political practice end."

"They have called us to war. Latin America was asked to deliver war machines and men for the combat fields," the Colombian president said, alluding to U.S. requests for support to the Ukrainian side.

"They forgot that our countries were invaded several times by the same people who now talk about fighting invasions," he added. "I propose to end the war so as to defend life from the mother of all crises: climate change," stressed Petro, who also denounced that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) "will not be achieved" in 2030.

19 Sep 23

[solarpunkbusiness]

We're looking for organizations, schools, universities, institutions, communities, that want to appropriate the Academy's tools and become Activators. They will be recognized as allies of UNEP's work on Sustainable Living and will have access to trainings and a network of likeminded organizations committed to a more sustainable future. 

If you're interested in becoming an activator, please contact laura.astudillo@un.org.

Your Journey as an Activator:

As you embark on your journey to become an Activator, you can expect continuous support and guidance from us. You will gain access to our network and various valuable tools, including the Learning Module and the Green Book of Nudges. Moreover, we present exciting opportunities for future collaborations.

Becoming an Activator:

To attain Activator status, follow these essential steps:

Step 1: Commit 10 Participants

 Encourage and enroll a minimum of 10 individuals to engage with our Learning Module.

Step 2: Follow us on Instagram

Get your institution and 10 members of your community to follow @theofficialanatomyofaction on Instagram

Step 2: Certificate Confirmation

Provide the Sustainable Lifestyles Academy Team with the certificates of completion for these 10 participants, affirming their engagement in the module.

Step 3: Achievement Certification

Upon successful completion of the requirements, Sustainable Lifestyles Academy Activators will receive an official certificate recognizing their accomplishment.

Step 4: Engagement and Training

Activators are invited to participate actively in the academy's activities. Additionally, they have the opportunity to receive specialized training from the Sustainable Lifestyles Education (SLE) Team.

Step 5: University Edition Involvement

With a minimum of 100 participants, Sustainable Lifestyles Academy Activators can become part of the university edition of the My Sustainable Living Challenge.

Step 6: Stay Informed

Activators will receive a newsletter every two months, providing updates and insights into the happenings within the Sustainable Lifestyles Academy.

Thank you for your commitment to sustainable living and for considering the role of an Activator within the Sustainable Lifestyles Academy. Your dedication and contributions are instrumental in fostering responsible consumption and production for a better, more sustainable future.

For any questions or further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact laura.astudillo@un.org. 

[thoughtlessarse]

In 2022, the first year of sharp rate hikes to curb rising inflation, the countries of the Global South paid almost $50 billion more in debt than they received in new financing, according to data from the UN’s trade and development arm Crises, like successes, are seen through different eyes depending on who the passive subject is. And this is one of those silent shocks, a blind spot in the wide angle of the world economy. Far from the headlines, rising interest rates are taking their toll on emerging and developing countries: the Global South paid more on its debt last year in principal and interest repayments than it received in development aid and new loans. Inflows to this group of nations fell to their lowest level since the global financial crisis, according to figures from the NGO ONE Campaign. A warning sign that should give the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank (ECB) pause for thought. In 2022, the first year of sharp rate hikes to curb rising inflation, the countries of the Global South paid almost $50 billion more in debt than they received in new financing, according to data from the UN’s trade and development arm (UNCTAD). At the same time, official development assistance (ODA) fell for the second consecutive year and remained well below the target of 0.7% of gross national income (GNI). This target dates to the 1970s and, more than 50 years later, it has still not been met. “We are witnessing a worrying trend: financial flows are flowing out of the developing countries that need them most and towards their creditors,” summarizes the head of UNCTAD, Rebeca Grynspan, in statements to EL PAÍS. “These are nations that need external resources to complement their internal efforts and, without a positive trend in external financing, their capacity for growth is severely limited.” The fiscal constraints imposed by this situation, she adds, make it almost impossible to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): “Addressing the overlapping crises, such as the climate emergency, will be an unattainable challenge if these trends are not reversed.”

continue reading

[cognitivejustice]

In 2009, the City of São Paulo made history by passing the Municipal Policy for Climate Change, making it the first city in Brazil to pass such legislation. Since then, this 12 million-people megacity has emerged as a shining example of dedication and progress towards sustainability. Central to this effort is São Paulo’s Action Plan for the Agenda 2030, comprising over 600 actions towards achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Last February, the City of São Paulo declared the acquisition of 32 private green areas as a public utility. Combined, they encompass 16,531 hectares, representing 11 percent of São Paulo’s territory, equivalent to the size of Paris or 15,500 football fields

Brazil ranks second globally in bus fleet electrification, only behind China, with São Paulo boasting the largest fleet of electric buses in Latin America.

Cultivating food security and urban farming

The Fight Food Waste and Loss Program collects surplus fruits and vegetables, preventing disposal from free fairs and municipal markets. Similarly, the city’s food bank buys fresh produce from family urban farms and redistributes surplus food from retail chains to registered assistance entities. This year, 321 tons of products have been delivered.

The city also has established programmes that offer essential goods at 50 percent lower prices for low-income residents. Other programmes provide free or very inexpensive meals for vulnerable communities, totalling over 2 million meals served in 2023.

Recognising urban agriculture’s multifaceted benefits, the SAMPA+RURAL Program aims to establish 400 urban farms and five school greenhouses by 2024. The programme’s online platform hosts over 2,600 initiatives, allowing citizens to discover local farmers and access eco-tourism options. São Paulo is thus creating a sustainability hub, fostering rural and urban agricultural development while promoting healthy living.

[greenthestral]

Unleashing the Power of Partnerships: Goal 17 and the Path to Global Transformation

In today's interconnected world, achieving sustainable development requires a collaborative and inclusive approach. Among the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set forth by the United Nations, Goal 17 stands out as a catalyst for progress. "Partnerships to achieve the Goal" is not just a goal in itself; it is the driving force behind the successful implementation of the other 16 goals. This article delves into the significance of Goal 17 and explores the transformative potential of partnerships in addressing the world's most pressing challenges.

The Foundation of Goal 17: Partnerships for Sustainable Development

Goal 17 stands as a powerful reminder that the challenges we face in the pursuit of sustainable development are multifaceted and interconnected. No single organization or entity possesses all the resources, expertise, or perspectives needed to tackle these complex issues alone. The recognition of this reality is the cornerstone of Goal 17, which underscores the importance of multi-stakeholder partnerships.

Partnerships for sustainable development bring together governments, businesses, civil society, academia, and individuals in a collaborative effort to address the world's most pressing problems. These partnerships are characterized by their inclusivity and the diversity of stakeholders involved. Each stakeholder brings unique perspectives, knowledge, skills, and resources to the table, creating a synergistic environment where collective action can thrive.

Public-private partnerships are a vital component of sustainable development partnerships. By forging alliances between the public and private sectors, these partnerships harness the resources and expertise of both to drive positive change. Governments provide regulatory frameworks, policy support, and funding, while businesses contribute innovative solutions, technological advancements, and financial resources. Together, they can implement sustainable practices, create sustainable business models, and promote responsible investment.

International cooperation is another crucial aspect of Goal 17 partnerships. Global challenges require global solutions, and cross-border collaborations are essential to address issues that transcend national boundaries. International partnerships foster knowledge exchange, shared learning, and joint action to tackle common problems such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and poverty. These partnerships enable countries to work together, pool resources, and align their efforts to achieve sustainable development on a global scale.

Knowledge-sharing networks play a pivotal role in partnerships for sustainable development. These networks facilitate the exchange of information, expertise, and best practices across different sectors and regions. By sharing knowledge and lessons learned, partners can avoid duplication of efforts, accelerate progress, and implement evidence-based solutions. Knowledge-sharing networks also promote innovation and foster a culture of continuous learning, driving the development and adoption of sustainable technologies, practices, and policies.

Capacity-building initiatives are integral to partnerships for sustainable development. They aim to strengthen the skills, knowledge, and capabilities of individuals, organizations, and communities to contribute effectively to sustainable development efforts. Capacity-building initiatives encompass training programs, workshops, mentorship, and skill-sharing activities. By investing in capacity building, partnerships empower stakeholders to take ownership of sustainable development initiatives, driving long-term impact and sustainability.

One of the significant advantages of partnerships for sustainable development is their ability to foster innovation. When diverse stakeholders collaborate, they bring together different perspectives, experiences, and expertise. This diversity sparks creativity and innovation, leading to the development of novel approaches, solutions, and technologies. Innovation, in turn, drives progress and propels sustainable development forward by addressing complex challenges in new and transformative ways.

Partnerships also enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of sustainable development efforts. By pooling resources, sharing costs, and leveraging expertise, partnerships optimize the use of available resources. This efficiency translates into a greater impact on the ground, as projects and initiatives benefit from shared knowledge, experience, and funding. Partnerships allow for economies of scale, enabling the replication and scaling up of successful models and interventions.

Moreover, partnerships for sustainable development generate meaningful impact at multiple levels. They operate at the local, national, and global levels, ensuring that no community or region is left behind. At the local level, partnerships address specific challenges faced by communities, tailoring interventions to their unique context and needs. Nationally, partnerships enable governments to align policies and strategies with sustainable development objectives, leveraging the resources and expertise of diverse stakeholders. Globally, partnerships contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals as a collective effort, promoting global solidarity and collaboration.

In conclusion, Goal 17 recognizes the essential role of partnerships in achieving sustainable development. These partnerships bring together governments, businesses, civil society, academia, and individuals in a collaborative endeavor to address complex global challenges. By leveraging collective knowledge, resources, and expertise, partnerships foster innovation, enhance efficiency, and generate meaningful impact at local, national, and global levels. Through public-private partnerships, international cooperation, knowledge-sharing networks, and capacity-building initiatives, partnerships for sustainable development are driving positive change and paving the way for a more sustainable and inclusive future.

Enhancing Collaboration for Sustainable Development

Goal 17 serves as a call to action for governments, businesses, and individuals to join forces and collaborate effectively. Through collaboration, the barriers to achieving the other goals can be overcome. Here are some key aspects of collaboration under Goal 17:

Government Partnerships: Governments play a crucial role in fostering partnerships by creating an enabling policy environment, promoting transparency, and mobilizing resources. They can establish regulatory frameworks, incentivize private sector engagement, and prioritize sustainable development in national agendas.

Business Engagement: Businesses are key players in advancing sustainable development. Through corporate social responsibility initiatives, ethical practices, and responsible investment, businesses can align their objectives with the SDGs. By partnering with governments and civil society organizations, businesses can leverage their expertise, technology, and resources to drive sustainable solutions.

Civil Society Engagement: Civil society organizations are essential in driving social change and holding governments and businesses accountable. Their active participation in partnerships ensures that decisions are inclusive, responsive to community needs, and promote social justice. Civil society organizations can bring grassroots knowledge, advocacy skills, and community engagement to the table.

Unlocking the Transformative Potential

Goal 17 serves as a powerful enabler of change, unlocking the transformative potential of partnerships in several ways:

Knowledge Sharing and Capacity Building: Partnerships facilitate the exchange of knowledge, expertise, and best practices. They provide opportunities for capacity building, technology transfer, and learning from successful models. This exchange enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of interventions, avoiding duplication of efforts and accelerating progress.

Resource Mobilization: Achieving the SDGs requires significant financial resources. Partnerships enable resource mobilization by leveraging public and private investments, philanthropic contributions, and innovative financing mechanisms. By pooling resources and aligning priorities, partnerships can address financing gaps and scale up impactful projects.

Innovation and Technology Transfer: Partnerships foster innovation by bringing together different sectors and disciplines. Collaborations between academia, research institutions, and businesses drive technological advancements, research breakthroughs, and sustainable solutions. Technology transfer from developed to developing countries through partnerships promotes inclusive growth and bridges the digital divide.

Successful Examples of Goal 17 Partnerships

Numerous partnerships have emerged in recent years, exemplifying the transformative power of Goal 17. Some notable examples include:

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria: This public-private partnership has mobilized billions of dollars to combat the three diseases. It brings together governments, private sector entities, and civil society organizations to support prevention, treatment, and advocacy efforts worldwide.

The Sustainable Energy for All Initiative: Led by the United Nations, this partnership aims to ensure universal access to affordable, reliable, and clean energy. It catalyzes commitments from governments, businesses, and civil society organizations, driving investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable infrastructure.

The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator: In response to the global pandemic, this partnership was formed to accelerate the development, production, and equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments. It brings together governments, international organizations, and private sector actors, emphasizing the importance of global collaboration in addressing health crises.

The Road Ahead: Amplifying Partnerships for Global Transformation

As we look toward the future, the significance of Goal 17 becomes even more apparent. Strengthening partnerships is essential to accelerate progress across all the SDGs and overcome complex challenges such as climate change, poverty, inequality, and conflict.

To amplify the impact of partnerships, several steps can be taken:

Policy Coherence and Alignment: Governments should align their policies, strategies, and funding mechanisms with the SDGs. This coherence ensures that national and international efforts are mutually reinforcing, enabling effective collaboration and resource mobilization.

Scaling Up Successful Models: Identifying and replicating successful partnership models can drive widespread change. Lessons learned from existing partnerships can inform the design and implementation of new collaborations, avoiding reinvention and optimizing impact.

Promoting Inclusive Partnerships: Partnerships must prioritize inclusivity and diversity. By involving marginalized communities, women, youth, and indigenous groups, partnerships can address systemic inequalities and ensure that no one is left behind in the journey towards sustainable development.

Conclusion

Goal 17, "Partnerships to achieve the Goal," acts as a linchpin for global transformation. By fostering collaboration, knowledge sharing, and resource mobilization, partnerships unlock the potential to address the world's most pressing challenges. Governments, businesses, civil society organizations, and individuals must come together to harness the power of partnerships and drive sustainable development forward. As we embark on this collective journey, Goal 17 reminds us that our shared future depends on the strength and effectiveness of our collaborations. Together, we can build a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable world for all.

[parth-copypro]

Marpu Foundation: Transforming the World Through Youth Power

Marpu, a Sanskrit word signifying ‘transformation’, is the heart of our foundation’s ethos. We believe in the extraordinary potential of youth to be catalysts for positive change. Our mission is to harness this energy through innovative, empathy-driven projects that contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Our long-term vision is a world characterized by equity, compassion, and sustainability – a world built collaboratively through partnerships. To achieve this, we focus on four key areas:

Environmental Sustainability

We are committed to protecting our planet for future generations. Our environmental initiatives focus on two critical areas:

Clean water and sanitation: We are working to provide access to clean water and improved sanitation through the implementation of biosand filters in rural communities. These filters are low-cost, sustainable solutions that can significantly impact public health.

Affordable and clean energy: We are promoting the adoption of renewable energy sources through the development of community microgrids. By providing access to affordable and clean energy, we aim to improve livelihoods and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

Economic Development

Our economic development programs focus on creating opportunities for all, especially marginalized communities. We are working to reduce inequality and achieve zero hunger through the following initiatives:

Zero hunger: We are implementing blockchain-based distribution systems to ensure efficient and transparent delivery of food aid. This innovative approach helps to reduce food waste and improve food security.

Reduced inequality: We are empowering women and youth through entrepreneurship and skill development programs. By providing access to financial resources and training, we are helping to create a more equitable society.

Social Development

We believe that every individual has the right to a decent standard of living, access to quality education, and equal opportunities. Our social development programs focus on:

Quality education: We are working to improve access to quality education, especially for girls and young women. Our programs include building schools, providing teacher training, and implementing early childhood development initiatives.

Gender equality: We are committed to promoting gender equality and empowering women. Our initiatives include women’s empowerment programs, leadership training, and advocacy for women’s rights.

Partnerships

Collaboration is essential to achieving our goals. We believe that by working together, we can create a greater impact. Our partnership programs focus on building strong relationships with government agencies, businesses, NGOs, and community-based organizations. We also actively involve young people as partners in our work, recognizing their invaluable contributions.

By focusing on these four key areas, Marpu Foundation is working towards a future where young people are at the forefront of creating a sustainable and equitable world. We invite you to join us on this transformative journey.

[faithfromanewperspective]

okay this is the thing. I knew, I knew all along what white environmentalism is: how tokenistic and superficial and overall inefficient and only effective because it happens to be socially palatable and get a lot of following for that. I knew how development and aid has been rooted in colonialism and a self-righteous drive to 'better' other people without ever learning a thing or respecting their autonomy or even the concept that some people do things different.

and yet even with this in mind the sustainable development goals are really good and a direction we want to go in and somehow both effective (if we ever achieve them) and also written in a way that is palatable to our white still colonialised minds. to think that the united nations would do something as bad as to exclude yemen is like--i thought even they were better than that. I'm really let down because to me this means i'm thinking of creating another UN right here on tumblr for the punks and with the amount of effort that went into the first one there is no way I can do this by myself. but hey maybe we start with an educational course on the SDGs that is rather independent of and unbiased by the shitty united nations

[mariacallous]

For this year’s International Women’s Day, the United Nations calls on us to “Invest in Women: Accelerate Progress.” The theme highlights how, amid a global polycrisis, achieving gender equality is vital for the collective well-being of communities worldwide. It calls attention to the significant challenges that persist in ensuring gender-equitable outcomes: in particular, evidence from the 2023 Gender Snapshot projecting that 340 million women and girls will still be living in poverty by 2030 and highlighting a significant funding shortfall—an additional $360 billion investment needed to achieve SDG goals of gender equality.

As global calls for financing for gender equality continue, it is vital to center care in these conversations. Over the past few decades, while programs focusing on women’s inclusion into the formal economy have made promising strides, much of the labor traditionally performed by girls and women, such as domestic and care work, is unpaid and not accounted for in conventional economic models. Globally, women perform an estimated 76 percent of unpaid care work. Even when paid, care work is often characterized by low wages and inadequate working conditions, especially for the most marginalized workers.

This International Women’s Day, as we reflect upon the advances made in the struggle for gender equality and justice in the previous decades, policy and program design would also be strengthened from addressing the relative invisibility of women’s labor across informal and care economies.

Situating women in global development

Globally, women’s inclusion as stakeholders in development processes emerged in the 1970s as part of a transnational “Women in Development” movement, which sought to position women as central to development—both as agents and beneficiaries. The movement’s advocacy translated into significant policy shifts, beginning with the 1973 Percy Amendment to the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, requiring that “U.S. foreign aid programs encourage and promote the integration of women into the national economies in the developing countries.”

In the following decade, a broad array of global actors began championing women’s role in development. For example, the OECD instituted the Guiding Principles for Supporting the Role of Women in Development in 1983, and the World Bank established a Women in Development division in 1987. Galvanized by the U.N. Decade for Women (1975), along with decades of feminist research and organizing across the Global South and North, such programs ranged from women workers’ rights to small scale social enterprise, the latter of which were contemporaneous with the ascendancy of neoliberal policies in the 1980s and the faith in increasingly market-based solutions toward development.

But much like the biologically deterministic category of “woman” itself, actors working in the women in development space were far from homogenous. Over the intervening decades, their work has pushed theory and practice in new directions, introducing debates over whether women’s economic inclusion should be separated from advocating structural transformations in the political economy and asking what the roles of gender, race, caste, class, ability, and geopolitics are in women’s development programs. This has led to new frameworks, including those emphasizing gender relations, intersectionality, and global redistributive politics, which continue to shape contemporary debates in the broader field of gender and development.

In many of these debates, the gendered division of labor has been at the center. For example, feminist research on social reproduction—which broadly refers to the paid and unpaid labor necessary to sustain human life, such as care work—highlights not only that such labor has historically been seen as “women’s work” but also how its devaluation is fundamental in reproducing inequality and patriarchy.

Building care infrastructures for a gender-equal future

So, while today’s calls to invest in gender equality can fuel transformative initiatives, there are also perils associated with focusing solely on women’s inclusion in the formal labor market. Evaluating progress through this lens can not only render women who perform domestic or care work as “unworthy, disposable others,” but can also erase how race, class, and geopolitics shape labor across all gender identities. A broader view of the economy, which encompasses concepts of care, is fundamental in creating a more gender-equal future. In fact, Sustainable Development Goal 5.4 underscores the importance of valuing unpaid work by providing essential public services and promoting shared household responsibilities.

Building care infrastructures that recognize, fairly compensate, and redistribute the care work performed predominately by the working class, migrants, and women of color can lead to a multitude of benefits, including ensuring better educational outcomes for children, improving women’s mental well-being, and expanding women’s access to economic opportunities. One example of how the redistribution of care work can lead to gender equality is adequate and well-incentivized paternity leave, which can increase mothers’ probability of reemployment, promote maternal health, and advance gender and economic equality. Additionally, recognizing unpaid care and domestic work can help promote the elimination of discriminatory social norms and deep-rooted stereotypes around ideas of gender and labor–ultimately contributing to building more inclusive societies for all gender identities.

Looking forward

As global stakeholders respond to this year’s International Women’s Day call, determining who, how, and what to invest in can facilitate progress toward more equitable and sustainable development goals.

Who: Using an intersectional lens can enable stakeholders to identify how different systems of oppression—and the particularities between them—marginalize individuals and communities across all gender identities, and who should be centered in policy and programs.

How: The root causes of marginalization may then be addressed through a critical reflection of power dynamics across and within development contexts, and empowering local communities to chart their paths toward justice and equality, which can also inform recent “localization” efforts championed by development actors such as the U.S. Agency for International Development.

What: Finally, such shifts toward intersectionality and localization may also benefit from directly addressing inequities at the household, community, and national levels—in particular, both domestic work at home and in paid sectors such as education and health care—by developing concrete tools and infrastructures that value and redistribute care burdens.

As we craft new strategies to carry forward the decades-long fight to transform systems that sustain inequality and patriarchy, reimagining the relationships between gender, labor, and the economy is essential to building a more just future for all.

[female-malice]

The word "degrowth" might be unfamiliar to many ears, but its meaning has never been more critical to understand. Our current economic model's foundation lies in a presumptive flaw—the continuous belief in infinite growth. But what happens when the pillars of this belief crumble?

For years, experts warned of the impending limitations of continuous growth. The groundbreaking 1972 book, “Limits to Growth,” spotlighted our planet's sustainable boundaries. This work evaluated how population, living standards, and resource utilization converge and affect sustainability.

Almost four decades later, Professor Jorgen Randers, one of the book’s authors, published an update titled "2052." Here, he highlighted a critical turning point: our economic model becomes flawed when equity becomes central, and justice prevails.

Consumption and wealth continue to define strategy

Western countries often equate a happy life with high resource consumption and wealth. However, Bhutan offers a contrasting model. It introduced the "happiness economy," where the nation prioritizes citizens' happiness over economic growth, suggesting that happiness can be decoupled from resource-intensive activities.

Yet, the growth principle continues to dominate global strategies, evident in the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Target number 8, for instance, emphasizes "decent work and economic growth." Recent Holberg Prize awardee, Professor Joan Martinez-Alier, has openly criticized this, arguing that such a goal might be incompatible with other SDGs.

Introducing degrowth and demand reduction

"Degrowth" is a term that advocates for a deliberate, socially just, and equitable reduction in the scale of production and consumption. The goal of degrowth is to achieve better well-being and improved ecological conditions, reducing the size of the global economy to fit within the planet's biophysical limits.

There are several key principles to degrowth, including sustainability, social well-being, equity, direct democracy, and localized economies.

Understanding degrowth also requires us to examine the concept of demand reduction. This can be categorized into three intertwined yet distinct components:

Efficiency: Maximizing output while minimizing resource use. It's about doing more with less.

Sufficiency: Re-evaluating the amount of production and consumption truly necessary for human well-being.

Behavioral Change: Shifting societal habits towards sustainability, wherein society collectively and willingly opts for less consumption.

Demand reduction is usually only discussed in policy debates regarding a short-term response to the energy crisis, and rarely as a prerequisite to reaching net zero.

Sometimes the term degrowth is confused with post-growth, a common designation of the various paths we can take when growth has stopped or declined. This gives more freedom to choose paths that allow a continuation of some practices at a smaller scale, whereas degrowth is a clear strategy to decrease growth. Degrowth is therefore one specific pathway in the post growth concept.

Degrowth requires a mindset shift

Jason Hickel, an economic anthropologist from the University of Barcelona, is a staunch advocate for degrowth. At a recent Brussels conference attended by top EU officials, Hickel emphasized the urgent need to reconsider GDP growth as our benchmark for societal success.

He critiqued the western world's continued exploitation of global resources, effectively maintaining a colonial economy. His take: the real focus should be on meeting human needs, not just growth. However, this suggests a more dominant role for state governance, a model reminiscent of eco-communism, which has been criticized in the past.

Timothy Parrique from Lund University echoed these sentiments. He refuted the idea of producing more while using fewer resources, highlighting the necessity of a complete decoupling to stay within planetary boundaries.

Challengers to degrowth

However, the degrowth principle isn't without its challengers. How, they argue, can we meet the energy and food demands of a growing population without growth? How can we simultaneously tackle climate change, poverty, and other pressing challenges without the momentum that growth provides?

Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz raises an essential consideration: while sacrifices may be necessary, ensuring they're fairly distributed is crucial. The core challenge with degrowth lies in this equity—how can we ensure everyone gets a fair share?

We must also consider if degrowth is genuinely a viable economic model. It could be argued that if our growth-centric model continues unchecked, it may simply stagnate and consequently 'degrow' on its own. But what repercussions would such organic degrowth have on our socio-economic structures?

The heart of the matter isn't just about stopping growth but ensuring that any model adopted, whether growth or degrowth-oriented, satisfies people's real needs in a manner that is considered fair and transparent.

Exceeded sustainable limits

Professor Johan Rockström of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, introduced and spent years analyzing the "planetary boundaries" principle. The findings are alarming: we've exceeded sustainable limits in various critical areas, from nitrogen cycles to extinction rates.

Moreover, while technological advances push for efficiency, there’s no evidence to suggest that increased efficiency results in decreased resource use. Instead, it seems to enable more people to use these resources, which again poses the question: how can we truly embrace degrowth?

Looking at unsustainable economic activities brings the issue into sharp focus. For instance, the sight of massive cruise ships and leisure boats at picturesque sites serves as a reminder of our high-resource consumption habits.

Infinite growth in a finite world is, by definition, unsustainable. Yet, as a society, we seem trapped in this growth mindset because we haven't found an alternative. More research, discussions, and debates on these concepts are crucial.

The UN's latest review on SDGs called for a "wholesale reform of our morally bankrupt financial system." While such an acknowledgment is a step forward, the commitment to GDP growth as a primary measure persists. It's high time for a global debate on the sustainability and equity of our growth principles.