Abstract
The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development offers countries an opportunity to align domestic law and policy through its framework of international Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in an effort to transform the global community. The success of the SDGs rests on their domestic implementation, which can be judged by measurement against targets. This article demonstrates the variable effects of mixed domestic approaches to implementation, through a comparison between Australia and Sweden. Noting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying renewed importance of the SDGs, this article asserts that an integrated multilateral approach to implementing the SDGs (such as Sweden’s) and stronger domestic implementation will be key to recovering the losses sustained during the pandemic and meeting the goals outlined in the 2030 Agenda (in Australia and in other countries).
The United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda), adopted in 2015, forms a globally agreed plan of action for sustainable development across the world. 1 The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), broken down into 169 targets and 231 indicators, 2 aim to focus the global community’s attention on the biggest issues of our time, including poverty, climate change and equality.
Sustainable development, defined as the ‘need to reconcile economic development with protection of the environment’, 3 has been considered by academics and global bodies as a collective global goal since the late 1980s and has been applied as a general legal principle of international law by international courts and tribunals. 4 The SDGs were informed by international legal instruments, in line with the rights and obligations of States, but they are not expressed in a binding treaty. 5 At the least, the SDGs reflect ‘soft law’ norms and are aligned with norms of customary international law, for example, the long-established ‘no harm’ principle. 6
The success of the ambitious goals of the 2030 Agenda is heavily reliant on domestic implementation. The integrated design of the goals gives rise to challenges in progress measurement. The 2030 Agenda is a resolution agreed upon by the UN General Assembly, rather than a legally binding treaty. Indeed, given this weaker legal status and the freedom that States have to interpret the SDG agenda in line with domestic priorities, the SDGs mirror the broader international legal system in its reliance on States to promote compliance. This article considers measures taken in Australia and Sweden to address the 2030 Agenda since its adoption in 2015 in an effort to overcome the world’s greatest threats, such as poverty and climate change. It also identifies complicating factors for the 2030 Agenda arising from the COVID-19 pandemic which have slowed global progress. However, despite the unexpected challenges as we recover from a global pandemic, the worldwide community has an opportunity to reshape its trajectory by increasing focus on the SDGs to ensure a sustainable recovery that benefits all.
Case studies: Australia and Sweden
To evaluate the implementation of the SDGs, this article considers the approaches of the governments of Sweden and Australia. Both countries are active players within the international legal landscape, consistently engaged in drafting international agreements, providing financial support to the UN and sitting as member States of the UN Security Council and other UN agencies.
At a national level, the divergences between each nation’s history and political climate have resulted in varied approaches to the SDGs and international law more broadly. Sweden evolved from one of the least democratic European countries into a prosperous, socially democratic welfare state throughout the 20th century, and its progressive policies have led to its self-appointment as a ‘moral superpower’. 7 Notwithstanding allegations of human rights violations, criticisms for its consumption, emissions and its increasing wealth divide, 8 Sweden has been recognised as one of the most equal countries in the world and commended as a role model in the international community. Like Sweden, Australia is an affluent country which ranks consistently well on measures of individual freedoms and represents itself as a model international citizen. 9 However, Australia has fallen behind Sweden on some indicators of equality. 10 Despite being the land of the ‘fair go’, Australia has recently faced considerable criticism in the international community due to its treatment of Indigenous peoples and asylum seekers, and its approach to climate change. 11 Such critique has often been rejected outright or poorly received by successive Australian governments. Despite these differences, Sweden and Australia’s similarities make a comparison between the two countries’ approaches a useful analysis of the impact of domestic monitoring and implementation on the progress of the SDGs.
Monitoring
Inherent differences between the two countries arise when making attempts to measure the success of the SDGs. Governance through goal setting gives rise to challenges in the way each goal is interpreted and applied. 12 Many of the SDGs are qualitative goals which risk distortion when translated into reductionist, quantifiable indicators due to the complex social objectives they encapsulate. 13 Even one of the most reliable sources of data on the SDGs, The Transformation Index, has been criticised for failing to consider interlinkages. 14 A global measurement framework containing 231 SDG indicators was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2017, 15 however the choice of measurement tools is political, and the ability of States to accurately measure progress against these indicators is dependent on political will and resources in any given State. 16
The primary intent of the SDGs is not to rank countries on their success. However, it is important to note relevant domestic factors to understand the challenges each country faces in contextualising the SDG targets to meet their individual needs. At the commencement of the SDG 2030 Agenda, Sweden demonstrated a more favourable starting position. In 2015, the first assessment of the overall performance of high-income countries by Bertelsmann Stiftung indicated that Sweden was positioned first out of 34 countries in its capacity to meet the 17 SDGs, with 20 per cent of the total SDG indicators having already been met. 17 In the same study, Australia was placed at number 18. 18
The Swedish approach to tracking SDG implementation is through an existing government agency now responsible for setting up a national SDG monitoring system. 19 Sweden has emphasised the importance of making statistical progress publicly available and released yearly statistical follow-ups on the goals. Australia has also developed an SDG Reporting Platform which provides statistical details on whether there has been data reported against an indicator. 20 Both countries have also submitted reports for a Voluntary National Review (VNR) to the UN High-Level Political Forum (Sweden has completed two VNRs). 21 This process is designed to facilitate the sharing of experiences and lessons learned throughout the process. 22 Sweden’s 2017 report explicitly references areas of improvement, 23 whereas Australia’s report applies a ‘narrative’ approach by detailing case studies of current initiatives which relate to each of the SDGs. 24 The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has indicated that it has no intention to report against the SDGs beyond what is contained within the VNR. 25 As such, it will be difficult to accurately determine whether Australia is, in fact, making any progress against the SDGs. These variations in monitoring against the indicators are visible across the globe. However, the international success of the 2030 Agenda is reliant on an integration of individual States’ domestic approaches.
Implementation
Unsurprisingly, given the divergence in their monitoring and reporting systems, Sweden and Australia have taken different approaches to domestic implementation of the SDGs. Sweden’s ambition is to be a global leader in SDG implementation, 26 given the tight alignment between its existing social system and a number of the SDGs (such as a welfare system based on guaranteeing nationwide access, among other things, to schooling, housing, employment and healthcare). 27 Sweden’s national action plan for the 2030 Agenda centres around six cross-sectoral focus areas applied in partnership with government agencies, civil society and private actors. 28 Two ministers have overall responsibility for the SDGs and the Swedish Agency for Public Management is responsible for analysing and monitoring the work by government agencies and the action plan’s progress. 29 There is also support among local councils and municipalities with shared responsibility to facilitate the achievement of key indicators. Sweden has actively engaged its population in working towards the SDGs, with a Deloitte study suggesting citizens exhibit an exceptionally high rate of familiarity with the goals. 30 This may reflect the common presence of the SDGs in Swedish political discourse since their adoption in 2015. 31
Australia has taken a more gradual approach to incorporating the SDGs into its domestic agenda. The Australian government assembled a committee of senior executives from various government departments to address Australia’s VNR. However, there has been a lack of transparency over the committee’s activities during and since the VNR’s completion in 2018. The Australian government has allocated responsibility for each goal to a separate government agency, with no one agency holding authority over SDG implementation.
32
Rather than preparing an SDG strategy, Australia’s approach is to integrate the goals across existing policies, programs and strategies. Potential for full implementation or the development of a national action plan was assigned to a Senate Inquiry for consideration. The Inquiry’s final report provided clear recommendations to develop a national implementation plan, create a multisectoral reference group and undertake biannual indicator-based progress assessments.
33
Completed in February 2019, the report has since been tabled in Parliament. However, it is unlikely that the current conservative government will apply the report’s progressive recommendations, given the harsh minority report from its own Senators. The Coalition minority report contended that, as the ‘most free, democratic and prosperous’ nation in the world, Australia: should be considered as the gold standard in terms of all of the SDGs. While there is always room for improvement, Coalition Senators are disappointed by the approach taken by Labor and Greens which focuses on over-regulating the implementation of these goals rather than either celebrating the positive situation Australia is in or how we can better support lagging nations around the world to implement the SDGs.
34
Instead, the Coalition Senators encouraged the government to ignore the majority report. 35 To date, the Australian government has not responded to the work of the Senate Inquiry, leaving progress on the SDGs largely to civil society and other levels of government at this stage.
In contrast, Sweden has developed a system which addresses interlinkages across sectors and societal actors as a means for applying the SDGs in a holistic and integrated manner, demonstrated by Sweden’s rank as second of 165 States in the most recently conducted Transformation Index. 36 In comparison, Australia’s siloed approach to the SDGs fails to adequately acknowledge the need for integration of goals; Australia is ranked 35 out of 165 in the same index. 37 While these rankings do not measure progress directly against the SDG indicators, there is arguably correlation between the relative rankings of Sweden and Australia and their divergent domestic approaches to SDG implementation.
The SDGs in the time of pandemic
While the current COVID-19 pandemic plaguing the world is the centre of international focus, the SDGs have never been more relevant. The spread of COVID-19 has highlighted severe deficiencies in the healthcare systems, political governance and economic stability of many countries. The pandemic has disrupted and reversed years of progress that had been made towards the SDGs. We have already seen the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on all 17 goals, including rates of poverty (SDG 1), food security (SDG 2), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), and economic growth and employment (SDG 8). 38 However, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in sustainable development research and Wang and Huang’s analysis of the ‘positive influence’ of COVID-19 on the SDGs suggests this research can be leveraged to create new development opportunities for 14 of the SDGs. 39 Each State has handled the crisis uniquely, based on its own resources and capabilities, however success in managing the pandemic relies on worldwide collaboration – an interesting parallel to the pursuit of sustainable development.
To recover from the current chaos, States need to rebuild and re-prioritise the 2030 Agenda. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has emphasised the ‘triple imperative’ of responding to the pandemic, safeguarding progress towards the SDGs and ensuring the process of recovery aligns with the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. 40 The most recent Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021 emphasises the need for a global multilateral response to the pandemic and SDGs as we move into the next decade. 41 Rather than deferring the SDGs to a time of order and calm, countries should use the 2030 Agenda as a way of regaining focus on sustainable development by rebuilding from the ground up.
Discussion
An agenda of sustainable development that can be universally achieved is a lofty ambition due to the diversity of State approaches and interests. The SDGs hold potential to serve as a ‘coordinating and synthesising framework’, especially as research indicates that public commitments can drive change. 42 However, the flexibility in the domestic implementation of the SDGs is the biggest barrier to their success. To overcome this, the 2030 Agenda could be elevated to have legal force in the immediate wake of the pandemic, to leverage the possible development opportunities. If States could overcome political differences and commit to domestic application for the sake of sustainable development, the 2030 Agenda could be drafted within a treaty as opposed to waiting for the SDGs to progressively influence the development of international law. A similar process saw the development of the highly influential 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. A treaty would create binding legal obligations under international law, although of course member States like Australia would still need to enact domestic implementing legislation. However, the UN has no evident intention to push for the SDGs to become legally binding, instead relying on existing treaties and domestic application.
Alternatively, there is a case for the UN to develop a system of priorities in which direct action would be focussed on the SDGs and that would most positively impact the network of integrated goals. A recent study suggests that concentrated effort on Goals 4 to 16 would have significant positive impacts on Goals 1 to 3 (No Poverty, Zero Hunger, and Good Health and Well-Being). 43 Given the threat of a climate emergency emphasised in the 2021 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, 44 SDG 13 (Climate Change) warrants high priority. Encouraging States to centre their attention around specific SDGs may assist them to overcome issues in implementing them homogenously. Multiple SDGs could also be addressed through concentration on the six SDG Transformations, first identified in the 2019 Sustainable Development Report, 45 which provide a framework for integrated strategies to structure the world’s recovery. Every country, including Sweden and Australia, must continue to reflect and refine their domestic approach to ensure they are advancing the SDGs and promoting the world’s sustainable development. For Australia particularly, a genuine and effective commitment to meeting the SDGs would require significant shifts in government policy at the national level, notably in areas of climate and energy policy, investment in education, and Indigenous rights and development. 46
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
