SDG INDEX:
Everyone wants to know how countries are performing. To answer this question, delegates and policymakers have referred to a metric called the SDG Index, which was developed by Jeffrey Sachs “to assess where each country stands with regard to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals".
The metric tells a very clear story:
Sweden, Denmark, Finland, France, and Germany—along with most other rich Western nations—rise to the top of the rankings, giving casual observers the impression that these countries are real leaders in achieving sustainable development.
KEY ISSUE:
- It actually has very little to do with sustainable development - oddly enough, the countries with the highest scores on this index are some of the most environmentally unsustainable countries in the world.
- EG SWEDEN - Sweden scores an impressive 84.7 on the index, topping the pack. However, its material footprint (the quantity of natural resources that the country consumes each year) is one of the biggest in the world.
- EG FINLAND - Number 3 on the SDG index, yet it's carbon footprint is about 13 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person per year, similar to that of Saudi Arabia. This makes it one of the most polluting countries in the world, in per capita terms, and a major contributor to climate breakdown.
SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM:
The United Nations needs to redesign the index to correct these issues. This can be done by rendering the ecological indicators in consumption-based terms wherever relevant and possible, to take account of international trade, and by indexing the ecological indicators separately from the development indicators so that we can see clearly what’s happening on each front. This way we can celebrate what countries like Denmark and Germany have achieved in terms of development while also recognizing that they are major drivers of ecological breakdown and need urgently to change course, with rapid reductions in emissions and resource use.
Until then, we should avoid using the SDG Index as a metric of progress in sustainable development, because it’s not. Given the stakes of the crisis we face, we need to tell more honest, accurate stories about what’s happening to our planet and who is responsible for it.