International Development Select Committee
Extreme poverty and the Sustainable Development Goals
Supplementary written submission made on behalf of the Bond SDG Group, June 2022
1.1. Bond is the UK network of over 400 UK organisations working in international development. The Bond SDG group has over 150 of these organisations as members and is advocating for the full implementation of the SDGs with a strong focus on their global impact. We focus on the implementation of the SDGs by the UK International Development Sector and the UK Government.
1.2. The current co-chairs of the SDG Group are Lilei Chow (Save the Children) and Andrew Griffiths (Sightsavers).
2.1. The UK Government published a new International Development Strategy (IDS) in May 2022, which sets out its approach to international development over the next decade. The IDS marks a radical change in direction and although it is welcome to see a commitment to the importance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), there is a lack of detail and clarity on how this commitment will be practically met. This paper outlines some of the key questions with recommendations as to how to address them.
2.2. The SDGs are mentioned twice in the IDS. The first is very brief and is related to the UK’s offer: using the UK’s economic and political tools to “meet the evolving needs of our partners, and support achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in line with the Integrated Review”. But what does this mean for alignment with the SDGs throughout the strategy? How will this commitment be met and what measures will we be able to use to ensure it is not just rhetoric?
3.1. Leave No One Behind is the central transformative pledge of Agenda 2030, which compels us not only to transform the lives of those who are the furthest behind but also to fight discrimination and the root causes of inequality within and among countries. This is difficult to achieve, necessitating commitment to prioritising the most marginalised, ambition and an appetite for risk. It is disappointing not to see a recommitment to the Leave No One Behind Promise[1] in the IDS, and that it does not draw an explicit link between Official Development Assistance (ODA), tackling inequality and reaching the furthest behind first.
3.2. There are a lot of good and relevant strategies (for example, those on disability and gender), but we would look for something that brings these many inclusion strategies into one coherent articulation about what leave no one behind means for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). How does the principle of leaving no one behind work in practice, especially in guiding decision making? Will the FCDO clearly outline how it will deliver on the Leave No One Behind Promise in a way that is practical for decision making?
3.3. There is significant alignment on SDG11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) but there is little about how investment and infrastructure will be accessible and pro-poor - this needs a clear delivery plan that aligns with the targets set in SDG11 (p8).
3.4. There are references to putting data at the heart of the UK’s partnerships with low- and middle-income countries, particularly in the delivery of the priority to “provide women and girls with the freedom they need to succeed” (p.11). This is welcome, but it would be good to understand more about what this means in practice and to see this reflected in all aspects of the FCDO’s work. What plan does the government have to publish an updated Inclusive Data Charter Action Plan?
4.1. Policy coherence is recognised as essential to the delivery of the whole framework – this is because sustainable development is interlinked, and without a coherent approach, opportunities are missed, and other areas of implementation are undermined.
4.2. We would welcome a clear analysis of the impact of the IDS on SDG implementation by focusing on the concept of policy coherence and systematically mapping the way in which particular policies are contributing to individual Goals and targets. For example, the focus on gender-based violence would have implications across SDGs 1, 5, 10, 16 (and likely others), so it would be good to see the government map these priorities in a systematic way. Additionally, will the government deliver further impact investments of the IDS key priorities and how these will be implemented to ensure positive contribution to the SDGs in partner countries, for example what SDG-positive investments by British International Investment (BII) might look like?
4.3. While we welcome commitments to the freedom of women and girls, we hope that in practice this means the attainment of gender equality (SDG5), and that the focus will be on the rights of women and girls rather than “freedom”, which does not place the same responsibilities on duty bearers such as states and service providers. This objective overlaps with a lot of SDG targets (including in SDGs 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 16 and 17). An analysis of the targets needed to address the objectives set out in the strategy will identify where focus of policy coherence will help to accelerate both the IDS objective and the relevant SDG targets.
4.4. Whilst we welcome the commitment on climate change, the overall framing of climate and nature and some notable absences raise concerns about the government’s broader philosophy on international climate and nature action and its coherent integration across all investments and decisions. One of the key principles of the 2030 Agenda is the recognition that environmental, economic and social development are all interlinked - how will this principle be implemented in practice? What detail will be provided on how the UK will support the recommendations of the Dasgupta Review - will there be a published plan?
4.5. We welcome the commitment to being patient partners and addressing structural problems (SDG17). There are a lot of themes within these commitments, including those focused on promoting the rule of law (SDG16), ensuring equitable economic development (SDGs 8 and 17), participatory decision making (SDG 10 and 17), access to technology (SDG17), and transparency and accountability (SDG 17). These themes are outlined without much detail - we recommend a clear analysis of how these will align with existing global and national frameworks. This should start from the basis of an analysis as to how it will align with the SDGs.
5.1. One clear missing link is the lack of coherence in UK domestic policy. There could be clarity and a better link between the IDS and the FCDO’s Outcome Delivery Plan (ODP), and some analysis of how all government department’s OPDs will impact on wider implementation of the SDGs – this is partially done, and hopefully will be better this year.
6.1. The IDS includes a series of new commitments, such as the concept of Centres of Expertise (p9). How will these be aligning with the implementation of the SDGs? How are these being delivered, and how do NGO stakeholders collaborate with them to feed in expertise and share learning? Will they be providing analysis and support for countries who are developing and implementing plans for SDG implementation (often integrated in national development planning) on the priority areas identified?
6.2. A strategy should have specific goals and objectives that are fully resourced. While there are clear priorities, there is limited detail and few financial commitments, which makes it difficult to assess delivery. There is also a lack of goals and targets throughout. What structures of accountability will accompany the strategy?
6.3. Partnerships (particularly those with the private sector) are referenced a lot throughout the strategy. This needs to be based on common values - for example, will there be a requirement that partners who receive UK funding will be members of the UN Global Compact, and commit to the implementation of the SDGs in their work? This is one of the ways to ensure the transparency and accountability mentioned in paragraph 5.
6.4. We welcome the commitments on global health, however there is a lack of recognition of one health approach - the connections between health and other stated priorities (e.g. climate change, nature and economy). The global health priority is framed within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and although there is a welcome statement that ‘strengthening health systems is at the core of [the UK’s] long-term approach’, the outcome of this work is focused on improving global health security rather than improving people’s health and wellbeing. How will it address the development of strong health systems for universal health coverage (UHC) and deliver on the UK’s commitments to SDG3 (Good Health and Wellbeing)? Will there be a published operational plan for the health systems strengthening for global health security and universal health coverage position paper?
7.1. The commitment to monitoring in line with the SDGs is very welcome in the strategy, but we need a lot more information. It would be good to outline what the relationship between this and the OECD DAC marker is, what systems will be used to record it, and how that information would be available and integrated with reporting.
7.2. We welcome that commitment to the FCDO becoming “locally owned” as “Those who benefit from our work must have a voice in what we do, and how we do it”. The decision by the FCDO to decentralise and shift decision making to Ambassadors and High Commissioners is an important step to supporting a shift in power to lower and middle-income countries. However, there is little detail in the strategy on how the UK Government plans to implement this ambitious policy as it will have wide reaching impact across the department. What process and commitments about participation (particularly of left behind people) will be taken before decisions are made? Will the FCDO work with civil society organisations to develop a strategy on how they plan to become locally led and funded?
7.3. Debt-sustainability is welcome and aligns with 17.4 (p8). However, it is concerning that trade and investment seem to be the central focus of the IDS without specifying the rules and principles to ensure that trade and investments deliver positive outcomes for poverty reduction, human rights, sustainable development and climate. The UK’s approach to trade and investment must be based on the principles outlined in SDG targets 17.10, 17.11, and 17.12 - especially the need to use it to support the least developed countries. We would welcome clear plans for how this strategy will be implemented, and how it will increase market access for LDCs.
7.4. The 2030 Agenda recognises that humanitarian crises are a significant impediment to sustainable development - the alignment of humanitarian and diplomatic priorities is welcome but must be in the interests of providing the conditions for better development in the future.
4
[1] HM Government (March 2019), Leaving no one behind: Our promise.