Change of tack needed as Global Goals remain out of reach

The Global Goals are a phenomenal idea. They are what happened when the UN came together and said, “Here are the world’s biggest problems, and here is how we’re going to measure progress with them.” The 17 goals include promises to end extreme poverty and hunger, fix climate change and education, and reduce inequality and corruption.

This year is the midpoint between the start of the goals, in 2016, and 2030, when they are supposed to be accomplished — and while setting the goals has done much good, the world is falling short with nearly all of them. This is the perfect time to assess the Global Goals (also known as the Sustainable Development Goals), recognise what is working, admit what is not working and refine our approach so that we can do the most good for the people most in need.

Let us start with something that is working very well. The beauty of the goals is that they forced the world to agree on what matters and on the measures of progress. These agreements, in turn, are driving action: governments, foundations, and other funders have made strong commitments in aid and other forms of support for the world’s poorest, using the goals to guide where they spend the money. As the saying goes, “What gets measured gets managed.”

Here is the problem: the Global Goals are too much of a good thing. The 17 commitments are accompanied by a huge number of targets — 169, to be exact.

Having so many targets would not necessarily be an issue if the world were stepping up to fund all of them. But it is not. Despite record commitments from donors, one report recently found that funding for the goals will be short at least $10-trillion to $15-trillion each year for the rest of this decade. That is about equivalent to all of the taxes collected by every government in the world.

Increased funding

This huge shortfall calls for a two-pronged approach. Do whatever is possible to shrink the gap. Donors should meet and even exceed their commitments to meet the goals. Though overall foreign aid rose in 2022 for the fourth consecutive year, most of this increase amounted to refugee and humanitarian aid required by Russia’s war on Ukraine. Assistance for the least well-off countries actually declined.

There are some notable exceptions. France, the Netherlands, the US and China have recently increased their funding for health in low-income countries. The Gates Foundation is on track to increase its total giving by 50% — to $9bn a year by 2026 — with a focus on health and development. We hope other funders follow suit.

Even as donors step up, all of us need to recognise that inflation and rising interest rates are stretching governments to the limit. The sad reality is that the world will not find $10-trillion more each year to spend on achieving the Global Goals. So we need to identify the best buys in development — the investments that will do the most good with the funding that is available.

This does not need to involve guesswork. Thanks to decades of research into what works, we can use data to find the best interventions. For example, in a recent project led by Bjorn Lomborg and featured in his new book, Best Things First, economists identified 12 highly efficient policies that deliver enormous benefits at relatively low costs.

Save lives

They found that simple ways to improve the conditions around births can save the lives of 166,000 mothers and 1.2-million newborns each year, at less than $5bn annually. And an additional $5.5bn per year spent on agricultural research & development for the poor would reduce malnutrition, help farmers thrive in a warming climate, and drive down food costs — delivering long-term benefits worth $184bn annually. Other recommendations include efforts to prevent tuberculosis and malaria, immunise more children, improve education, and strengthen land ownership rights.

In all, the project found that the 12 policies would save more than 4-million lives a year by 2030 and generate annual economic benefits worth $1.1-trillion for low- and lower middle income countries. At a cost of about $35bn per year (in 2023 US dollar) between now and 2030, that is a return of about 52 times the investment.

But the principles are even more important than any particular policy. Let us recommit to funding work on the Global Goals, because it is saving lives and helping people to escape extreme poverty. Let us acknowledge that the need is greater than the available funding, which means we need to focus on the efforts that will have the most impact. With these principles in mind, we can make sure that the Global Goals accomplish the greatest good.

• Gates is co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus.