Covid-19 is a double blow for poverty
The less obvious casualty? UN's 2030 agenda
This is a fresh post from Worldwise, a newsletter for global insight and journalism where current affairs meet humanity.
It’s written by Anita Makri. If you like what you’re reading, let me know by tapping the little heart button or spread the word by sharing the post.
Was this forwarded to you? Learn more and sign up here.
Photo by Karthikeyan K on Unsplash
The Worldwise View
The pandemic is not only increasing global poverty—it's undermining the global initiative meant to fight it.
For the uninitiated, that’s the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): the UN's global blueprint for social and economic development, consisting of 17 goals which countries are asked to meet voluntarily by 2030.
I’m helping out with an analysis of progress towards these Goals in light of the pandemic. And today I tuned in for a webinar where Jeffrey Sachs, director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), launched the network’s latest report that takes stock of how well countries are doing to meet their commitments.
It comes after a document released in May by the UN Secretary-General struck a somber note, saying the impacts of the pandemic are “imperilling progress” towards most of the Goals.
Progress was already too slow, and the UN admitted as much around this time last year. The agenda is off-track.
And the SDSN’s new report doesn’t change that picture: it also finds that no country is on track, progress is modest and mixed, and Covid-19 will affect all Goals negatively—some severely.
“There are very heavy impacts of Covid-19 on fighting poverty, on hunger, on jobs and employment, and many many of the other aspects [of the SDGs].”—Jeffrey Sachs
But the overall message of the report strikes a more upbeat note than that of the Secretary General, framing casualty as opportunity. The Goals are needed now more than ever, it says, and can actually help countries recover from the pandemic shock.
I’ve yet to delve into the nitty gritty of that message. For now, let’s take a look at another claim in the report that has a bearing on our collective discussions—on Worldwise and beyond—about the global response to Covid-19.
Have the SDGs helped pandemic responses?
In the extract below, which comes from the executive summary, the SDSN report draws attention to Asia as a region that has both responded well to the pandemic, and made the most progress on the SDGs.
While this snippet refers to East and South Asia, the rest of the report restricts its reference to Asia-Pacific or South-East Asia. As it should—we now know South Asia doesn’t count as an example of a particularly effective pandemic response despite good progress towards the SDGs.
The conclusion appears to be based on comparing the results of the SDG tracking with preliminary results from a pilot index that measures how effective OECD countries have been in their early responses to Covid-19.
Preliminary, pilot and early—if that sounds like hedging, it should. I don’t think there’s enough analysis there (or visible) yet for the link to be persuasive.
The report argues that successful suppression of the virus in countries like New Zealand, South Korea and Vietnam comes down to intensive public health services and good hygiene.
Undoubtedly, both are crucial to contain this virus. But what’s not clear is whether, and how, the SDGs have contributed to those capacities being in place and acted upon in the region.
Photo by Erik Mclean on Unsplash
The discourse over the past few weeks paints a picture in which public health capacity is the bedrock, but the devil is in the detail of implementation. And that includes both institutional actions—how fast or aggressive the response has been—and the use of technology.
Analyses of South Korea’s success have put it down to a response that’s been aggressive, able to scale fast and helped by surveillance tools like GPS tracking (Atlantic + Reuters + Our World in Data).
During today’s webinar Oh Hyunjoo, South Korea’s representative to the UN, described how early on in the course of the pandemic the government hastily convened officials and biotech companies in Seoul’s central train station, urging them to develop and supply test kits—that was an important moment, she said.
The use of technology is reportedly a factor in Vietnam’s success too, among others—mainly creative communications, fast testing and screening, and swift development of testing kits (WEF + Guardian + Conversation + WSJ).
A closer reading of the SDSN’s analysis suggests that at least some of these details, like the use of technology, were taken into account and ultimately included under the umbrella of public health services. How and to what extent the SDGs have made a meaningful contribution to this capacity is an interesting—and still open—question.
Speaking of blows to tackling poverty…
There’s another one to reckon with that’s no longer news, but its impact will be rippling out to NGOs and others working in the development sector for a while.
It is, of course, the recent announcement that the UK's international development department—DFID—is becoming a branch of the foreign office.
Although it seemed to catch many by surprise, there were signs it was looming.
Be that as it may, the announcement was followed by expressions of dismay and intense criticism from several corners (Reuters + Devex + Guardian + Oxfam fp2p), including aid groups protesting that there was no consultation.
The people who see positives in the move seem to be in the minority.
And the latest, in an exclusive from Devex, is that hefty budget cuts are underway.
If you’d like to dig deeper, there’s plenty of analysis of what it could mean for the UK's aid policy and its place in the world (CGD + Conversation + Global Policy + CGD + IDS + Guardian). This analysis on Climate Home focuses on implications for climate finance.
There’s an obituary of sorts from Phil Mason, an anti-corruption specialist who knows DFID well.
And to end on a lighter note: a new Twitter account swiftly followed the merger announcement with a delightful touch of British parody—”FCDOff and taking back control”.
In other development aid reports, lots of questioning
Does development have a problem with racism? - Oxfam fp2p
...and is Covid-19 bringing entrenched colonialism into sharper focus? - Devex
Ideas over loans: What accounts for the World Bank’s influence in developing countries? - Brookings
Do international NGOs have a role in societal transformation? - Open Democracy
Worldwise is written by Anita Makri. Was this email forwarded to you? Learn more and subscribe here.