https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8669-5198
Figures
Abstract
With less than seven years remaining before the 2030 target date of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Ireland is currently unable to adequately assess national SDG performance. This paper presents an index that has been created to combat this critical research gap. In this respect, an index has been developed for each of the unique SDG indicators (n = 159) identified during the early stages of the indicator selection process where national performance is assessed relative to the best and worst performers in the European Union (EU). Ireland’s performance in individual indicators is then aggregated revealing the country’s performance in several critical dimensions of the SDGs, including society, economy, environment, as well as means-of-implementation (MoI), linkage indicators, and the SDGs as a whole. Further, annual time series data has been collected, allowing for the assessment of the country’s relative performance in 140 SDG indicators from 2015-to-2021. Its extensive indicator framework makes this index the most accurate and comprehensive assessment of Ireland’s SDG performance, to date. Similarly, as illustrated throughout this paper, our unique peer-based approach, and the positive peer-learning environment that it engenders, hold the potential to catalyse the development of efficient and effective national SDG policy. As such, the results from this index should be used to inform future national SDG monitoring, reporting, and policy initiatives, including future voluntary national reviews.
Author summary
The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provides a UN-endorsed global framework pathway towards achieving a sustainable future for humanity. Despite being at the mid-point for achieving the 2030 Agenda, most national governments do not have a robust evidence-based framework to assess national level progress on SDG indicators, targets, and goals. This study provides such a framework and uses the case of Ireland to demonstrate that national level assessment of SDG progress and performance does not conform to an evidence-based assessment of the nation’s SDG performance. Our research is the first to investigative a nation’s SDG progress or otherwise over time (2015–2021). The results demonstrate that Ireland performs significantly worse in most of the SDG framework in 2021 compared to 2015 suggesting a regression in SDG performance relative to progress being made across the EU-28. Our study provides new insights into how specifically tailored SDG policies can be created through an indicator-based assessment of SDG progress over time. Such micro-level assessment presents opportunities for policymakers to adopted peer policy learning strategies to accelerate SDG progress into the future.
Citation: Murphy E, Walsh PP, Murphy E (2023) An evidence-based approach to national Sustainable Development Goal assessment: The case of Ireland. PLOS Sustain Transform 2(10): e0000082. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000082
Editor: Jose Carlos Báez, Spanish Institute of Oceanography: Instituto Espanol de Oceanografia, SPAIN
Received: June 29, 2023; Accepted: September 25, 2023; Published: October 16, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Murphy et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1 Introduction
The world is currently faced with several existential threats, ranging from climate change and biodiversity decline to food shortage and refugee crises [1–4]. As a global initiative, the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provides the means by which the world might be placed on a sustainable path, and therein the threat of global catastrophe avoided [5]. Less than seven years remain for nations to meet the SDGs’ 2030 targets. Given its poor track record in previous global development initiatives [6] and the current state of the Irish environment, the probability of Ireland achieving the SDGs is diminishing. For example, despite the Irish government’s promise to make it one of the most ambitious countries in the world on climate change [7], carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are at the highest national levels since measurements began [8]. Indeed, the country is projected to miss its annual European Union (EU)-designated 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets by considerable margins [8]. The country is also experiencing significant biodiversity loss, which is likely to worsen given that 85% of its habitats are currently at risk of decline [9]. Undoubtedly, significant transformations are required if Ireland is to come close to achieving the SDGs. However, before a nation can begin to right its course towards sustainability, an accurate assessment of its current SDG performance must be performed.
The SDG framework contains 231 unique indicators that have been developed to track progress towards 169 developmental targets [5]. As a consequence of its scale, it is often difficult to holistically assess a country’s SDG performance. The standard method is to aggregate individual dimensions into a composite index which can be used to compare SDG performance between countries and over time [10–13]. However, the current tools used to assess, and guide Ireland’s national SDG performance are severely inadequate (discussed in further detail below). The index presented in this paper comes with several crucial improvements in national SDG assessment. First, unlike other indices that are rarely disaggregated below the goal level [10–13] our index methodology allows for an index to be created for each SDG indicator assessed. Its indicator-based design allows the index to avoid the siloed reasoning associated with a goal-based approach, which is antagonistic to the indivisibility of the SDG framework [5]. This permits a more holistic assessment of critical dimensions of the SDGs. Second, the index methodology is the first of its kind to use a unique indicator taxonomy of ‘Outcome’, ‘Means of Implementation (MoI)’, and ‘Linkage’ (refer to S1 Table for definitions). Third, our index assesses national performance relative to the best and worst performers in the EU. As such, it is internationally unique in that it holds the potential to significantly enhance policymaking by creating an enabling environment wherein peer-policy learning can be facilitated. Fourth, the number of indicators used in our index that directly align with the UN SDG framework far exceeds any other current methodology [10–13]. Thus, we present the most accurate and comprehensive assessment of national SDG performance to date using Ireland as a case study.
The methodology presented in this paper was recently used to create a comprehensive EU-wide SDG index [14]; however, in this instance we present the first in-depth investigation of one nation’s performance (Ireland) within that wider analysis. As such we provide the first presentation of how our index methodology can be used to assess national SDG performance in 159 unique SDG indicators (122 targets) where the upper and lower bounds represent the best and worst performers in the EU, respectively. In this sense, the index score (0–1) refers to the distance between the country under analysis and the best performer for the specific indicator. Indicators have been aggregated into indices assessing performance in certain dimensions of the SDGs, including in Outcome, MoI, and Linkage targets as well as Social, Economic, Environmental, and Governance domains. Similarly, through aggregating all available indicators into a composite index, Ireland’s performance in the overall SDGs is assessed. Further, we present the first assessment of a nation’s performance in the SDGs over-time using our index methodology; specifically, Ireland’s performance in 140 indicators is compared to the rest of the EU over the 2015-2021 time frame.
2 Methodology
The method of index construction, with the exception of the time-series analysis, has been described in detail elsewhere [14], thus we present only the essential methodological considerations in this paper.
2.1 Indicator selection and classification
In the initial stages of index construction, a search was undertaken to investigate potential data sources for each SDG indicator (Fig 1). Various sources of differing quality were found (e.g., national SDG reporting websites, national statistics systems (NSS)). It soon became apparent that the highest quality data could be derived from the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD). However, there are several indicators for which UNSD currently does not have data. In such instances, robust proxies that met specific data requirements that were created by the authors of this paper were used. The criteria were as follows: the identified data must be in direct alignment with the SDG indicator as per the official UN SDG framework, the source of the data must perform quality assurance procedures similar to those of the UN, the data must be readily available and accessible, and finally, the data must be internationally comparable. The data for these indicators were derived from sources such as SDSN, Eurostat, and OECD (all data used is publicly available).
As well as producing an overall composite index for Ireland, targets were classified as Outcome-based, Means of Implementation (MoI), and Linkage-based as well as those relating to the Social, Economic, Environmental, and Governance dimensions of the SDGs. Outcome-based indicators have been defined by the UN as indicators that refer to circumstances to be attained, while MoIs measure capacity building and are denoted by a letter in the SDG indicator framework (with the exception of SDG17 indicators, all of which are MoIs) [15]. Linkage indicators were classified by the authors as those that might disproportionately accelerate SDG progress (e.g., indicators that are repeated throughout the framework). Our previous research [16] presented a unique coding system that was used to identify each indicator in a proof of concept environmental SDG index for Ireland. The coding system is based on the taxonomy originally established during the UN Open Working Group (OWG) on SDG target development, where indicators were classified as either Outcome (‘1’), Linkage (‘2’), or an MOI (‘3’).
Individual SDG targets were aggregated into four SDG pillars: social, economic, environmental, and governance, where the Social Index consisted of indicators in SDGs 1–6, the Economic Index SDGs 7–12, and the Governance Index SDGs 16–17, as defined by the UN [5]. Our previous work [17] developed a specific Environmental Index for Ireland and thus we were able to take a more nuanced approach to the construction of the Environmental Index in this study (contains a possible 83 unique indicators). The EU-wide results from the Outcome, MoI, Linkage, as well as the Social, Economic, Environmental, and Governance, and Composite indices have been presented in previous work [14]. The entire list of indicators used in the composite index along with their classification status is shown in S1 Table. It should be noted that there are several indicators for which there is no best or worst performer in the EU i.e., all EU nations perform the same. In such cases, our index returns a null value. Similarly, there are indicators in our index for which various countries in the EU achieve the same maximum or minimum values in which case all such countries are considered to be top or bottom performers. Where available, annual data for each indicator for Ireland were collected for up to a maximum of ten years. As a consequence of its unique scope and alignment, our database holds significant potential for future national SDG performance assessment. The data collected is correct as of 01/09/2022. It should be noted that the data collection for this index was undertaken at a time when the United Kingdom (UK) was still part of the EU and thus the pre-Brexit EU-28 is used rather than the post-Brexit EU-27.
2.2. Weighting across indicators
The norm in SDG index creation is to ascribe equal weight to each indicator in the overall composite index [10]. As a consequence of using an equally weighted approach, the ‘embedded weight’ of each SDG dimension is solely dependent on the number of indicators related to that dimension in proportion to the total number of indicators assessed. For example, our composite index contains 159 indicators of which 57 are directly related to the environment (i.e., environmental indicators account for 36% of the indicators used to create our index). One of the limitations of equal weighting is that poor performance in certain indicators tend to be smoothed out in a composite index value. Our index overcomes this limitation by presenting national performance in individual indicators and SDG dimensions, thus allowing for a highly accurate identification of a country’s areas of weak and strong performance.
2.3. Normalisation and aggregation
With the exception of an index developed to assess the SDG performance of Italian cities [18], our index is unique in its approach to normalisation insofar as it is guided by peer performance. Specifically, the upper and lower bounds for an indicator are set to the values achieved by the best and worst performing countries, respectively, in the EU. One limitation associated with our approach is that the best-performing country in the EU might not be on track to achieve the SDG target and, as a consequence, the upper bound may not demonstrate SDG achievement. However, using our relative assessment approach, policymakers can examine the correlation between specific policies and SDG achievement. As demonstrated later in this paper, this allows for a tailored and targeted policymaking approach in specific areas.
Following data identification, an index score for each individual indicator was calculated. The following formulae (Eqs 1, 2, 3) were previously developed by the team and used to calculate Ireland’s score in an environmental SDG index [17] where Eq 1 is used to standardise Ireland’s performance where the target outcome is desirable and Eq 2 was used where such outcomes are undesirable (e.g, CO2 emissions per unit of value added):
(1)
(2)
where i = indicator assessed, and Ii = normalised indicator score.
A composite SDG Index can be constructed using either an arithmetic, geometric, or harmonic mean. While each tendency measure was used during our analysis, the paper presents only the data relating to the arithmetic mean scores, which we have justified in previous work [14]. As shown in S3 Table, all countries in the EU perform significantly poorer when the geometric and harmonic mean are used and, in several cases, the score approaches zero. Therefore, we consider the arithmetic mean to be the most practical tendency measure given the EU’s current SDG performance. However, as SDG performance improves over time, it might be more prudent to use a ‘harsher’ tendency measure such as the harmonic or geometric mean to assess future performance.
As shown in Eq 3, the arithmetic mean of our set of indicators is defined as the sum of the values of each observation divided by the total number of observations:
(3)
Eqs 4 and 5 were used to calculate the geometric and harmonic mean, respectively for each country in the EU (S3 Table).
(4)
(5)
where, A = arithmetic mean score, G = geometric mean score, H = harmonic mean score, n = number of indicators assessed, I = normalised indicator score.
The result is an index that places each EU country on a scale relative to the best and worst performers in the EU for each indicator. The arithmetic mean score for all nations for which data was available was calculated for each indicator and used to determine the average EU performance.
2.4 Traffic light system
Our index takes a similar approach to data visualization as the SDSN SDG index in that a traffic light system is used [10]. Once the indicator scores have been normalised if the score is less than or equal to 0.33, the indicator is given a ‘red’ rating, if the score is between 0.33 and 0.66, the indicator is ‘orange’, and if the score is greater than or equal to 0.66, it is considered ‘green’.
2.5 Comparing annual index performance
Where possible, annual time series was collected for each indicator allowing for an assessment of Ireland’s SDG performance over time. However, not all indicators are available for each year. Upon initial analysis it became apparent that 2015 was the most appropriate year to use for our temporal analysis. The use of this time point allowed for the assessment of national performance for up to six years while also tracking a significant proportion of the indicator framework (e.g., there is a negative relationship between assessment years and the number of indicators for which data is available). The previously mentioned methodology was used to create an index containing all indicators for which data was available in 2015. The same index (i.e., containing the same indicators) was then calculated for each subsequent year until the most recent year for which data is available (i.e., 2021). However, there were several indicators for which the most recent data for all nations refers to a time point prior to 2021; in such cases, the most recent values were used to construct the ‘2021’ index (i.e., the score in certain indicators in the 2021 index might refer to all nations’ relative performance in 2019). While this process is not optimal, it is necessary until such a time when data availability improves.
2.6 GDP calculations
Correlational analyses between a countries’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita (as per the World Bank database) and countries’ scores in the various dimensions of the SDGs were run calculated. It should be noted that due to the artificial inflation of the countries’ GDP, GNI* and GNI were used for Ireland and Luxembourg, respectively [19]. Data was taken from the World Bank Database (https://www.worldbank.org/en/home).
3 Results
3.1 Indicator-based national assessment
Fig 2 depicts Ireland’s performance in each SDG indicator along with the best and worst performers in class and the EU average. In the analysis, a nation’s score tends towards 1 the closer it is to being the best performer for the indicator in question, and vice versa.
The country codes used for all graphs are as follows: AUT; Austria, AVG; Average, BE; Belgium, BGR; Bulgaria, CYP; Cyprus, CZE; Czechia Republic, DEU; Germany, DNK; Denmark, ESP; Spain, EST; Estonia, FIN; Finland, FRA; France, GBR; United Kingdom, GRC; Greece, HRV; Croatia, HUN; Hungary, IRE; Ireland, ITA; Italy, LTU; Lithuania, LUX; Luxembourg, LVA; Latvia, MLT; Malta, NLD; Netherlands, POL; Poland, PRT; Portugal, ROU; Romania, SVK; Slovakia, SVN; Slovenia, SWE: Sweden. The average European performance (purple) as well as the best and worst performers in each indicator are also depicted.
Overall, there are 51 indicators and sub-indicators for which the Ireland’s performance is currently classified as ‘red’ (i.e., indicators where it achieves a score of less than or equal to 0.33). A significant proportion of this ‘red’ class consists of MoI and environmental indicators (n = 22 in each category). For example, the country achieves a score equal to the worst performer in SDG 12.10.1 ‘Number of sustainable tourism strategies or policies and implemented action plans with agreed monitoring and evaluation tools’, and SDG 14.10.1 ’Score for the ratification of and accession to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and its two implementing agreements’. There are 18 indicators and sub-indicators for which the country’s score equals that of the worst performer in the EU-28, 7 of which are environmental indicators. For example, it is currently the worst performer in SDGs 2.5.1 and 15.6.1 both of which relate to genetic resources. An orange classification in 35 indicators and sub-indicators, demonstrates that significant progress is required if these targets are to be met. The country’s performance can be considered ‘green’ in 115 indicators and sub-indicators. However, it should be noted that, given our peer-based normalisation method, a green performance does not necessarily infer that the SDG target is being achieved. Ireland typically performs strongly in indicators where, on average, the EU also performs well. However, there are several indicators for which the nation is currently the best performer in class in the EU. For example, it performs significantly better than the next best performer in SDG 7.5.1. which relates to renewable energy research and development. Similarly, it is the top performer in SDG 12.2.2. which relates to material footprint per unit of GDP. However, the country’s strong performance in this indicator should be considered in light of the fact that its GDP is typically significantly artificially inflated and does not reflect the true economic footprint of the country [19]. For a detailed description of the rankings of each EU nation in each of the assessed indicators see S2 Table.
3.2. Aggregated SDG indices: Social, economic, environmental, and governance
Fig 3A–3D illustrates Ireland’s disaggregated performance in each developmental dimension of the SDGs. A total of 49, 33, 56, and 21 unique SDG indicators were used to create the Social, Economic, Environmental, and Governance indices, respectively. The country achieves its top ranking in the Environmental Index, coming in 3rd position with a score of 0.623, and performs worse in the other indices, ranking 11th in the Social (0.662) and Economic (0.564) indices and 14th in the Governance Index (0.546). Ireland’s poor performance in the Governance Index illustrates that, on average, it is roughly 55% of the way toward the best performer in the EU for all Governance indicators.
(A) Depicts the performance in the Social Index. Ireland is highlighted in the 11th position. (B) Illustrates the results of the Economic Index where Ireland (highlighted) ranks 11th. (C) Depicts the results of the Environmental index, Ireland (highlighted) ranks 3rd in this index. (D) The final graph illustrates the results from the Governance Index where Ireland (highlighted) ranks 14th.
3.3 Aggregated SDG indices: Composite, outcome, MoI, and linkage
Fig 4A–4D) outlines Ireland’s overall SDG performance and performance disaggregated by SDG indicator classification. A total of 101, 43, and 15 unique SDG indicators were used to create the Outcome, MoI, and Linkage indices, respectively. The results from our index reveal that the nation is ranked 9th out of the 28 EU countries measured in the Composite Index. It performed slightly better than the EU-28 average (0.581), with a score of 0.617, indicating that the country is, on average, 62% of the way towards the best performer for all of the indicators assessed. Ireland performs slightly worse in the Outcome Index, coming in just behind its closest neighbour, the United Kingdom (UK), in the 10th position with a score of 0.650. The worst performance comes in the MoI Index, where it ranks 15th with a score of 0.437. The country’s performance in the MoI Index is the only instance of it performing below the average EU-28 (0.440). It ranks 6th in the Linkage Index, beating the EU average (0.675) with a score of 0.768.
(A) Depicts EU-28 performance in the Composite Index. Ireland is highlighted in the 9th position. (B) Illustrates the results of the Outcome Index wherein Ireland (highlighted) ranks 10th.(C) Depicts the results of the MoI index, Ireland (highlighted) ranks 15th in this index. (D) The final graph illustrates the results from the Linkage Index where Ireland (highlighted) ranks 8th.
3.4 Ireland’s SDG performance over time (2015–2021)
Fig 5A and 5B outlines Ireland’s annual SDG performance in 140 data points from 2015 to 2021. Ireland performs worse in the overall Composite Index (-7% change) as well as Outcome (-6%) and Linkage indicators (-3%) from 2015 to 2021. However, the greatest proportional decrease in performance is seen in the MoI Index, where its score in 2021 is 15% less than 2015. In addition, performance in each SDG pillar decreases from 2015 to 2021 (data not shown). Indeed, the country experiences a 1, 16, 4, and 21% reduction in the Social, Economic, Environmental, and Governance Indices, respectively. Overall, the results point to a rather worrying declining national performance relative to EU-28 peer nations.
(A) Illustrates the country’s annual performance disaggregated by SDG goal. (B) Depicts annual performance disaggregated by SDG dimension.
The country performs worse in 13 of the 17 SDGs in 2021 compared to 2015. Indeed, performance is particularly poor in SDGs 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 17 in 2021 compared to 2015. On further analysis, in the case of SDGs 11,13, and 17, it appears that the poor performance is driven by a significantly worse performance in one specific indicator. Since the number of indicators used to assess each of these goals over time is relatively low (n = 3 in SDGs 11 and 13, n = 6 in SDG 17), a worse performance in one indicator impacts the overall goal score. For example, Ireland transitions from the best to one of the worst performers in indicator 17.3.2 ‘Foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows’ which contributes to an overall worse performance in SDG 17. It should be noted that the influence of one indicator on overall goal assessment will decrease as data availability improves. In contrast, several indicators contribute to the poor performance of SDGs 6 and 8, suggesting that the decrease in performance is more systemic. Ireland’s poor performance in SDG 6 ‘Clean Water and Sanitation’ is hardly surprising given the country’s lack of compliance with EU water quality policies and directives [20]. Similarly, several SDG 8 indicators directly relate to the growth rate of gross domestic product (GDP). Thus, Ireland’s considerable performance in SDG 8 in 2015, and its subsequent decline thereafter, might be explained by the dramatic hike in GDP growth that the country experienced in 2015 [21]. Performance in SDG 16 ‘Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions’ has slightly decreased from 2015 to 2021. However, overall Ireland consistently performs close to the best EU performer in SDG 16, which might be expected given its notoriety as one of the most peaceful nations in the world [22]. There are four SDGs (SDG 2, 10,12,15) where the country performs slightly better in 2021 compared to 2015. Similarly, it has performed well in SDG 3 ‘Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages’. While the country typically performs above the EU average in various health-rated measures [23] its strong SDG 3 performance should be considered in light of the fact that the EU-28 average score for this goal is 0.70.
4 Discussion and conclusion
4.1 The assessment-related benefits of our index
Before any nation can chart its course towards SDG achievement, it is first necessary to understand the country’s starting point. In providing an assessment of Ireland’s current SDG progress, the index presented in this paper comes with several critical advantages over the indices currently in use. As demonstrated in the results section, our indicator-based methodology allows national SDG performance problem areas to be identified with high granularity. For example, given that our index is disaggregated at the indicator level, Ireland’s relatively strong overall performance in the environmental pillar does not disguise its weak performance in several environmental indicators (e.g., SDG 1.5.3. ‘(national policy alignment with) the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction’, and SDG 15.6.1. which relates to the sharing of the benefits of genetic resources). Similarly, our indicator-based approach, in combination with our unique indicator taxonomy, allows for the nuanced assessment of national performance in critical dimensions of the SDGs. Indeed, our index reveals that Ireland requires significant improvement in several areas of the SDGs, particularly in MoI and governance indicators. Although MoIs refer to (financially related) SDG capacity-building, our correlation analysis revealed a weak correlation between EU nations’ MoI Index score and GDP per capita (R2 = 0.47). Therefore, it would appear that progress in this area would depend less on an increase in Ireland’s financial capacity but more on the improvement of its national SDG policy environment (further discussed in section 3.2.). Similarly, Irish policymakers might look to dimensions of the SDGs where the country is performing well (e.g., Linkage indicators) to identify relevant national policies that are contributing to robust performance and adopt such policy approaches to poorly performing areas. Our Linkage classification also allows policymakers to identify potentially efficient entry points for national SDG policy since an increase in these indicators will accelerate overall SDG achievement. In this sense, the inclusion of a linkage-like indicator class adheres to the current state of the art in SDG reporting [24,25]. Overall, our indicator-based approach can significantly inform the development of tailored national SDG policy.
Our index methodology is unique in that the best and worst performers in the EU-28 are used to set the maximum and minimum normalisation values for each SDG indicator. This normalisation methodology facilitates peer-specific comparison, a feature cited by the Irish government as a reason to use the current national reporting framework (i.e., Eurostat SDG data set) [26]. However, our normalisation method also holds the potential to catalyse the development of efficient and effective national SDG policy. Once the best and worst performers have been identified using our methodology, an in-depth analysis can be undertaken to investigate the potential for adapting the highly effective policies of the best performer to a country-specific context. For instance, Ireland performs poorly in SDG 7.5.1. which corresponds to ‘Environment-related Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a percentage of total ODA’. Consequently, it might be prudent for Irish policymakers to look towards the EU’s best performer in this indicator (i.e., France) for national policy inspiration. Overall, the policy learning enabled by our index can significantly enhance the efficiency of national policy development [27]. Indeed, a positive peer learning environment, such as that created in our index, has consistently been recognised as essential for SDG achievement [28].
Ireland’s SDG performance varies depending on the index in question [10–13]. An index’s normalisation and aggregation methodology, along with the indicators used, can all act as sources of variation for an index’s score [29]. A recent study has found that Ireland is particularly susceptible to the variation induced by indicator choice [29]. By using all indicators for which data is currently available, our index avoids the subjectivity bias that would be introduced if an indicator subset was chosen to populate the index [29,30]. More importantly, the proportion of the SDG indicator framework covered in our assessment significantly surpasses all other current methodologies [10–13]. Furthermore, unlike other indices, our index paper is solely populated with indicators that directly align with the UN SDG framework. Thus, overall, this index represents the most comprehensive and accurate assessment of national SDG performance.
4.2 Ireland’s current national SDG assessment tools and policymaking
By being an early actor in several global SDG data initiatives, Ireland has had the opportunity to demonstrate leadership in national SDG assessment and reporting [31]. However, despite such opportunities, the assessment tools used at the national level to appraise SDG performance are wholly inadequate. The Irish government currently relies solely on an SDG indicator set developed by Eurostat to assess national SDG performance on a comparative basis against other EU nations [26]. However, the Eurostat indicator set was originally designed to complement rather than replace the UN SDGs [32]. Indeed, with just 95 indicators, the Eurostat indicator set is insufficient to comprehensively assess SDG performance. Given that the alignment rate between the Eurostat and UN SDG indicator sets is approximately 67% [12], the index currently used by the Irish government as a comparative baseline for its subsequent implementation of the SDGs [26] is only able to assess 64 of the 231 UN SDG indicators. As a consequence, the Irish government’s future SDG implementation plans risk missing three-quarters of the SDG framework.
Recent government reports highlight the Irish government’s current lack of awareness of national SDG performance. For example, according to the assessment tools currently used by the Irish government, the country performs "very well" in SDG 8 which relates to decent work and economic growth [33, p.38]. However, the results from our index reveal that, relative to peers, Ireland is performing only moderately in this indicator, achieving an average score of 0.527 in SDG 8. Furthermore, the country’s performance in this goal has considerably decreased since 2015. According to the Eurostat data set, Ireland performs well (i.e., is above the EU average and progressing towards the goals) in 12 of the 16 SDGs assessed [34]. Similarly, as we write this article, Ireland is preparing to present its Second Voluntary National Review (VNR) to the UN in July 2023, which details national progress towards the SDGs, to date. In preparation, the government presented a draft of the VNR document for stakeholder consultation at the April 2023 SDG National Stakeholder Forum [35]. According to this document, Ireland is currently fully achieving 81% of the SDG targets (n = 136), with 11% (n = 19) showing concern, and 5% not being achieved (n = 9). The VNR provides no information on how these achievement thresholds were defined, but it is evidentially incorrect to claim the country is achieving 81% of the SDGs. In fact, the evidence from our index demonstrates that Ireland achieves a ‘red’ performance classification in 25% of the indicators assessed, an ‘orange’ classification in 18%, and a green in 57%. Thus, the current tools being used to guide national SDG implementation and assess progress [26,35], paint a remarkably positive and highly inaccurate picture of Ireland’s SDG performance which might erringly convince national policymakers to continue with current SDG policies and practices. However, given that the country’s performance in almost all dimensions of the SDGs has declined substantially since 2015, the results from our index suggest the continuation of current practices will be disastrous to national SDG implementation. We demonstrate that a policy and practice rethink is required if the SDGs are to be achieved in Ireland.
The Irish government’s current approach to SDG policymaking appears limited to ad-hoc alignment exercises that roughly detail the overlap between current government policies and the text of SDG targets [26,33]. There is no evidence that data from Eurostat’s indicator set has been used to guide national SDG policy development [26,33]. For example, Eurostat is critical of Ireland’s performance on indicators 14.5.1 and 15.1.2., both of which relate to biodiversity protection. However, the country’s poor performance is not cited, nor are robust and specific policy measures to improve these indicators given in Ireland’s most recent Second National Implementation Plan for the SDGs (SNIP-SDGs) [33]. Therefore, the first condition required for effective SDG policymaking is that Irish policymakers begin to adopt a culture of SDG-data-informed policy development. However, even if this condition is met, but the current national assessment framework is not reformed, Irish policymakers will remain unaware of progress, or lack thereof, towards the vast majority of the SDG framework. For example, given the current national assessment tools, Irish policymakers do not currently have a process for understanding the nation’s true performance in implementing the SDGs quite aside from its detailed SDG pillars, Goals, Outcomes, MoIs, and Linkages. This lack of an appropriate knowledge base is evident in the government’s current approach to MoIs and capacity building, as detailed in the SNIP-SDGs [33]. Although MoI is an area where significant improvement is needed, not a single specific SDG MoI target or indicator is cited in the plan. Indeed, the relevance of the majority of the plan’s measures to achieving Ireland’s MoI targets is questionable. For instance, nine of the plan’s measures relate to the SDGs and Irish libraries, ten relate to the implementation of a national SDG awards campaign, and several others relate to the integration of the SDGs into the national TidyTowns initiative [33]. The Irish government’s lack of knowledge is further evidenced in its policy alignment exercises whereby the majority of MoI targets are aligned with broad, unspecific policies [26,33]. Robust, tailored policies are needed to drive SDG achievement, particularly in those issues relating to the environment [36]. However, good quality data is a prerequisite for such evidence-based policymaking [37]. Thus, by presenting an accurate assessment of national SDG performance, our index provides the means by which robust evidence-based SDG policy might be designed.
In conclusion, the index presented in this paper provides the most accurate assessment of Ireland’s performance in the SDGs. The results from our index reveal that the country requires significant improvement in several key areas of the SDGs, including in means-of-implementation indicators and those relating to the governance pillar of the SDGs. Our results also reveal that the country performs significantly worse in most of the SDG framework in 2021 compared to 2015. The assessment tools currently used to inform Irish SDG implementation are unable to assess performance in roughly three-quarters of the SDG framework. The index provided in this paper can be used to close this national assessment gap and guide future national SDG policymaking. In creating this index, data relating to approximately 166 unique SDG indicators over several time points has been compiled for each nation in the EU (approximately 33,000 data points). As a consequence, our database in combination with our unique assessment framework holds the potential to dramatically catalyse global SDG performance assessment.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Meta-data for indicators used during index creation.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000082.s001
(PDF)
S3 Table. EU-27 Composite Index Scores using the arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic mean.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000082.s003
(PDF)
References
- 1. Persson L, Carney Almroth BM, Collins CD, Cornell S, de Wit CA, Diamond ML, et al. Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities. Environmental Science & Technology. 2022;56(3):1510–1521.
- 2.
WorldWide Fund for Nature (WWF). Living Planet Report 2022 –Building a nature positive society. Almond R.E.A., Grooten M., Juffe Bignoli D. & Petersen T. (Eds). WWF, Gland, Switzerland. 2022.
- 3. Boyce DG, Tittensor DP, Garilao C, Henson S, Kaschner K, Kesner-Reyes K, et al. A climate risk index for marine life. Nature Climate Change. 2022;12(9):854
- 4. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Global Trends Forced Displacement in 2021. 2022. [cited 2022 Nov 02]. Available from: https://www.unhcr.org/en-ie/.
- 5. United Nations. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. [cited 2022 Oct 21]. Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.
- 6. Börzel TA. Member State Responses to Europeanization. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 2002;40(2):193–214.
- 7. Government of Ireland (GoI). Climate Action Plan 2021 Securing Our Future. 2021 [cited 2023 Mar 04]. Available from: https://www.gov.ie/en/.
- 8.
Cámaro-García W, Dwyer N. (2021). The Status of Ireland’s Climate, 2020. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford, Ireland. 2021
- 9. Department of Culture, Heritage, and Gaeltacht (DCHG). The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. 2019. [cited 2023 Mar 15]. Available from: https://www.gov.ie/en/publications/.
- 10. Sachs J, Lafortune G, Fuller G, Drumm E. Sustainable Development Report 2023—Implementing the SDG Stimulus. 2023. [cited 2023 Jul 23]. Available from: https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/.
- 11. Alleanza Italiana per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile (ASviS). The European Union and the Sustainable Development Goals 2022. 2022. [cited 2023 11 Feb]. Available from: https://asvis.it/rapporto-asvis-2022/.
- 12. Eurostat. Final report on the 2022 review of the EU SDG Indicator Set. 2022. [cited 2022 Nov 18]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat.
- 13. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2022) The Short and Winding Road to 2030. 2022. [cited 2022 Nov 22]. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/the-short-and-winding-road-to-2030_af4b630d-en.
- 14. Murphy E, Walsh PP, Murphy E. Nation-based peer assessment of Europe’s Sustainable Development Goal performance. PLOS ONE. 2023;18(6):e0287771. pmid:37379339
- 15. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP). Regional Road Map for Implementing The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development In Asia And The Pacific Progress Report. 2019. [cited 2022 Oct 18]. Available from: https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Regional_Road_Map_SDG_in_A-P_Progress_Report_2019.pdf
- 16. Murphy E, Walsh PP. A Coded Taxonomy of the Statistical Indicators for Global Reporting of Targets within the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. 2019;XLIX:100–28.
- 17.
Murphy E., Walsh P. P., Banerjee A. Framework for Achieving the Environmental Sustainable Development Goals. Environmental Protection Agency: Wexford, Ireland. 2021.
- 18. D’Adamo I, Gastaldi M, Imbriani C, Morone P. Assessing regional performance for the Sustainable Development Goals in Italy. Scientific reports [Internet]. 2021 2021/12//; 11(1):[24117 p.]. Available from: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/34916565 pmid:34916565
- 19. Department of Finance (DoF). GDP and ‘Modified GNI’–Explanatory Note. 2018. [cited 2023 Mar 14]. Available from: https://assets.gov.ie/4910/181218123252-71a2c297f26b419fa3696d7349e3e788.pdf.
- 20. European Commission (EC). October Infringement Package. 2021. [cited Nov 22]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_21_5342.
- 21. Honohan P. Is Ireland Really the most Prosperous Country in Europe? Economic Letters 1/EL/21, Central Bank of Ireland. 2021.
- 22. Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP). Global Peace Index 2022 Measuring Peace in a Complex World. 2022. [cited 2022 Nov 18]. Available from: https://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/GPI-2022-web.pdf.
- 23. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Health at a Glance 2021. 2021. [cited 2022 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance-2021_ae3016b9-en.
- 24. Sachs JD, Schmidt-Traub G, Mazzucato M, Messner D, Nakicenovic N, Rockström J. Six Transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability. 2019;2(9):805–14.
- 25. Nilsson M, Chisholm E, Griggs D, Howden-Chapman P, McCollum D, Messerli P, et al. Mapping interactions between the sustainable development goals: lessons learned and ways forward. Sustain Sci. 2018;13(6):1489–503. pmid:30546483
- 26. Government of Ireland (GoI). Ireland: Voluntary National Review 2018. 2018. [cited 2023 Nov 15]. Available from: https://www.gov.ie/en/.
- 27. Deprez A, Colombier M, Spencer T. Transparency and the Paris Agreement: driving ambitious action in the new climate regime. 2015. [cited 2022 Nov 02]. Available from: http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:46081820.
- 28. European Parliament (EP). Europe’s approach to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals: good practices and the way forward. 2019. [cited 2022 Nov 02]. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/603473/EXPO_STU(2019)603473_EN.pdf.
- 29. Lafortune G, Fuller G, Schmidt-Traub G, Kroll C. How Is Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals Measured? Comparing Four Approaches for the EU. Sustainability. 2020;12(18):7675.
- 30. Hák T, Janoušková S, Moldan B. Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators. 2016;60:565–73.
- 31.
Murphy E, Murphy E. Data Partnerships for the SDGs: The Potential of Federated Information Systems. In Murphy E., Banerjee A., & Walsh P. P. (Eds.), Partnerships and the Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 71–84). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2022.
- 32. Eurostat. Sustainable development in the European Union Monitoring Report on Progress Towards the SDGs in an EU Context. 2017. [cited 2022 Nov 13]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/home.
- 33. Government of Ireland (GoI). Ireland’s Second National Implementation Plan for the Sustainable Development Goals 2022–2024. 2022. [cited 2022 Oct 22]. Available from: https://www.gov.ie/en/.
- 34. Eurostat. Sustainable development in the European Union Monitoring report on progress towards the SDGs in an EU context. 2021. [cited 2022 Nov 02]. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi/publications.
- 35. Government of Ireland (GoI). Building Back Better While Leaving No One Behind -Ireland’s 2023 Voluntary National Review (draft). 2023 [cited 2023 Jun 14]. Available from: https://www.gov.ie/en/.
- 36. Fuldauer LI, Thacker S, Haggis RA, Fuso-Nerini F, Nicholls RJ, Hall JW. Targeting climate adaptation to safeguard and advance the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Communications. 2022;13(1):357.
- 37. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Better policies for sustainable development 2016: a new framework for policy coherence. 292. 2016. [cited 2022 Nov 04]. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/development/better-policies-for-sustainable-development-2016-9789264256996-en.html