.png)
.png){kind=small}
ASDIP: Australia’s Plan to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030
- 2023 Global Voices fellow
- Apr 22, 2024
- 13 min read
Updated: May 7
By Callum Noone, Curtin University, UNFCCC, 2023
Executive Summary
Australia committed to achieving the United Nations Agenda 2030 in 2015, including satisfying the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These goals primarily focus on collective outcomes for people, prosperity and the planet. Australia has made steady progress in achieving the SDGs, however, it is not projected to complete a single SDG in full. Many of Australia’s global partners, such as Finland and Japan, have effectively embedded the SDGs into their national decision-making frameworks, resulting in significant progress in achieving the goals.
Creating an Australian Sustainable Development Implementation Plan (ASDIP) presents the most effective and viable method to ensure that Australia maximises positive sustainable development outcomes in the lead-up to 2030. The plan will be created and situated within a new sub-secretariat within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), focusing on allocating specific departments with actions to which progress can be tracked by SDG data reporting. The plan's creation will be formulated from the collation of SDG data and through consultation. The plan's creation and maintenance will cost approximately $10 million over five years. Initiatives and programs under the plan may cost approximately $250 million over five years. A possible limitation of an ASDIP is the need to create and roll out the plan within a short period. A major political risk associated with creating and delivering the ASDIP is the political implications if the government does not fully achieve the plan.
Problem Identification
At the halfway point of the Agenda 2023 program, Australia is not on track to complete a single SDG in full (Sachs et al., 2023). Limited progress has been made on 23.6% of the SDG indicators, and 30.6% are trending towards worsening progress (Sachs et al., 2023). Such stagnation is especially apparent in Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities, and Goals 13, 14, and 15, which are related to the environment. The negative implications of failing to achieve the SDGs in full are wide-ranging and affect numerous stakeholders directly and indirectly (Leal Filho et al., 2020). Furthermore, SDG stagnation represents a failure to implement policy initiatives that result in more equitable development and positive outcomes for people and the planet (Sachs et al., 2023). The Australian Government does not have an explicit process to reverse the stagnation, with the current SDG structures having existed since the first Voluntary National Review (VNR) in 2018. Such a lack of structure limits the institutional approach the government may apply to revert course, and therefore, without a change in approach, it is unlikely any of the SDGs will be achieved in full.
Context
Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals
Figure 1. The Sustainable Development Goals
On 25 September 2015, all 193 UN General Assembly member states adopted Agenda 2030 and the associated 17 SDGs (UNGA, 2015b). The SDGs were created as a continuation and expansion to the completion of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), formulated from the UN’s Millennium Declaration (UNGA, 2000). Agenda 2030 and the SDGs are designed to apply to all developed and developing nations, comprising 17 SDGs, 169 targets and 247 indicators, all of which aim to achieve growth that is inclusive of positive outcomes for ‘people, planet and prosperity’ (UNGA, 2015b). As part of the Agenda 2030 process, nations are implored to publish two VNRs to analyse current progress on the SDGs and to demonstrate areas in which improvements must be made (UNGA, 2015b).
SDG Implementation Frameworks
The UN has suggested frameworks and policy approaches to implement positive SDG achievement activity across nations. Fundamental to achieving the SDGs is a strong national plan and associated financial framework that targets priority areas nations are struggling to fulfil (UNGA, 2015a). As Poghosyan (2020) and Poghosyan et al. (2022) outline, the five-step ‘Budgeting for SDGs’ (B4SDG) process involves:
An analysis of current SDG progress, including governance practices, fiscal planning and process mapping to formulate improvement areas.
A Public Financial Management Review, in which existing finance practices, government revenue and expenditure are analysed, in which revisions may be suggested to align the process more closely with achieving the SDGs.
An institutional analysis, in which all SDG-related stakeholders are compared and consulted regarding potential models.
Modelling the preliminary choice of the process.
Final analysis of tools the government can use to ensure the B4SDG process occurs successfully.
The International Community and the SDGs
Of the top 21 performing nations on the 2023 SDG index, all have integrated a centralised government SDG strategy, and nine have integrated the SDGs in some form into their national budgets; ranging from overarching narratives to specific sections or line items (Sachs et al., 2023).
Finland, the current top-performing nation, has both a centralised government strategy for the SDGs and an overarching budgetary narrative. Currently, Finland is on track to complete three SDGs in full and two-thirds of the overall SDG indicators (Sachs et al., 2023). Government ministries are required to report policies to the National Audit Office for compilation in the Government Annual Report (PMO, 2020). Finland’s budget contains a specific chapter on sustainable development, focusing on achieving carbon neutrality (PMO, 2020).
Japan, Australia’s second-largest trading partner and close ally, has integrated the SDGs into government strategy and the national budget (Government of Japan, 2021). The nation is on track to achieve two SDGs in full and 54.4% of the indicators, currently ranking 21 on the SDG Index (Sachs et al., 2023). The Japanese government has established an SDGs Promotion Headquarters, where all other ministries communicate policy and strategy (Government of Japan, 2021). The SDG Promotion Headquarters has nominated eight priority areas as action areas for the government to pursue (Government of Japan, 2021). These priority areas have specific actions assigned, with the fiscal requirements also detailed, providing a budgetary structure (Government of Japan, 2021).
Australia and the SDGs
Australia is demonstrating progress in over half of the targets within Goals 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 16 and 17, with 45.8% of SDG indicators achieved (Sachs et al., 2023). However, Australia is currently ranked 40 out of 166 countries where SDG data sets can be compiled (Sachs et al., 2023). The SDGs Australia is not achieving relate primarily to environmental outcomes and economic inequality (Sachs et al., 2023; Brolan & Smith, 2020). Australia’s SDG approach has been previously managed primarily by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) (CoA, 2019). Australia’s first VNR was managed by DFAT, with publication in 2018 (CoA, 2019). DFAT also created an Australian Government SDG Reporting Platform designed for government agencies to report nominated target data (CoA, 2019; DFAT, 2023). Collated data has been utilised to enable targeted policy development, meaning that areas in which data has not been collated cannot be specifically targeted, resulting in stagnation in progress (CoA, 2019).
Australia lacks a centrally organised and administered SDG implementation approach, with a majority of the active implementation of Agenda 2030 coming from initiatives by local governments and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) (CoA, 2019; Australian Government, 2018; Brolan & Smith, 2020). While this has resulted in progress, the federal government's lack of centralised development planning has resulted in such initiatives being ad hoc and not progressing in an integrated manner (CoA, 2019). Such conclusions were reflected within Australia's first VNR, and the 2018 Senate Committee report on the SDGs in which 18 recommendations were made to strengthen federal leadership of Australia’s SDG implementation strategies (CoA, 2019). These recommendations outlined the need for a federal SDG implementation plan, with associated centralisation of SDG consideration within existing structures (CoA, 2019). New initiatives to explore best practices were also recommended, such as a national Sustainable Development Goals secretariat (CoA, 2019).
Options
In order for Australia to achieve at least two-thirds of the SDG indicators by 2030, the government must develop a mechanism to integrate the SDGs into the federal decision-making process. This will solidify the legitimacy of the SDGs and, by doing so, promote them as an effective planning tool to promote positive socioeconomic and environmental results. Several policy options are available to ensure this outcome:
Restructure the Australian federal budgetary process using the UN’s ‘B4SDGs’ analysis model. This option would create a budgetary structure allowing Australia to take specific action on priority SDGs in which progress has stagnated and reflects the approach adopted in countries making significant SDG progress. Furthermore, given the national focus of the federal Budget, integration of the SDGs provides legitimacy to the program, promoting the SDGs to the community and providing a basis for greater community adoption. However, lacking a national framework presents a significant obstacle for targeted budgetary measures to deliver tangible results through focused budgetary programs and allocation. Therefore, placing a budgetary collation tool may not improve current SDG progress, as how to achieve change has yet to be determined through consultation with experienced stakeholders in implementing SDG initiatives in Australia.
Design and enactment of an Australian Sustainable Development Implementation Plan (ASDIP). This option would allow for creating and implementing an overarching federal strategy to deliver an accountable and institutionally integrated sustainable development action plan. This would provide a more specific approach towards ensuring holistic, sustainable development across the nation and achieving Agenda 2030. A difficulty in adopting such a model is the barriers created by a slow-moving bureaucracy, resulting in an approach change occurring too late in the current SDG cycle, meaning that whilst positive spillover effects will continue post-2030, Australia may not demonstrate significant progress in the current Agenda 2030 sustainable development cycle.
Creation of an Australian Government grants program to provide opportunities for local government, NGOs and private enterprises to implement programs demonstrating outcomes that will benefit Australia’s Agenda 2030 progress. This option would provide capacity and agency to entities to introduce localised initiatives and programs to improve outcomes for local communities, businesses and support services while progressing Australia’s international commitments. A difficulty in implementing such a program is a lack of data-driven guidance on what programs would maximise positive outcomes towards Australia’s SDG progress. This may result in inefficiently allocated funding and the grant program's intended outcome failing.
Policy Recommendation
Option 2, ‘The design and enactment of an Australian Sustainable Development Implementation Plan (ASDIP)’ is recommended as the most effective model to ensure Australia strengthens its SDG progress within the remaining six years until 2030 and, therefore, delivers focused, positive outcomes for Australia’s people, environment and national prosperity into the future. By building upon and improving Australia’s VNR data model, an ASDIP would present an opportunity to outline Australian development priorities from a centralised government perspective whilst integrating positive SDG outcomes.
ASDIP Structure and Methodology
The ASDIP would analyse the current progress of Australian sustainable development, what the government intends to achieve by 2030, and how this can be achieved. While the SDG index provides a comparative analysis of base indicators, an ASDIP must reflect the learnings of the groups that have taken proactive steps in integrating and implementing the SDGs since 2015.
The first step in creating the ASDIP would be to procure all applicable data to gain an accurate domestic insight into the progress towards achieving the SDGs (CoA, 2023c). This would then be integrated into the current DFAT SDG data platform to give a transparent perspective into what is happening on the ground. This data would then be able to be readily utilised for Australia's next VNR. Utilising the complete data set, an analysis of progress toward the SDGs would be completed through internal research and consultation with interested stakeholders, such as UN representatives, local governments, civil society and NGOs, and private enterprises. The Office of Impact Analysis recommends such consultation occur over approximately 60 business days to allow for high-quality input from diverse stakeholders (CoA, 2023c).
To establish clear reporting requirements, ownership of the ASDIP would be assigned to a newly created national Sustainable Development Goals sub-secretariat within PM&C. This structure would be promoted as a National Sustainable Development Office, therefore avoiding the increased logistics, budget, and approval associated with creating a new Secretariat, which would consume significant time in the context of a deadline of 2030.
The ASDIP’s action plan would comprise guiding policy principles and outcomes assigned to various government departments. There should be at least one major action item per SDG to maximise the plan's impact. Specific progress indicators would be determined through the previously conducted SDG data analysis. The department responsible would further delegate the assigned actions to specific departmental teams. These teams would designate tasks that develop relevant policy actions and connect with the greater stakeholder base to allow for on-the-ground project delivery.
The ASDIP should heavily emphasise working with stakeholders to deliver on-the-ground projects complemented by policy conclusions. Strong partnerships are fundamental to delivering a successful developmental plan (Stott & Murphy, 2020; Stibbe et al., 2019). A top-down developmental approach may not achieve effective outcomes within a shorter period of time (Chimhowu et al., 2019). A strong consultative relationship with partnership stakeholders will ensure a strong support base for the plan, allowing for greater political palatability and support as the plan begins to roll out and is promoted by the government.
Progress on the plan is to be monitored by the sub-secretariat, with each assigned department continuing to report data into the system, allowing the sub-secretariat to liaise with departments to analyse potential improvements and degradations in specific indicators. Through this, a continuing improvement process will take place, allowing for reactive policy implementation rather than a pre- and post-plan data analysis, in which the plan will either have been achieved or not. A true five-year approach can be achieved through the plan coming into effect by 1 January 2025. This date provides the government with upwards of nine months to finalise collation, consultation, and create a high-level sustainable development plan for relay to the Australian public. This timeframe is sufficient as the SDGs are a concept actively embedded within some government policies at this current time, demonstrating an understanding of the agenda.
Adoption and Promotion of the ASDIP
In promoting the ASDIP, the government should market the plan as a five-year guiding policy document, in which the environment, prosperity and infrastructure are the government's core focus, emphasising the importance of equitable and environmentally sustainable development to take Australia into the future. Such an approach has the strength of creating a transparent policy goal across several policy terms.
Predicted Costs
The initial creation of the plan can be funded by PM&C within general operating costs. In 2023-2024, the estimated total departmental resourcing cost was $442.5 million (PM&C, 2023). The total amount allocated for additional resourcing was set at approximately $20 million over four years (PM&C, 2023). However, the total budgetary allocation to ASDIP-specific sustainable development planning and management may only be determined accurately once all data has been gathered and analysed. Using various Australian government budgetary initiatives in the 2022 and 2023 federal Budgets, a general presumptive cost of delivering the action plan within the ASDIP may be devised. The Australian Government’s Threatened Species Action Plan (2022-2023) has $224.5 million provided to assist in implementing the plan (CoA, 2022). Furthermore, over $350 million has been assigned to the Urban Precincts and Partnerships Program and the Thriving Suburbs Program, under which a new National Urban Plan primarily focused on strengthening communities and growing economies will be created (CoA, 2023a). Therefore, in assisting in the implementation of the ASDIP, a cost of $250 million could be presumed appropriate, allowing for $50 million per year throughout the program.
Limitations
Given the scale of integration across departments and consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, a significant challenge to the successful delivery of an ASDIP is the timeframe to deliver a finalised plan that will allow improvement by 2030. To ensure timely delivery and integration, information gathered in previous SDG-related consultation periods is to be utilised, such as the previous submissions and data gathered as part of the 2019 Senate Report into the SDGs and the utilisation of data collected for the 2023 Intergenerational Report (CoA, 2023b). Doing so can create a basic comparative structure, allowing immediate insight to assist in the consultation regarding the plan and what stakeholders expect. Furthermore, in the event all goals are not achieved in full by 2030, by making significant headway, advantageous societal progress will have been made, as Agenda 2030 outlines an economically, environmentally and socially just society.
Risks
Given Australia is a developed nation, the concept of a development plan may confuse constituents regarding the purpose of such a document and how it applies to them. Such sentiment could be exploited by opposition groups, promoting that the plan is based on international ideas and is, therefore, irrelevant. This allows those opposed to influence a perspective that implementing an ASDIP with funding objectives is a waste of government resources and taxpayer contributions. A further weakness of this approach is that it may be seen as a government failure if the plan is not achieved.
Reference
Australian Government. (2018). Report on the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations High–Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/sdg-voluntary-national- review.pdf
Brolan, C. E., & Smith, L. (2020). No One Left Behind: Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals in Australia. Western Sydney University. https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:56982/
Chimhowu, A. O., Hulme, D., & Munro, L. T. (2019). The ‘New’ national development planning and global development goals: Processes and partnerships. World Development, 120, 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.03.013
Commonwealth of Australia (CoA). (2023a). Budget 2023-24—Stronger Foundations for a Better Future. https://budget.gov.au/content/overview/download/budget_overview-20230511.pdf
Commonwealth of Australia (CoA). (2022). Budget October 2022-23—Building a Better Future. https://archive.budget.gov.au/2022-23-october/overview/download/budget_overview.pdf
Commonwealth of Australia (CoA). (2019). Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee: United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Department of the Senate. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/SDGs/~/media/Committees/fadt_ctte/SDGs/report.pdf
Commonwealth of Australia (CoA). (2023b). Intergenerational Report 2023. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-08/p2023-435150.pdf
Commonwealth of Australia (CoA). (2023c). The Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis. Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://oia.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-01/australian-government-guide-to-policy-impact-analysis.pdf
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). (n.d.). Reporting Status. Sustainable Development Goals; Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved 6 November 2023, from https://www.sdgdata.gov.au/reporting-status
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C). (2023). Portfolio Budget Statements 2023-24 Budget Related Paper No. 1.13: Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio. https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/resource/download/2023-24-portfolio-budget-statements.pdf
Government of Japan. (2021). Voluntary National Review 2021 Report on the Implementation of 2030 Agenda. Government of Japan. https://hlpf.un.org/sites/default/files/vnrs/2021/28957210714_VNR_2021_Japan.pdf
Leal Filho, W., Wolf, F., Lange Salvia, A., Beynaghi, A., Shulla, K., Kovaleva, M., & Vasconcelos, C. R. P. (2020). Heading towards an unsustainable world: Some of the implications of not achieving the SDGs. Discover Sustainability, 1(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-020-00002-x
Office of the Prime Minister (PMO). (2020). Voluntary National Review 2020 Finland: Report on the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Government of Finland. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26265VNR_Report_Finland_2020.pdf
Poghosyan, S. (2020). Budgeting for the Sustainable Development Goals Guidebook. United Nations Development Programme. https://sdgfinance.undp.org/sites/default/files/UNDP%20Budgeting%20for%20the%20SDGs%20-%20Guidebook_Nov%202020.pdf
Poghosyan, S., Wescott, C., Middlebrook, P., Ishtiaq, N., & Péteri, G. (2022). Budgeting for the SDGs: A Modular Handbook. United Nations Development Programme. https://sdgfinance.undp.org/sites/default/files/B4SDGs%20ModularHandbook.pdf
Sachs, J., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., & Drumm, E. (2023). Sustainable Development Report 2023. https://s3.amazonaws.com/sustainabledevelopment.report/2023/sustainable-development-report-2023.pdf
Stibbe, D., Reid, S., & Gilbert, J. (2019). Maximizing the impact of partnerships for the SDGs. The Partnering Initiative and UN DESA. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2564Partnerships_for_the_SDGs_Maximising_Value_Guidebook_Final.pdf
Stott, L., & Murphy, D. F. (2020). An Inclusive Approach to Partnerships for the SDGs: Using a Relationship Lens to Explore the Potential for Transformational Collaboration. Sustainability, 12(19), 7905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197905
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration (A/RES/55/2). United Nations. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/559/51/PDF/N0055951.pdf?OpenElement
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (2015a). Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa Action Agenda) (A/RES/69/313). https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_69_313.pdf
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (2015b). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1). https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf
