Chapter 3. Pathways to Enhance Capacities for Sustainable Development
1. Indicators utilized in the analysis
$W WKH WLPH RI ZULWLQJ WKH ,QWHUDJHQF\ DQG ([SHUW
Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators ZDV LQ WKH SURFHVV RI UH¿QLQJ DQG ¿QHWXQLQJ WKH
list of indicators that will be used to track progress for each of the 17 Goals and 169 targets, and data for these indicators will gradually become available in the coming years. Therefore, the indicators used for the analysis of this chapter, which are listed in DQQH[ ,,, ZHUH VHOHFWHG DV IROORZV
(a) All the indicators used to track progress towards the Millennium Development Goals that overlap in meaning and scope with the Goals and related targets were included, provided that they have reasonable coverage across countries;
(b) Among the indicators tentatively agreed to be included in the final list of Goal indicators at WKH QG PHHWLQJ RI WKH ,QWHU$JHQF\ DQG ([SHUW
Group, those that have data readily available from RI¿FLDO VRXUFHV DQG GR QRW RYHUODS ZLWK LQGLFDWRUV
VHOHFWHG IURP WKH ¿UVW FULWHULRQ ZHUH DGGHG DJDLQ
provided that they have reasonable coverage across countries;
(c) Other internationally comparable indicators that FORVHO\ UHÀHFW WKH *RDOV DQG WKHLU WDUJHWV DQG
have reasonable coverage across countries were added to cover Goals for which relevant indicators FRXOG QRW EH IRXQG XVLQJ WKH ¿UVW WZR FULWHULD
It is important to note that the analysis of the Goals DVDFRPSOH[V\VWHPZKLFKZLOOEHGLVFXVVHGEHORZ
requires as much information about the “system” as possible, including as many countries as possible and a wide variety of indicators relevant to the Goals.
However, there is a trade-off between including more indicators and including more countries. Taking into DFFRXQWWKLVWUDGHRIIWKH¿QDODQDO\VLVZDVFRQGXFWHG
on the basis of 82 indicators that broadly cover all 17
Goals, while providing decent data coverage across LQGLFDWRUV DQG *RDOV LV LQFOXGHG LQ DQQH[ ,,,
After selecting the 82 indicators with reasonable country coverage, 120 out of 209 countries had missing data points. This presented a problem because the methods used in the analysis perform poorly with incomplete GDWD VHW WKHUH ZHUH $VLD3DFL¿F &61 LQFOXGLQJ
9 least developed countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Nepal, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu), 8 landlocked developing countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan), and 5 small island developing States (Fiji, Maldives, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Tonga).2
2. ATTAINMENT OF THE GOALS BY THE ASIA-PACIFIC COUNTRIES WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
A snapshot of the current status of Goal attainment E\ WKH $VLD3DFL¿F &61 LV REWDLQHG E\ DYHUDJLQJ
the values of indicators corresponding to each Goal,
:KHQ WDNLQJ D EURDG ORRN DW KRZ $VLD3DFL¿F &61
are faring, it becomes evident that these countries are indeed lagging behind in many areas, some more WKDQRWKHUV ¿JXUH &RPSDUHGZLWKWKHGHYHORSLQJ
$VLD3DFL¿F FRXQWULHV WKDW DUH QRW &61 WKH UHJLRQ¶V
CSN lag behind in areas related to health (Goal 3), water and sanitation (Goal 6), industry, innovation and infrastructure (Goal 9), institutions (Goal 16) and implementation (Goal 17). In particular, the weaknesses RI $VLD3DFL¿F &61 DUH HYLGHQW IRU *RDOV DQG
ZLWK DWWDLQPHQW OHYHOV VLJQL¿FDQWO\ ORZHU WKDQ ERWK
WKH GHYHORSLQJ $VLD3DFL¿F FRXQWULHV DQG WKH UHVW
of the world.
However, it can also be seen that these countries have comparatively high levels of attainment in poverty, measured by the poverty headcount and gap ratio.
,QDGGLWLRQ$VLD3DFL¿F&61DUHSHUIRUPLQJUHODWLYHO\
well in areas related to environmental sustainability (Goals 12-15). Yet, considering that, in general, indicators related to the environment are inversely related to economic growth and wealth, a key issue IRU WKH $VLD3DFL¿F &61 LV WR GHYLVH D SDWKZD\ IRU
progress that does not relinquish their advantage in environmental aspects, while simultaneously improving upon other Goals that are dependent on economic development.
Comparing the least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States, what is noticeable is that the three groups DUH WR D ODUJH H[WHQW KHWHURJHQHRXV LQ WKHLU FXUUHQW
status. The least developed countries in general are lagging behind the other two groups, yet they do have their comparative advantage in indicators related to climate action (Goal 13) and life below water (Goal 14). The landlocked developing countries DUH SHUIRUPLQJ H[FHSWLRQDOO\ ZHOO FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKH
other two groups in many aspects; in particular, poverty (Goal 1), hunger (Goal 2), education (Goal 4), gender equality (Goal 5) and inequality (Goal 10). However, the landlocked developing countries are struggling with indicators related to sustainable consumption and production (Goal 12) as well as climate action (Goal 13).
The small island developing States are performing generally well in environment-related Goals (Goals 12-15), yet are struggling with sustainable energy (Goal 7), industry, infrastructure and technology (Goal 9) and implementation (Goal 17). Overall, the analysis VXJJHVWVWKDWWDNLQJJURXSVSHFL¿FFLUFXPVWDQFHVLQWR
serious consideration is very important when devising plans of action for Goal implementation. This, however, LV QRW HQRXJK DV WKH GDWD DOVR UHYHDO VLJQL¿FDQW
variation within each CSN category at the national OHYHO VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW FRXQWU\VSHFL¿F FLUFXPVWDQFHV
are also of importance.3
58 − Adapting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the National Level Figure
3.1
Attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals, Asia-Pacific countries with special needs
D &RPSDULVRQZLWKGHYHORSLQJ$VLD3DFL¿FFRXQWULHVWKDWDUHQRW&61DQGWKHUHVWRIWKHZRUOG JLYHQ WKH VHW RI FRXQWULHV LQFOXGHG LQ WKH DQDO\VLV DQG E GHYHORSLQJ $VLD3DFL¿F FRXQWULHV LQ WKH VDPSOH H[FOXGLQJ $VLD3DFL¿F &61 DUH %UXQHL
Darussalam; China; Georgia; India; Indonesia; Malaysia; Pakistan; Philippines; Republic of Korea; Russian Federation; Singapore; Sri Lanka; Thailand;
Turkey; and Viet Nam.
(b) Comparison across the three groups of CSN
Source: ESCAP.
Notes: (a) The attainment for each Goal is normalized to be between 0 and 100, with 100 being the highest and 0 being the lowest level of attainment given the set of countries included in the analysis; and (b) the least developed countries are: Afghanistan; Bangladesh; Bhutan; Cambodia;
Lao People’s Democratic Republic; Myanmar; Nepal; Solomon Islands; and Vanuatu. The landlocked developing countries are: Armenia; Azerbaijan;
Kazakhstan; Kyrgyzstan; Mongolia; Tajikistan; Turkmenistan; and Uzbekistan. The small island developing States are: Fiji; Maldives; Papua New Guinea;
Samoa; and Tonga.
Developing Asia-Pacific (excluding Asia-Pacific CSN) Asia-Pacific CSN
3. THE GOALS AS AN INTEGRATED, COMPLEX SYSTEM
An effective way to facilitate the understanding of the interdependencies, synergies and trade-offs across the Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda at the national level is to view the set of Goals and countries as a FRPSOH[ V\VWHP ,Q HVVHQFH D FRPSOH[ V\VWHP LV D
QH[XV RI GLYHUVH PXOWLSOH LQWHUFRQQHFWHG HOHPHQWV LQ
which the whole is not equal to the sum of the parts (Simon, 1991). Academic researchers from various GLVFLSOLQHV KDYH EHHQ LQFUHDVLQJO\ XVLQJ FRPSOH[
systems for the analysis of economic phenomena and sustainable development.4 ESCAP (2015) has conducted research on this topic with regard to PHDVXULQJ SURGXFWLYH FDSDFLWLHV LQ WKH $VLD3DFL¿F
region, where such capacities are measured using information on interlinkages among products and countries.5
In the present chapter, the Sustainable Development Goals system — or SDG system — is conceptualized as a network consisting of (a) the indicators relevant to each of the Goals, (b) the countries and (c) the linkages among and between countries and indicators.
The following two subsections describe the SDG system.
3.1. The network of indicators
The advantage of viewing the indicators related to the Goals as a network is that it makes it clear how they are interlinked, revealing their synergies and trade-offs. The information provided by an indicator network can allow policymakers to devise plans of action that take advantage of the spillovers that are present among the indicators, while identifying potential trade-offs that need to be reconciled. The LQGLFDWRU QHWZRUN DOVR DOORZV IRU WKH LGHQWL¿FDWLRQ RI
bottlenecks that act as barriers to the attainment of the broader 2030 Agenda.
The network of indicators is constructed so that each indicator is connected to another based on their
³SUR[LPLW\´ 7KH SUR[LPLW\ RI WZR LQGLFDWRUV IURP WKH
SHUVSHFWLYH RI D VSHFL¿F FRXQWU\ LV KLJKHU ZKHQ WKH
attainment of the country in the two indicators is similar.
$ KLJK GHJUHH RI SUR[LPLW\ EHWZHHQ WZR LQGLFDWRUV
can be interpreted as meaning that attainment of the two indicators requires similar capacities.6 A graphical UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKLV QHWZRUN IRU WKH $VLD3DFL¿F
&61 LV VKRZQ LQ ¿JXUH 7
The network of indicators suggests a clear core-periphery structure, with indicators related to health,
hunger, infrastructure and poverty occupying a prominent space within the densely connected core.
/LIH H[SHFWDQF\ LQIDQW PRUWDOLW\ IRRG VXSSO\ DQG
agriculture value added are at the very centre of this core, since they represent essential needs that form the basis for higher attainment in other indicators.
Poverty headcount, poverty-gap ratio, malnutrition, maternal and child mortality and years of schooling are also central for similar reasons. Infrastructure indicators regarding telephone, cellular and Internet subscriptions are also relatively central within this core. This is consistent with the new institutional economics viewpoint that facilitating information H[FKDQJH LV LPSRUWDQW LQ WUDQVIRUPLQJ WKH SROLWLFDO
economy of a society, resulting in lower transaction costs, alleviation of information asymmetries and thus a more sustainable socioeconomic development (Coase, 1998).
,Q¿JXUHWKHVL]HRIHDFKQRGHLVEDVHGRQKRZ
“important” the corresponding indicator is within the network.8 The importance of an indicator is based on two distinct characteristics: (a) how well connected each indicator is with the other indicators, in the sense of being close to many other indicators; and (b) how important the indicator is in serving as a
“gatekeeper” between different portions of the network.
Gatekeeper indicators represent indicators that a country must pass in order to cross between otherwise XQFRQQHFWHG JURXSV RI LQGLFDWRUV )URP ¿JXUH
it can be seen that most of the indicators within the broad core of the network are important in the sense that they are close to many other indicators.
However, other indicators such as natural resource GHSOHWLRQ RU FDUERQ GLR[LGH &22) emissions per $1 GDP are also relatively important because of their role as gatekeepers.
7KH UHG QRGHV LQ ¿JXUH UHSUHVHQW LQGLFDWRUV IRU
ZKLFK DYHUDJH DWWDLQPHQW E\ WKH $VLD3DFL¿F &61
is below the 50th percentile for the 174 countries FRQVLGHUHG LQ WKH DQDO\VLV 7KH ¿JXUH VKRZV WKDW
these countries have low levels of attainment in a number of important indicators, such as income (GDP per capita and GDP per capita at purchasing power parity), telephone and Internet access, gender and human inequality and years of schooling. Their relative centrality within the network suggests that an improved performance in these indicators could have positive spillover effects on the attainment of other relevant indicators.
7KH UHG OLQNV LQ ¿JXUH UHSUHVHQW LQGLFDWRUV WKDW
are relatively less connected to each other. They show that many of the indicators related to the environment
60 − Adapting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the National Level 1_pov h-c
1_pov gap
2_malnutrition
2_arable land
2_crops 2_food prod
2_livestock 3_life exp 3_TB detec
3_measles
3_health exp 3_mat mort
3_child mort
3_infant mort
3_TB incid
3_TB preval 3_TB deaths 4_schooling
5_fem in parliament
5_educ parity
5_women in LF 6_drinking water
6_sanitation 9_telephones
9_cellular
9_internet
8_LF partic 9_air departures
9_air passengers
9_trade infra 10_GINI
11_drinking water urban 11_sanitation urban
11_elec access urban
7_renew output
7_renew consump
13_CO2 emis
13_CO2 per GDP
14_freshwater res 6_water produc
15_terres areas prot 16_refugees
8_unemp
7_energy intensity 15_mammal species
15_plant species
12_air poll exposure 12_air poll pop 8_doing business
4_edu exp 10_human ineq
5_gender index 5_HDI ratio 4_second edu
16_homicides
12_resource deplet 15_forest area
16_life satisf 16_communities
16_government
15_degraded land
2_ag emissions
2_food supply 2_ag val added
5_bank acc
7_elec access 8_GDPPC 8_GDPPC_ppp
8_banks
8_GDP growth
8_export divers 9_post office 9_hightech exp
9_journal articles
9_manufac VA 13_nat disasters
14_fertilizers 14_fish species
17_FDI 17_tax revenue
17_tax efficiency
17_statistics
Figure 3.2
The network of indicators for Asia-Pacific countries with special needs
Source: ESCAP.
Notes D 7KH UHG OLQNV UHSUHVHQW SUR[LPLW\ YDOXHV WKDW DUH OHVV WKDQ E WKH VL]H RI QRGHV LV EDVHG RQ WKH DYHUDJH RI DQ LQGLFDWRU¶V ZHLJKWHG
GHJUHH FHQWUDOLW\ DQG EHWZHHQQHVV FHQWUDOLW\ VHH DQQH[ ,,, DQG F UHG QRGHV DUH WKRVH IRU ZKLFK WKH DYHUDJH DWWDLQPHQW IRU $VLD3DFL¿F &61 LV
below the 50th percentile of attainment across all the countries included in the analysis.
— such as CO2 emissions per capita, consumption and production of renewable energy and fertilizer consumption — reside in the lower portion of the network and are not directly connected to the core.
This could be interpreted as representing a trade-off between environmental and socioeconomic indicators.
However, the two main gatekeeper indicators that connect this lower portion of the network and the upper core are resource depletion and CO2 emissions SHU *'3 7KH ¿JXUH VXJJHVWV WKDW DGGUHVVLQJ
these two particular environmental indicators can IDFLOLWDWH WKH DWWDLQPHQW E\ WKH $VLD3DFL¿F &61 RI
other environmental indicators in the lower portion of the network.
2YHUDOOWKHQHWZRUNUHSUHVHQWDWLRQIRUWKH$VLD3DFL¿F
CSN shows a dense core of highly interrelated socioeconomic indicators and a periphery that includes a number of environmental indicators. The representation shows that these countries have relatively low levels of attainment in a number of indicators that are both in the core and highly connected to other indicators. This suggests that implementing policies to improve the attainment of such indicators could have positive spillover effects, facilitating the attainment of other core indicators.
However, the representation also shows that a number of indicators related to environmental sustainability are in the periphery of the network. Because of their lower degree of connection to the socioeconomic indicators at the core of the network, the representation VXJJHVWV WKDW WKHLU DWWDLQPHQW LV OHVV OLNHO\ WR EHQH¿W
from positive spillover effects, further suggesting the H[LVWHQFH RI WUDGHRIIV EHWZHHQ WKH DFKLHYHPHQW
of the socioeconomic and environmental pillars of sustainable development.
3.2. The network of countries
Countries can also be linked together in a network, where the links are representative of how similar two countries are in attainment across the 82 indicators included in the analysis. Figure 3.3 shows a graphical representation of this network, which is constructed similarly to the network of indicators, with the size of the nodes based on each country’s per capita income.
The network shows distinct clusters of countries, with low-income countries at the bottom and developed economies at the top.
Countries belonging to different groups of Asia-3DFL¿F&61²OHDVWGHYHORSHGFRXQWULHVODQGORFNHG
developing countries and small island developing States — tend to be located close to each other in
the network, suggesting that they have similar levels of attainment in the indicators. Eight of the nine least developed countries for which data are available (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Nepal, Solomon ,VODQGV DQG 9DQXDWX DUH LQ IDFW ORFDWHG QH[W WR
each other, in the bottom-centre of the network.
The other least developed country, Afghanistan, is located in the bottom-left of the network, close to least developed countries from other regions, such as Sudan and Haiti.
Of the five small island developing States in the database, four (Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and Maldives) are clustered in the middle-right portion of the network. The
¿IWKRQH3DSXD1HZ*XLQHDLVORFDWHGLQWKHERWWRP
centre of the network, suggesting that this country’s level of attainment across the indicators is similar to that of the region’s least developed countries. The Asian landlocked developing countries are dispersed into three small clusters: (a) Armenia, Turkmenistan DQG 8]EHNLVWDQ DUH ORFDWHG FORVH WR WKH $VLD3DFL¿F
small island developing States; (b) Mongolia and interpreted as representing potential pathways for progress towards the Sustainable Development
*RDOV )RU LQVWDQFH IRU WKH JURXSV RI $VLD3DFL¿F
least developed countries at the bottom-centre of the network, one pathway for progress would be to initially strive for levels of attainment across the indicators similar to Indonesia, Viet Nam, China and Thailand. At a later stage, they could try to achieve similar patterns of attainment to countries that are SRVLWLRQHG KLJKHU XS WKH QHWZRUN VXFK DV 0H[LFR
Slovakia, Dominican Republic, Albania and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.
However, the countries’ network also identifies obstacles to the development of lower income countries.
7KH UHG OLQNV LQ ¿JXUH UHSUHVHQW FRPSDUDWLYHO\
weaker links, in the sense that the two countries that share such links are less similar to each other in WKHLU DWWDLQPHQW RI WKH LQGLFDWRUV 7KH ¿JXUH VKRZV
that the majority of the weaker links reside in the ERWWRPSRUWLRQRIWKHQHWZRUN([DPSOHVRIZHDNOLQNV
LQ WKH ¿JXUH LQFOXGH WKH OLQN EHWZHHQ %DQJODGHVK
and Indonesia — which separates the region’s least
62 − Adapting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the National Level Figure
3.3
The network of countries, based on proximities
AFG
Notes D 7KH UHG OLQNV UHSUHVHQW SUR[LPLW\ YDOXHV WKDW DUH OHVV WKDQ E WKH VL]H RI D FRXQWU\ LV EDVHG RQ QRPLQDO *'3 SHU FDSLWD
and (c) red, green and blue countries are least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States, respectively
&RXQWU\ QDPHV DQG FRGHV DUH DYDLODEOH LQ WKH H[SODQDWRU\ QRWHV
developed countries from developing countries such as the Philippines, Viet Nam, Sri Lanka, China and Thailand — and the links of Afghanistan and Papua New Guinea with other least developed countries.
Such weak links are indicative of structural differences between the countries connected by them. Addressing them would require targeted agendas, such as the Istanbul Programme of Action, and special measures of support by the international community aimed at reducing their structural impediments to sustainable development.
As mentioned above, the network of countries suggests that the region’s least developed countries are a very homogeneous group with regard to their attainment across the 82 indicators included in the analysis. Their similarities as least developed countries are more important than possible differences associated with geographic characteristics such as being landlocked or a small island developing State. Remarkably, the VLPLODULWLHV DPRQJ WKH $VLD3DFL¿F OHDVW GHYHORSHG
countries were also noted in the analysis of perceived priorities for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda that were discussed in chapter 2. Also, the structural differences between small island developing States according to whether or not they are also least developed countries are consistent with the analysis of selected indicators related to the Samoa Pathway, which appeared in chapter 1. These observations reinforce the need for particular attention from the international community in supporting implementation of the 2030 Agenda in the least developed countries.