An insider's view: why the SDGs miss the mark

"Universal energy access" is number 7 on the list of UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). If successful, SDG7 would mean that no one on the planet lives without electricity or clean cooking by?2030. A hugely?important goal, at which we are unequivocally failing. Data released recently showed that despite a decade since the SDGs' adoption in?2015, we're actually going backwards: there were 685 million people without access to electricity in 2022, 10 million more compared to 2021. Blame was placed on population growth, which is a factor. Yet few seem willing to speak honestly and publicly about the other, more systemic reasons why we're so far off track. In attempting to do that here, I hope to help refocus the priorities for SDG7, but potentially other SDGs as well.

1. Fragile states??Look?in the mirror

As an American watching what?looks to be the gradual?dismantling of democratic institutions in the United States, it feels deeply ironic that many developing countries are labeled by donors?as "fragile states". Why ironic? Because many of the institutions from advanced economies working to achieve the SDGs appear no less fragile. In fact, dysfunction is prevalent in many of the bilateral, inter-governmental and multilateral institutions?working on sustainable development. As we've seen from three decades of UN-led climate negotiations, the United Nations is not fit for purpose, nor fit for time in today's highly matrixed, fast-evolving world. As a consensus-driven entity, the UN has?done well at rallying member states to address time-bound crises related to displacement, hunger, peacekeeping, public health, etc. But it has demonstrated a distinct inability to solve long-term, complex challenges like climate change, and in the case of SDG7, energy poverty. In the words of the UN Secretary General: "The world has changed.?Our institutions have not.?We cannot effectively address problems as they are if institutions do not reflect the world as it is. Instead of solving problems, they risk becoming part of the problem."?In fact, development?institutions often perpetuate the status quo. High overhead and heavy bureaucracy, no incentive structure?for achieving meaningful?results and unclear or non-existent KPIs, competition for the same pools of funding, plus a "not made here" mentality that deprioritizes collaboration and resource efficiency. And they are excruciatingly slow. If we want action that results in near-term solutions, we need public and private institutions with agility and a strong sense of ownership,?not ones that set targets, then convene and talk about why those targets aren't being met.?

2. "Access Washing", aka ignoring the most important KPI

As the saying goes, you can't manage what you don't measure. But what if what you're measuring is fundamentally flawed? SDG7 is defined by the UN as access to affordable, sustainable, reliable and?modern?energy. Modern means energy that can power economies (and therefore the SDGs), not just small household appliances. The last 10 years have witnessed the delivery of very basic levels of?energy access to hundreds of millions of people, which should be celebrated as a major achievement. However, if viewed through the lens of modern energy, the organizations tracking progress on SDG7 give an impression of having achieved much more progress than we have actually made. The official number of people still living without electricity -- just under 700 million -- is at least 50-100% greater than?that (as supported by a new report saying that 1.2 billion people are energy poor , a number which is certainly too optimistic). The UN defined the success indicators for SDG7 through a consensus-based process. As a result, updating those indicators, despite the urgent?need, is highly unlikely any time soon. So if "modern" remains a KPI, and if we treat access to modern energy as the most important indicator of success, which we should, we will continue to claim successes that are only marginal (let's call it what it is -- "Access Washing"), while continuing to publicly lament that we're not on track in achieving metrics?that?are the wrong metrics to begin?with. [A note to World Bank president Ajay Banga and African Development Bank president Akinwumi Adesina: if the banks' new 2030 target of energy access for 300 million people in Africa -- known as "Mission 300" -- isn't tracking modern energy access, including access for small businesses and not just households, we'll only be perpetuating a false narrative).?

3. Risk is not a four letter word

Development finance institutions (DFIs), multilateral development banks (MDBs) and impact investors were born from a mandate to take greater risk and accept lower returns, and even losses if necessary. The idea was to use their concessional low-cost or no-cost capital to derisk?solutions needed to reach the poorest of the poor (often called Bottom of the Pyramid, or BoP, communities). These are solutions that might otherwise never see the light of day. But the reality? Many of these funders have come to see risk as too risky. As a result, we've essentially spent the past decade delivering energy to what I call the Top of the Bottom (of the Pyramid). In other words, companies selling small, off-grid solar products have received the lion's share of funding because they are perceived as less risky and offer quicker results. But these same companies have mostly reached households and businesses with enough income to afford decentralized solar solutions. While this is an amazing?first step, more marginal communities -- what I call the?Middle of the Bottom and the Bottom of the Bottom -- are being left behind. Even for those being reached, most of them only get access to solar-powered lights and phone charging, which is neither satisfactory for the buyers of these solutions nor for their governments urgently trying to grow their economies amid record youth unemployment. Unless risk is truly embraced by these institutions instead of trying to protect a AAA rating, neither universal nor modern energy will happen by 2030, much less 2050. (And the finance institutions being discussed here will?also lose their already tenuous mandate).

4. Partnership is a myth wrapped in platitudes

The number of times I've seen true, together-in-the-trenches partnership among development institutions is miniscule. This is perhaps my?biggest frustration with the development "community", given that poverty eradication and socio-economic development are by definition complicated issues that require an integrated approach. Organizations are disincentivized to partner, both internally and externally. At development banks, for example, agriculture has little clue what energy is doing, and vice versa, despite the?obvious and critical link. And silos don't just exist by sector, but also by function within a sector (finance being a prime example, with a lack of aggregation, a lack of blending and a lack of standardized and data-light due diligence and reporting to name just a few examples). Meanwhile, it still boggles the mind that new funds, programs, entities (and prizes) -- many of which are duplicative or could have easily been folded into something that already existed -- are being regularly launched, purely to check some institutional box or to justify an organization's existence. The?resulting alphabet soup of entities?with clever acronyms?forces the?stakeholders actually doing the work (private companies, governments and civil society organizations that are already resource-constrained because of #3 above) to navigate a maze of bureaucracy instead of a streamlined, consolidated offering. It's a colossal waste. The UN's last development goal, SDG17, is focused on partnership. Arguably, it should be the first, not the last SDG given the importance of partnership to our success.

5. A shortage of capacity where it's most needed

In my experience, the smart, younger generation of people working on SDG7 (civil servants in national and sub-national governments, investment managers at DFIs, etc) often feel stuck. They have a good idea of what they should be doing differently (and the passion), but are trapped in a donor-government negative feedback loop (the "political?economy") that stifles the new mindsets needed for quickly scaling viable solutions. I've heard many officials from Africa lament about the latest high-priced report dropped on their desk by donor-supported?consultants that were totally separated from the reality on the ground. Or similar frustration at having to host the latest embedded "expert" from a foreign donor program. Meanwhile, private sector companies that need world-class talent to scale in emerging markets struggle?to get talent in part because the ecosystem of development agencies and consultants have spoiled the market with inflated salaries. Whatever your views are regarding the increasing calls for donor decolonization, there is a huge need for long-term local capacity building instead of short-term band-aids that don't stick. ??

None of these issues have an easy fix. But here are 5 things that I see as necessary if we're going to actually achieve the SDGs, especially SDG7 and Mission 300. We need:?

1) State and institutional leaders who are brave enough and competent enough to deconstruct the?status quo, and who prioritize action?based on what's best for the poor. Bottom up change is important, but will take too long. These leaders must be willing and able to suppress self-interest and summon the courage to instigate a generational change and break the current inertia, 2) Do a comprehensive analysis of all of the institutions, programs and funds working on SDG7 and propose a clear pathway (that is binding) for consolidation and efficient deployment of resources, both human and financial, 3) Clearly define what we mean by "risk capital" and set transparent and trackable targets for the percentage and rate of deployment of risk capital spent by development finance institutions, 4) Update measurement and tracking of SDG7 to honestly reflect how we're performing through the lens of modern energy, and include energy access calculations for both households and small businesses, 5) Identify new or alternative structures for action to allow for cross-sectoral collaboration at speed and scale. Energy access is not the end but the means to zero poverty, zero hunger, clean water, gender equity and the other SDGs.

[Author's?note:?The views expressed above are solely my own and do not represent any entity that I am affiliated with. I have worked for?a decade on SDG7 across the private sector, civil society and government, and I greatly respect and admire the individuals I've met and collaborated with. My criticisms are targeted at systems and institutions, not individuals. Lastly, I'm sure there are many exceptions to each of my observations. For those who disagree or have additional thoughts, in the spirit of partnership, I welcome your feedback.]