Gabriele Koehler
CEMA and Platforma invited me, as a WECF board member, to reflect on gender equality. Here is a clear and useful summary of the points made, and you can watch the presentations and discussions here.
Gender – or gendered – equality is obviously central to any “development agenda” that wishes to advance social justice – and more simply to align with the commitments of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs.
The state of play in the SDGs
We need to begin by analysing why so many of the SDGs fail to meet the commitments made? Why is hunger increasing? Why is poverty reduction only advancing on a very austere level of incomes? Why are income and wealth inequalities exploding in almost every country we examine? Why are women still dying before, in and after childbirth? Why are children still suffering from malnourishment? Why do considerable gender gaps persevere with regard to pay and life-long earnings, pensions, as well as gender care gaps and gender digital gaps? As with previous development agendas – from the development decade of 1960 through the MDGs – progress in the SDGs is shockingly slow. I argue this is for several reasons.
One reason is becoming more widely acknowledged: the proliferation of abusive governments. Only 39 out of 198 countries and territories have open civic space. Authoritarian governments are not keen to advance the social and economic situation of citizens and residents of the country, or to de-carbonise and preserve biodiversity. Oppressive systems stand in the way of SDG delivery – contrary to the reports that member states deliver at the High-Level Political Forum.
Elephants in the room
But there are two elephants in the room, less earmarked, which we need to call out.
The first elephant is the profit rationale of the economy, resulting in hyper-globalisation and often exploitative global value chains. Regulation for human rights, labour standards, environmental agreements is lax. Even when labour standards and workplace safety is nominally approved, labour inspectorates are severely understaffed. Spillovers – the trans-border negative effects of economic activities – are often not acknowledged. Harm by transnational economic activities is rampant, and it is rarely possible for victims to receive compensation, let alone change the economic setting.
The second elephant is militarisation. Military expenditure reached $2887 billion in 2025. The share of the world’s gross domestic product devoted to military expenditure increased to 2.5% in 2025.; in some countries, it nears 9% of GDP. This is crowding out social spending already under attack by austerity politics, and in addition, money formerly devoted to humanitarian assistance and development projects has dropped by roughly 25%. Obviously, government expenditures on SDG-related processes is suffering acutely. This connection needs to be called out. It has nothing but a destructive effect: it destroys lives, wellbeing, the habitat and the planet.
In many countries, authoritarianism, unfettered hyper-globalisation, austerity, militarisation and violent wars diametrically oppose the SDGs. They are the structural causes of inequities. As long as these “elephants” –remain unaddressed, further decades will go by without real social justice. And the deleterious impact on women, girls and oppressed communities and individuals will continue. And sustainable development goals will not be achieved.
Turning to gender equality and leadership, one of the concerns of the webinar, we witness a global retrogression on women’s rights. Gender equality is under systemic attack ideologically, and in reality.
Women and girls’ interests have to be defended outright. However, we need to also recognise intersecting inequalities which disenfranchise some groups of women and girls more than others. I refer to women from low income groups or living directly in income poverty and socially excluded communities, and minority groups discriminated by class, ethnicity, caste, indigenous status, national origin, faith, age, sexual orientation and gender identity, or marital and/or maternal status. Many women and girls are excluded politically because of their political opinion, or because they are refugees, asylum-seekers, displaced persons, (documented or undocumented) migrants, or climate refugees. There is massive and often lethal persecution of women human rights defenders.
Thus, there are multiple layers of oppression which constitute barriers to expressing and seeking rights. Power hierarchies in each setting – beginning with patriarchy in the family – run through the community, into subnational, national, and global levels. Women, especially those experiencing multiple intersecting exclusions, lack “resources” of many types. Examples include their disadvantaged access to food, to education and capacity building, to health care services and family planning, or means of mobility and information, including via digital resources. Financial poverty is merely the tip of the iceberg. A cumulative outcome of these barriers is time poverty, because women and girls are tasked with care and carry a huge mental load.
Implications for beyond 2030
All this is not a surprise; decades of research provide the evidence and the statistics. The question is what to make of this knowledge when conceptualising a next set of SDGs. As was argued convincingly at the webinar, it may be best to keep the SDGs as are, because the current oppressive geopolitical situation could compromise the normative intent of the SDGs.
Nevertheless, assuming the SDGs remain beyond 2030, is there any leeway for some improvements? How could authoritarianism, austerity politics, militarisation and the overpowering effect of hyper-globalisation be addressed?
I suggest working on the accountability level. We could build the processes in place for monitoring the ratified binding conventions into the indicators used in the SDG voluntary national and local reviews. This would be the nine core human rights conventions and the eleven fundamental labour standards. CEDAW – addressing all forms of discrimination against women, the CRC on child rights are common-sense prime examples, since they are almost universally ratified. The countries’ reports on conventions are obligatory, rigorous, and multi-layered. They could supplement the voluntary reporting, and a tool is already available.
Connecting to rights-based, binding procedures could bolster agency at the local, national and multilateral level. The general recommendation supplementing the CEDAW, on the equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems, is a case in point. Casting the net more widely, one could use the Paris Agreement which is binding, to monitor progress on climate action. The right to health and the right to education are promised in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Culture Rights. In addition, the right to health carries another commitment deducted from a human rights council resolution; the right to education has various binding references, and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainability environment was recently adopted by the UN General Assembly. Thus, there would be much to work with, to improve accountability of a future set of SDGs, in the interest of gender equality and social justice.
“Beyond 2030” – what are the prospects
Gabriele Koehler
CEMA and Platforma invited me, as a WECF board member, to reflect on gender equality. Here is a clear and useful summary of the points made, and you can watch the presentations and discussions here.
Gender – or gendered – equality is obviously central to any “development agenda” that wishes to advance social justice – and more simply to align with the commitments of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs.
The state of play in the SDGs
We need to begin by analysing why so many of the SDGs fail to meet the commitments made? Why is hunger increasing? Why is poverty reduction only advancing on a very austere level of incomes? Why are income and wealth inequalities exploding in almost every country we examine? Why are women still dying before, in and after childbirth? Why are children still suffering from malnourishment? Why do considerable gender gaps persevere with regard to pay and life-long earnings, pensions, as well as gender care gaps and gender digital gaps? As with previous development agendas – from the development decade of 1960 through the MDGs – progress in the SDGs is shockingly slow. I argue this is for several reasons.
One reason is becoming more widely acknowledged: the proliferation of abusive governments. Only 39 out of 198 countries and territories have open civic space. Authoritarian governments are not keen to advance the social and economic situation of citizens and residents of the country, or to de-carbonise and preserve biodiversity. Oppressive systems stand in the way of SDG delivery – contrary to the reports that member states deliver at the High-Level Political Forum.
Elephants in the room
But there are two elephants in the room, less earmarked, which we need to call out.
The first elephant is the profit rationale of the economy, resulting in hyper-globalisation and often exploitative global value chains. Regulation for human rights, labour standards, environmental agreements is lax. Even when labour standards and workplace safety is nominally approved, labour inspectorates are severely understaffed. Spillovers – the trans-border negative effects of economic activities – are often not acknowledged. Harm by transnational economic activities is rampant, and it is rarely possible for victims to receive compensation, let alone change the economic setting.
The second elephant is militarisation. Military expenditure reached $2887 billion in 2025. The share of the world’s gross domestic product devoted to military expenditure increased to 2.5% in 2025.; in some countries, it nears 9% of GDP. This is crowding out social spending already under attack by austerity politics, and in addition, money formerly devoted to humanitarian assistance and development projects has dropped by roughly 25%. Obviously, government expenditures on SDG-related processes is suffering acutely. This connection needs to be called out. It has nothing but a destructive effect: it destroys lives, wellbeing, the habitat and the planet.
In many countries, authoritarianism, unfettered hyper-globalisation, austerity, militarisation and violent wars diametrically oppose the SDGs. They are the structural causes of inequities. As long as these “elephants” –remain unaddressed, further decades will go by without real social justice. And the deleterious impact on women, girls and oppressed communities and individuals will continue. And sustainable development goals will not be achieved.
Turning to gender equality and leadership, one of the concerns of the webinar, we witness a global retrogression on women’s rights. Gender equality is under systemic attack ideologically, and in reality.
Women and girls’ interests have to be defended outright. However, we need to also recognise intersecting inequalities which disenfranchise some groups of women and girls more than others. I refer to women from low income groups or living directly in income poverty and socially excluded communities, and minority groups discriminated by class, ethnicity, caste, indigenous status, national origin, faith, age, sexual orientation and gender identity, or marital and/or maternal status. Many women and girls are excluded politically because of their political opinion, or because they are refugees, asylum-seekers, displaced persons, (documented or undocumented) migrants, or climate refugees. There is massive and often lethal persecution of women human rights defenders.
Thus, there are multiple layers of oppression which constitute barriers to expressing and seeking rights. Power hierarchies in each setting – beginning with patriarchy in the family – run through the community, into subnational, national, and global levels. Women, especially those experiencing multiple intersecting exclusions, lack “resources” of many types. Examples include their disadvantaged access to food, to education and capacity building, to health care services and family planning, or means of mobility and information, including via digital resources. Financial poverty is merely the tip of the iceberg. A cumulative outcome of these barriers is time poverty, because women and girls are tasked with care and carry a huge mental load.
Implications for beyond 2030
All this is not a surprise; decades of research provide the evidence and the statistics. The question is what to make of this knowledge when conceptualising a next set of SDGs. As was argued convincingly at the webinar, it may be best to keep the SDGs as are, because the current oppressive geopolitical situation could compromise the normative intent of the SDGs.
Nevertheless, assuming the SDGs remain beyond 2030, is there any leeway for some improvements? How could authoritarianism, austerity politics, militarisation and the overpowering effect of hyper-globalisation be addressed?
I suggest working on the accountability level. We could build the processes in place for monitoring the ratified binding conventions into the indicators used in the SDG voluntary national and local reviews. This would be the nine core human rights conventions and the eleven fundamental labour standards. CEDAW – addressing all forms of discrimination against women, the CRC on child rights are common-sense prime examples, since they are almost universally ratified. The countries’ reports on conventions are obligatory, rigorous, and multi-layered. They could supplement the voluntary reporting, and a tool is already available.
Connecting to rights-based, binding procedures could bolster agency at the local, national and multilateral level. The general recommendation supplementing the CEDAW, on the equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems, is a case in point. Casting the net more widely, one could use the Paris Agreement which is binding, to monitor progress on climate action. The right to health and the right to education are promised in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Culture Rights. In addition, the right to health carries another commitment deducted from a human rights council resolution; the right to education has various binding references, and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainability environment was recently adopted by the UN General Assembly. Thus, there would be much to work with, to improve accountability of a future set of SDGs, in the interest of gender equality and social justice.
Share this: