Monitoring & Evaluating the Urban Sustainable Development Target 11.1 ‘Safe and Affordable Housing’ – Progress & Problems

Photo courtesy of Abby0427 Yoga on Unsplash

About This Article

This paper was written to critically engage with the way progress towards Sustainable Development Target 11.1 ‘Safe and Affordable Housing’ is being and will be evaluated.

This paper was written by Nathan Linton whilst studying a Masters of International Development Practice at Monash University in 2019. Nathan was previously the Head of Impact at Oaktree, Australia’s largest youth-led international development organsation. You can find out more about Nathan here.

Introduction

In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly voted in Resolution 70/1 to endorse the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  The centrepiece of this agenda was the adoption of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which, according to the United Nations (UN), ‘are a call for action by all countries – poor, rich and middle-income – to promote prosperity while protecting the planet’ (UN 2019).  The SDGs build on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by increasing the number of development areas and expanding their application to all countries.  This approach contrasts with the MDGs which mainly focused on development outcomes in developing countries.  The goals contain 169 corresponding targets with 230 indicators ‘that are integrated and indivisible’ (Thrict & Bizikova 2016, p. 1) and are intended to guide the agenda for sustainable development until 2030.

The world’s cities are home to just over half of the world’s population and are projected to increase to two-thirds by 2050 (UN Habitat 2019).  In light of this, a ‘new global recognition exists that cities are where critical battles for sustainable human development are to be waged, battles with impacts far beyond cities themselves’ (Klopp & Petretta 2017, p. 92).  Sustainable Development Goal 11, which aims to ‘make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’, was adopted due to a number of organisations, notably UN Habitat, successfully campaigning for the inclusion on an Urban Sustainable Development Goal (USDG) (Klopp & Petretta 2017, p. 93).  Cities and urban environments present significant challenges to achieving sustainable urban development as they are large drivers of consumption and energy use and in many cases, poor living standards.  In 2017, 863 million people were living in urban slums with that number expected to double by 2030 (Teferi & Newman 2017, p.4).  The SDGs seek to address the issue of inadequate housing through Target 11.1.  Target 11.1 states that ‘By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums’ (United Nations Statistics Division 2019, p. 11).  This target is more ambitious and far reaching than what was addressed under the MDGs.

The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015 highlighted that despite there being significant progress in achieving the goals, including several measures aimed at building the capacity of national statistical offices, substantial gaps remain in the ability of countries, especially developing countries, to effectively monitor and evaluate the goals (United Nations 2015).  The report noted the positive impact that good data gathering and evaluation processes can have on development outcomes stating that ‘the MDG monitoring experience has clearly demonstrated that effective use of data can help to galvanize development efforts, implement successful targeted interventions, track performance and improve accountability’ (United Nations 2015, p. 10).  Inversely, poor data collection and evaluation can have negative effects on development outcomes.  Due to the experience of evaluation under the MDGs, a renewed focus on the way progress towards achieving the goals is reported was highlighted as important for the planning and implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.   The MDG Report noted that that ‘as the post-2015 development agenda is being established, strengthening data production and the use of better data in policymaking and monitoring are becoming increasingly recognized as fundamental means for development’ (United Nations 2015, p. 10). 

Building on these concepts, this paper will explore the way progress towards evaluating target 11.1 of the SDGs has been and will be made.  It will be argued that whilst significant efforts have been made to build upon the shortcomings of the MDG evaluation framework and create resources and for more effective monitoring and evaluation of target 11.1, a number of gaps persist which results in slower progress in achieving better housing for the world’s urban population.  Firstly, the paper will look at the origins of target 11.1 in the millennium development goals and then discuss the target in the broader context of goal 11.  It will then explore the renewed focus on evaluation for the SDGs, led by the United Nations Statistical Commission, and analyse the impact this has had on the formation of target 11.1.  It will then analyse the strengths and weaknesses associated with the development of the current approach with a particular focus on the role UN Habitat has played in influencing the monitoring and evaluation framework of target 11.1 and goal 11 more broadly.  The paper will then look at the current effort made to evaluate the progress toward achieving target 11.1 with a consideration of the associated research and literature on this target.  Additionally, this paper will critically analyse the monitoring and evaluation framework in reference to broader discussions and debates regarding monitoring and evaluation within international development and comment on how the current approach sits within contemporary practice.

From Millenium Development Goal 7.D to Sustainale Development Goal 11.1

Whilst SDG 11 was developed as part of the Sustainable Development Goals, target 11.1 has its origins in the Millennium Development Goals.  SDG target 11.1 is ‘By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums’ (United Nations Statistics Division 2019, p. 11).  This target corresponds with target 7.D of the MDGs which was ‘by 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers’ (United Nations 2015).  Whilst both targets are focused on improving the livelihoods of slum dwellers, SDG target 11.1 has a significantly larger scope when compared to MDG target 7.D.  This expansion of scope brings with it an increased pressure on national statistical systems to produce additional data to track process towards achieving the target.  This is on the back of the report by the United Nations (2015, p. 11) that the ‘lack of well-functioning civil registration systems with national coverage also results in serious data gaps especially for vital statistics.’  For reporting on target 11.1 to be effective, renewed efforts will need to be made to expand the data collection capacity of statistical agencies far beyond what was provided for the MDGs. 

Lessons Learnt: Monitoring & Evaluating the Sustainable Development Goals

A notable feature in the development of the SDG evaluation framework has been the attempts to rectify the shortcomings in the MDG evaluation process.  A study commissioned by the United Nations on how the MDGs were evaluated ‘found that evaluation was largely missing in the MDGs and was not planned for strategically at the start of the initiative’ (Rugg 2016, p. 428).  As a result, in 2015 the United Nations Statistical Commission, established the Interagency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) to ensure that evaluation was at the forefront of planning for the implementation of the SDGs.  The IAEG-SDGs was tasked with ‘[developing] a proposal for the indicator framework for the monitoring of the goals and targets of the post-2015 development agenda at the global level, under the leadership of the national statistical offices, in an open and transparent manner’ (United Nations Statistical Commission 2015, p.1).  Whilst this helped ensure that the technical work for establishing an evaluation framework for the goals was being addressed, the shift of focus to national statistical offices as leading the monitoring and evaluation process represented a significant change in approach compared to the MDGs.  Jacob (2017, p. 261) highlighting that ‘the MDGs were set as global goals and…were not conceptualized to be national-level goals’.  A number of step were taken to accommodate this shift in approach.  Firstly, in recognising the measurement and capacity constraints on national offices, the United Nations Statistical Commission (2015, p. 1) stated that ‘the global indicator framework should only contain a limited number of indicators [and] strike a balance between reducing the number of indicators and policy relevance’.  The Commission also undertook a consultation with national statistical offices asking them to assess whether a set of provisional indicators were feasible, suitable and very relevant to each target in their national context.  The 2 proposed indicators for target 11.1 received relatively high ratings of BBA and BAA of a possible highest rating of AAA (United Nations Statistical Commission 2015, p. 30) which indicated that the proposed indicators were reasonably well adapted for use of national statistical offices.  A significant limitation of this consultation was the low return rate of the survey.  Of the 70 responses, there was a disproportionate representation of higher-income countries which typically have lower levels of slums and informal settlements and higher capacities for evaluation and data gathering in their national statistical offices.  It is therefore difficult, based off this survey data, to properly assess whether these indicators are actually well adapted for use by statistical offices that will be most required to report on them.

The Unique Challenge of Sustainable Development Goal 11 – National Goals & Local Implementation

In addition to the complications associated with the participation of national statistical offices in the development of these indicators, UN-Habitat (2016, p. 13) estimates ‘that 23% of all SDG indicators have a local or urban component’ with a majority of indicators under goal 11 requiring data collection at the local level.  This would extend the data collection efforts beyond national offices and necessitate the collection of data by multiple levels of government, introducing a series of broader complications.  Local governments often have lower capacities than national governments to produce the data required to effectively evaluate the SDG indicators.  This was highlighted by research conducted by Simon et al. (2015, p.4) who found that ‘current local authority statistical capacity is indeed highly variable and often inadequate for the purpose of fulfilling the urban SDG reporting requirements.’  This is further reinforced in the United Nations’ (2015, p. 11) evaluation of the MDGs where they noted that ‘many national and local governments continue to rely on outdated data or data of insufficient quality to make planning and decisions’.  Furthermore, political tensions between local and nation governments often influence the availability of data.  Petretta (2017) highlight that the collection and distribution of data can often be used or withheld for political reasons thus skewing the evaluation and leading to lower development outcomes.  In South Africa, local governments are constitutionally mandated to work toward local development with cities becoming the primary focus for the countries development (Du Plessis 2017).  Despite this, ‘recent reports on local governance in South Africa have revealed that there are issues of economic exclusion, unsustainable growth and financial mismanagement for example’ which has often led to tensions with the national government and reduced trust among the general public (Du Plessis 2017 p. 241).  This has caused slower progress in achieving better development outcomes and has increased tensions between national and local governments in South Africa.  These examples demonstrate that whilst national consultation over the indicators of the goals are important, key stakeholders such as local governments have not been included which could present barriers to more effective reporting on goal 11 and target 11.1.

The concerns regarding appropriateness of indicators and the capacity of local authorities to effectively monitor the indicators in goal 11 was assessed by Simon et al. (2015, p.50) whose research sought to ‘test the relevance and feasibility of measuring the proposed targets and indictors in five cities [Cape Town, Kisumu, Manchester, Gothenburg and Bangalore]’ which are reasonably representative of the global urban context.  The study found that ‘data gaps, data quality, compliance with methodological standards, and non-availability of disaggregated data were among the major challenges identified’ (Simon et al. 2015, p. 53).  They also found that these gaps were not characterised by a north-south divide with different gaps impacting different cities to varying degrees (Simon et al. 2015).  The study found a number of potential issues with the 2 proposed indicators for target 11.1.  Overall, data availability was poor and there were different methodologies applied between cities as a result of different definitions and understandings on what constitutes slums and informal settlements.  Another area that was noted was the usefulness, or lack thereof, of yearly reporting.  Cities indicated that census data was often relied upon to report on these 2 indicators, particularly for housing quality and income and questioned the reliability and usefulness of data estimates for interim years (Simone et al. 2015).  It was further noted that yearly reporting  would be ‘seen as a potential burden, rather than adding value to planning and policy-making processes’ (Simon et al. 2015, pp. 54-55).  The study also looked at the feasibility of disaggregating data at a city level  as the Global Indicator Framework stated that the ‘Sustainable Development Goal indicators should be disaggregated, where relevant, by income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability and geographic location…’ (United Nations Statistics Division 2019, p. 1).  The study found that aggregating data from various sources was not always possible as in the case of Manchester, significant amounts of data was in private hands and not readily accessible by subnational or national authorities, making this area difficult to quantify.  Overall the study found that ‘not one draft indicator was regarded as both important or relevant and easy to report on in terms of data availability in all five cities’ (Simon et al. 2015, p. 60).  This places the survey of national statistical offices by the United Nations Statistical Commission at odds with the experiences of these 5 cities.  This demonstrates that there is a disparity between national statistical offices and city-level statistical authorities regarding the level of data availability and ease of reporting of indicators related to goal 11.  This disparity not only has the ability to lead to heightened difficulties in reporting on the goals but also has the potential to exacerbate political tensions between city and national governments thus effecting progress and cooperation toward achieving the goals.

The Role of UN Habitat in Monitoring and Evaluating Sustainable Development Target 11.1

Significant work has been undertaken to create a monitoring framework for goal 11 that addresses the issues highlighted by the United Nations Statistical Commission, IAEG-SDGs and the challenges highlighted by Simon et al (2015).  Consistent with the limited indicator model proposed by the UN Statistical Commission, one indicator was selected to measure progress toward target 11.1 which will measure the ‘proportion of urban population living in slums, informal settlement or inadequate housing’ (United Nations Statistical Commission 2019, p. 11).  In 2016, UN Habitat published ‘A Guide to Assist National and Local Government to Monitor and Report on SDG Goal 11+ Indicators’ with the aim of providing greater clarity around the targets and indicators for SDG Goal 11 including definitions, methodology and data collection points.  As UN Habitat has traditionally been the overseeing agency responsible for improving the livelihoods of people living in slums, the definitions and methodology used by UN Habitat have largely been brought forward from target 7.D of the MDGs.  This practice is consistent with the UN Statistical Commission’s (2015, p. 1) recommended that the SDG indicator framework should ‘build on the experiences of the MDGs; and take into account conceptual indicator frameworks that have already been developed’.  As national statistical offices have already been required to report on a similar data sets for the MDGs, it is likely that along with the additional capacity building measures as proposed under the evaluation framework, there is a greater chance that better quality data will be extracted leading to more informed evaluations of policy decisions as they relate to target 11.1.

Despite this, the framework proposed by UN Habitat in the monitoring guide extends well beyond the ‘SDG Global Indicator Framework’.  In 2012, prior to the SDGs being finalised, UN Habitat created the ‘City Prosperity Initiative’ (CPI) ‘that aims to enable local and central governments to make use of data relating to spatial, demographic, economic, social and environmental challenges, including governance issues… in order to formulate better-informed policies’ (UN Habitat 2016, p. 14).  The CPI has a substantially larger scope and greater number of indicators than what was agreed to in the ‘SDG Global Indicator Framework’.  Rather than building a framework solely for the reporting of the SDGS, it is clear that UN Habitat’s goal is for the SDG indicator framework to be subsumed in to the broader CPI which it had previously created.  UN Habitat (2016, p.14) states in the SDG 11 monitoring guide that ‘The CPI has the potential to be a global framework for indicators and targets of Goal 11’.  Whilst the CPI has been widely adopted and used by over 400 cities around the world (UN Habitat 2016, p. 14), Arslan, Durak & Aytac (2016, p. 181) note that whilst the CPI ‘is a valuable tool for effectively communicating certain topics to a wide and diverse audience at both the global and regional levels, it is not an adequate basis for decision-making and planning at the local level’ which is ultimately what the MDG report noted as leading to better development outcomes (United Nations 2015).  Whilst the monitoring framework developed by UN Habitat does provide greater clarity in terms of establishing universal definitions and methodologies for monitoring and evaluating target 11.1, instead of simplifying the process, it further complicates it by advocating for the conflation of the CPI and SDGs, leading to an increased number of indicators and reporting requirements which goes against the principle of simplicity advocated by the IAEG-SDGs.  This approach would place and increased demand on statistical offices and departs from the simplicity recommended by the United Nations Statistical Commission.  It is apparent from the guide that UN Habitat, who has significant expertise in target 11.1 and goal 11 more broadly, believes that the SDG targets should be viewed as secondary to their more ambitious and comprehensive CPI framework.  Whilst the CPI leads to a more robust, integrated and comprehensive measure of the sustainability of urban areas, it does little to solve the capacity issues identified by the United Nations Statistical Commission and by others which informed the recommendation for a limited set of indicators.

Even though the Sustainable Development Goals have been in place since 2015 and an official monitoring framework has been released, information remains limited regarding progress toward evaluating SDG 11.  The 2019 ‘Progress Toward the Sustainable Development Goals Report’ provided some general information regarding the state of national monitoring and evaluation systems.  The report noted that ‘in 2018, 111 countries had national statistical legislation that was compliant with the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics, up from 71 countries in 2017’ and that ‘in 2016, countries received $623 million in support from multilateral and bilateral donors for all areas of statistics, up from $591 million in 2015’ (United Nations 2019, p. 24).  The report noted that ‘in 2016, just over 1 billion people lived in slums or informal settlements’ (United Nations 2019, p. 17).  This data, which was sourced from the SDG Indicators Database, does not extend beyond 2016 thus making it difficult to evaluate the efficacy of global efforts to improve housing quality since 2016, which was 3 years before the report was published.  This shows that the data used to monitor progress toward target 11.1 is not readily accessible, as was explained by Simon et al. (2015).  The report did indicate some progress stating that ‘during the 10-year period from 2008 to 2017, 89 per cent of countries or areas around the world conducted at least one population and housing census’ (United Nations 2019, p. 24) which has been identified as a key data source for local authorities in evaluating target 11.1 (Simon et al. 2015).

Measuring SDG 11 – Participatory Approaches

Other sources have pointed to the need for the evaluation processes of goal 11 to be participatory.  The New Urban Agenda, which was adopted at the Habitat III Conference and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in 2017 states that cities ‘will promote participatory age and gender-responsive approaches at all stages of the urban and territorial policy and planning process…[including] evaluation…’ (United Nations 2017, p.24).  In addition to this, SDG indicator 11.3.2 looks at the ‘proportion of cities with a direct participation structure of civil society in urban planning and management that operate regularly and democratically’ (United Nations Statistical Commission 2019, p. 11).  These measures demonstrate the participatory approaches to evaluation are promoted under the SDGs.  There is some evidence that suggests this approach is translated to initiatives connected with target 11.1.  Teferi & Newman (2017) studied the sustainability of slum settlements in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia and the impact of various housing improvement strategies on liveability and sustainability.  Included in their research were a number of participatory evaluation methods that included the collection of both qualitative and quantitative data.  One of the aims was to use the SDGs as a framework for the study.  A key outcome of the study was to employ an organic model as opposed to modernist model of housing improvement which is a more community centric and participatory (Teferi & Newman 2017).  The experience of this study demonstrates that participatory evaluation techniques are being used to report on target 11.1 with participatory methods recommended as a result of this to inform further work toward improving housing quality.  However, as participatory evaluation methods are increasing in development work more broadly (Janoušková, Hák & Moldan 2018), it is unclear to what degree the work by UN Habitat and the United Nations Statistical Commission has influenced these processes and recommendations

Conclusion

In the 4 years since the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals, there has been a sustained focus on improving the monitoring and evaluation framework for the goals.  Building on the lessons learnt from the MDGs, where significant weaknesses were identified in the evaluation framework, the UN and its agencies, particularly the Statistical Division, have invested considerable effort to ensure there is sufficient capacity to effectively monitor and evaluate the indicators for the goals.  Key to this effort has been limiting the number of indicators for each target and ensuring national ownership.  These changes represented a significant departure from the MDGs.  UN Habitat, who has been a key player in the development of goal 11, published a monitoring framework which aimed to standardise the evaluation process however has been complicated by UN Habitat’s approach of merging the SDG framework with the CPI tool it has previous developed. Whilst national ownership of the evaluation framework, which has been largely driven by the UN Statistical Commission, has some benefits, issues persist such as capacity constraints on local statistical offices and political tensions between different levels of government.  These issues are exacerbated for goal 11 which requires significant local monitoring and implementation of the goals with studies showing the large gaps that exist in the capacity of cities to effectively report on the goals, particularly for target 11.1.  Participatory development has also been a focus in the evaluation frameworks with some evidence suggesting that participatory evaluation methods have been used to help evaluate progress towards target 11.1.  Despite investments by the UN and its agencies in create frameworks 201and resources to aid in the effective monitoring and evaluation, up to date data on target 11.1 has been limited with the latest data being published in 2016.  Whilst early indicators suggest that some progress is being made to effectively evaluate progress toward achieving the goals, the number of gaps that still remain in local, national and international systems restricts the effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation of target 11.1 which results in slower progress to achieving better housing quality for the some of the world’s most vulnerable people.

See Also

UN Habitat – The leading United Nations body for overseeing the implementation of SDG 11

City Prosperity Initiative – By UN Habitat

Report: Performance of Microdesalination Devices in Off-Grid Rural Settings

Youth Participation in International Development – Literature Review

Go Ethical – A hub, developed by Thoughts for the Thinkers, to promote ethical and sustainable ideas to help stop climate change, reduce poverty and promote ethical practices.

Further Reading

Note: Maintaining a website is expensive! To help cover the costs, links marked with an (*) contain affiliate links. That means if you choose to make a purchase after clicking the link, I may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

From Millenium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals – Kobena Hanson, Korbla, Puplampu & Timothy Shaw

An Introduction to Sustainable Development – Peter Rogers, Kazi Jalal & John Boyd

* Sustainable World: Urbanization – Rob Bowden

References

Arslan, T, Durak, S & Aytac, D 2016, ‘Attaining SDG11: Can Sustainability Assessment Tools be Used for Improved Transformation of Neighbourhoods in Historic City Centers?’ Natural Resources Forum, vol. 40, pp. 180-202.

Du Plessis, A 2017, ‘The Readiness of South African Law and Policy for the Pursuit of Sustainable Development Goal 11’, Law, Democracy and Development, vol. 21, pp. 239-262.

Jacob A 2017, ‘Mind the Gap: Analyzing the Impact of Data Gap in Millennium Development Goals’ (MDGs) Indicators on the Progress Toward MDGs’, World Development, vol. 93, pp. 260-278.

Janoušková, S, Hák, T & Moldan, B 2018, ‘Global SDGs Assessments: Helping or Confusing Indicators?’, Sustainability, vol. 10, pp. 1-14.

Klopp, J & Petretta, D 2017, ‘the Urban Sustainable Development Goal: Indicators, Complexity and the Politics of Measuring Cities’, Cities, vol. 63, pp. 92-97.

Rugg, D 2016, ‘The Role of Evaluation at the UN and in the new Sustainable Development Goals: Towards the Future We Want’, Global Policy, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 426-430.

Simon, D, Arfvidsson, H, Anand, G, Bazaz, A, Fenna, G, Foster, K, Jain, G, Hansson, S, Marix, E, Nishendra, M, Byambuga, C, Oloko, M, Chandi Ombara, D, Patel, Z, Perry, B, Primo, N, Revi, A, Van Niekerk, B, Wharton A & Wright, C 2015, ‘Developing and Testing the Urban Sustainable Development Goal’s Targets and Indicators – A Five-city Study’, Environment & Urbanization, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 49-63.

Teferi, Z & Newman, P 2017, ‘Slum Regeneration and Sustainability: Applying the Extended Metabolism Model and the SDGs’, Sustainability, vol. 9, pp. 1-16.

Thrift, C & Bizikova L 2016, Bottom-up Accountability for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Are Indicator Systems Aligned? International Institute for Sustainable Development, viewed 12 September 2019, https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/bottom-up-accountability-sdgs-briefing-note.pdf

United Nations 2019, Sustainable Development Goals, viewed 9 September 2019, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

United Nations 2015, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, viewed 15 September 2019, https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf

United Nations Economic and Social Council 2019, Progress Towards the Sustainable Development Goals, 8 May 2019, E/2019/68.

United Nations General Assembly 2015, Resolution 70/1: Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, A/RES/70/1.

UN Habitat 2016, Sustainable Development Goal 11+ Make Cities and Human Settlements Inlcusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable: A Guide to Assist National and Local Governments to Monitor and Report on SDG Goal 11+ Indicators, viewed 14 September 2019, http://new.unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/download-manager- files/SDG%20Goal%2011%20Monitoring%20Framework.pdf

United Nations Human Settlements Programme 2019, UN Habitat for a Better Urban Future: About Us, viewed 15 September 2019, https://new.unhabitat.org/about-us

United Nations Statistics Division 2019, Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, viewed 13 September 2019, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Global%20Indicator%20Framework%20after%202019%20refinement_Eng.pdf

United Nations Statistics Division 2019, SDG Indicators: United Nations Global SDG Database, viewed 15 September 2019, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/

United Nations Statistics Division 2015, Technical Report by the Bureau of the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC) on the Process of the Development of an Indicator Framework for the Goals and Targets of the Post-2015 Development Agenda – Working Draft, viewed 10 September 2019, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/6754Technical%20report%20of%20the%20UNSC%20Bureau%20(final).pdf