Difference between revisions of "Sustainable Development Goal 1: No poverty"

From EcoliseWiki
Line 30: Line 30:
[[Category: Sustainable Development Goals]]
[[Category: Sustainable Development Goals]]
[[Category: Status Report]]
[[Category: Status Report]]
[[Category: Transferred to CfF wiki]]

Latest revision as of 19:21, 8 July 2021

The first Sustainable Development Goal addresses the need to "End Poverty in all its forms everywhere".[1].

Global Definition

See UN Global Assessments, Targets and Goals here [2]

Situation in the EU

SDG 1 'no poverty' calls for the eradication of extreme poverty and halving poverty in all its dimensions by 2030. This adds a more universal approach to poverty reduction which makes it directly relevant for the EU, for which the Europe 2020 strategy sets a target of 'lifting at least 20 million people out of the risk of poverty or social exclusion' by 2020 compared to 2008.

In the last five years, fewer people in the EU faced problems such as housing deprivation, overcrowding or severe material deprivation, although the levels of poverty have remained stable in recent years. In the long-term, the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion has declined, but not steadily. The number steeply increased following the onset of the economic crisis in 2008, which took the EU off its path to reach the Europe 2020 poverty target. Significant improvements can however be observed from 2012 onwards, when the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion started decreasing again. Despite this improvement, trends in the number of people at risk of income poverty and people living in households with very low work intensity point to a movement away from the sustainable development objectives over the last five years.

According to the 2017 EU assessment of progress towards SDG1, in 2015 nearly 120 million European citizens were at risk of poverty and social exclusion, almost 87 million were considered to have very low income and other 40 million unemployed or low work intensity and almost 38 million were suffering from material deprivation. Regarding basic need, nearly 11% of people are struggling to pay the house mortgage/rent, more than 15% live in poor dwelling conditions, 17% in overcrowded houses, almost 10% are not able to keep their home warm, and 2% lack any sanitary facilities. More than 3% of citizens above 16 years old cannot meet their medical care needs.[3]

Community-led Initiatives and SDG1

Community-Led Initiatives do have a strong impact in the implementation of, and going beyond, SDG1. The majority of CLI do consider that Poverty and Socially Exclusion is today mainly the result of an unsustainable socio-ecological and economic design, leading a large percentage of humanity to live without some fundamental basic conditions and rights. Most of the network members that are part of ECOLISE do strengthen the imagination of new ways of living on this Earth, based on the knowledge and experience that Nature in its healthy state is very "abundant" and humans thrive in a healthy community [4] [5]. At the same time many of these networks do foster principles of Sufficiency, inspiring and supporting people and communities that tend to live with too much (Voluntary or Radical Simplicity, Degrowth, among others) and enhancing productive capacity in territories where this is in fact too little (e.g., examples... Self-Sufficiency; ... ) [6][7]. Also, the community building and social inclusion is a key pilar of many networks, enhancing not only personal and collective development and health [8] but mainly fostering the transformation of the current collective culture [9]. Also, many of ECOLISE members initiatives did already implemented complementary (or alternative) currencies in order to create new economic realities at the local level, promoting an exchange of goods and services within the community, boosting jobs and increasing the financial resources at the local level [10][11], while integrating sustainability and regeneration design tweaks in this socio-economic innovations [12][13]. The localisation and decentralisation process promoted by most ECOLISE members do require the "reskiling" of local communities on the basic needs, such as house construction, energy production, water harvest and "humane" composting [14]. Also, many initiatives do promote repair shops and shares Do it Yourself protocols in many different topics allowing people and local communities to make the most of available resources and decreasing material deprivation and higher income. We can say ECOLISE members do explore innovative ways of creating sustainable livelihoods for local communities.

However, it is known that in Europe, as well as North America, most CLI members are mainly caucasians form middle and high socio-economic classes (Ref). Scientific studies have suggested that ... Nevertheless, the transition paradigm has been already noticed to create meaningful and sustainable livelihoods outside Europe (refs).

add: collective economy (paper Robert Hall)


Figure X. Indicators of the EU for SDG1 Source:[15].


  1. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg1
  2. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg1
  3. ADD REFERENCE HERE 2017: 15)
  4. ECOLISE. A community-led transition in Europe: Local action towards a sustainable, resilient, low-carbon future. (ECOLISE, 2017)
  5. Lo, K. Grassroots Environmentalism and Low-Carbon Cities. in Creating Low Carbon Cities (eds. Dhakal, S. & Ruth, M.) 43–50 (Springer International Publishing, 2017). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49730-3_5
  6. Vicens, J., 2017. Social Actions Transformed in a Post-Carbon Transition: The Case of Barcelona, in: Garcia, E., Martinez-Iglesias, M., Kirby, P. (Eds.), Transitioning to a Post-Carbon Society, International Political Economy Series. Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95176-5_12
  7. Garcia, E., Martinez-Iglesias, M., Kirby, P. (Eds.), 2017. Transitioning to a Post-carbon Society Degrowth, Austerity and Wellbeing. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95176-5
  8. Zywert, K., 2017. Human health and social-ecological systems change: Rethinking health in the Anthropocene. Anthr. Rev. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053019617739640
  9. Massoli, L., D’Ambrosi, L., 2014. Environmental Movements, Institutions and Civil Society: A New Way to Preserve Common Goods. Partecip. E COnflitto 7, 657–681. http://siba-ese.unisalento.it/index.php/paco/article/view/14350/12501
  10. Dacheux, E., Goujon, D., 2011. The solidarity economy: an alternative development strategy?: The solidarity economy. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 62, 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2011.01804.x
  11. Seyfang, G., Longhurst, N., 2013. Growing green money? Mapping community currencies for sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 86, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.11.003
  12. Argüelles, L., Anguelovski, I., Dinnie, E., 2017. Power and privilege in alternative civic practices: Examining imaginaries of change and embedded rationalities in community economies. Geoforum 86, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.08.013
  13. Fare, M., Ahmed, P.O., 2017. Complementary Currency Systems and their Ability to Support Economic and Social Changes. Dev. Change 48, 847–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12322
  14. Franklin, A., Newton, J., Middleton, J., Marsden, T., 2011. Reconnecting skills for sustainable communities with everyday life. Environ. Plan. A 43, 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1068/a426