Talk:SDG1

From Communities for Future wiki
Revision as of 10:40, 2 August 2021 by NaraPetrovic (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Note: This page has been copied from the old ECOLISE wiki -- as well as all other SDG pages. NaraPetrovic (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

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:

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


  • Key strategies:
    • Challenging purely material notion of poverty (thus drawing attention to prevalence of its non-material forms)
    • Attention to and action on non-material forms of capital
      • Social capital in ecovillages and degrowth
      • Regenerative enterprise
    • Specific strategies for improving/safeguarding material conditions:
      • More resilient production systems (e.g. in food, energy)
      • Sharing of income and resources
      • Community currencies
      • Localisation makes existing local poverty more visible, avoids (invisible) creation of poverty elsewhere

        --Gil Penha-Lopes (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

some of the solidarity economy studies I am currently working on might also be relevant, e.g. case studies of responses to austerity in Greece and the history as a reaction to systematic poverty in much of Latin America. Will add these when relevant. --Tom Henfrey (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


Interesting References

"This imaginary more often than not responds to neoliberal promises of individual freedom and autonomy and seems to undermine CBEs' more radical possibilities at the same time obscuring more diverse voices of transformation." (Arguelles et al, 2017) From a more nuanced perspective these community-based economies (CBEs) can be seen as examples of diverse economies growing outside common capitalist logics, recognizing their potential to bypass or even reconfigure dominant global trends." (Argüelles et al 2017:30)

"The challenge lies in implementing the ” transition paradigm” in poor communities in South Africa where most people are dependent on income from government grants. While many see the solution to poverty as job creation, the ” transition paradigm” explores innovative ways of creating sustainable livelihoods by harnessing unexplored assets of poor communities. The paper observes three existing communities in the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality with the objective of analysing how such models are integrated (or not) into the local economy. Thereafter aspects of a model that envisages ways that poor communities can create sustainable livelihoods, using local skills and resources, are presented. This model requires strategies for creating localised systems, including micro finance systems, local markets, community exchange networks, cooperative construction, production and distribution systems; and infrastructure and technology systems." (Cherry, 2014)

A case study of the Brighton and Hove Food Partnership "For BHFP, normalising sustainable food in the city region means ensuring that all aspects of the local food system (nutrition/cooking, growing, procurement, poverty/access, waste, distribution, retail, etc.) are transforming – BHFP is not happy with uneven progress. It also believes that normalising requires chronic issues, such as poverty, to be addressed with long-term solutions, which can only be achieved by working at different levels of the system (i.e. with individuals, communities and with policies) simultaneously." (Currant, 2015)

"The potential health and wellbeing co-benefits are directly relevant to the public health outcomes framework (Appendix 3.). Most domains link to the Transition Together / Transition Streets initiative. For example Domain 2: Tackling the wider determinants of ill health and factors which affect health and wellbeing, such as children in poverty, fuel poverty and social connectedness. This also links with excess seasonal mortality and mortality from chronic respiratory diseases in persons less than 75 years of age. Improved energy efficiency in homes could contribute significantly to this domain, particularly if targeted at those in fuel poverty. The potential social cohesion brought about by neighbours coming together through Transition Together could provide added benefit to enhance health and wellbeing." (Richardson et al 2012)

"In the final chapter in this section, Alexander discusses the question: How would an ordinary middle-class citizen deal with a lifestyle of radical simplicity? Radical simplicity, he states, does not mean poverty, which is involuntary and full of suffering and anxiety, and thus universally undesirable. Rather, it means a very low but biophysically sufficient material standard of living. His chapter directly addresses the issue of the “two types of austerity”, arguing that lifestyles of reduced consumption can be desirable if we negotiate the degrowth transition wisely, both as individuals and as communities. Indeed, it suggests that radical simplicity is exactly what consumer cultures need to shake themselves awake from their comfortable slumber, and that radical simplicity would be in our own, immediate, self-interest." (Vicens et al 2017)

"The economic dimension/impact of CBIs" (Celata and Sanna :17) "CBIs can indeed produce economic effects at different scales:" (Celata and Sanna :17) "Micro: potential benefits and costs to the individual participant and by extension to group members" (Celata and Sanna :17) "In terms of economic impacts, the literature shows that the majority of participants, when asked the most important reasons for joining CBIs, agreed "it was due to the financial savings" (Katzev 2003; Flachs 2010, p. 2) and impacts on income" (Celata and Sanna :18) "For car and bike sharing initiatives the financial savings are expected to be derived from "avoiding the cost of owning and operating a private vehicle or by making it unnecessary for people to purchase one"" (Celata and Sanna :18) "Community gardens and community farming, to give another example, deliver fresh, local, and often organic food at relatively low prices, consumers save money on comparable products available in shops." (Celata and Sanna :19) "The literature indicates that CBIs are felt to convey non-financial benefits - intangible factors such as improved health, better consumption patterns, increased physical activity, lack of stress, recreation, civic participation, etc." (Celata and Sanna :20)


References

  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
  15. ADD REFERENCE HERE