India Achieves Milestone: Enters Top 100 in 2025 Global SDG Rankings
PTI India enters top 100 in SDG rankings for the first time
India has for the first time secured a place among the top 100 out of 167 countries ranked for their progress in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), according to a report published on Tuesday.
According to the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network's 10th and latest Sustainable Development Report (SDR), India ranks 99th on the 2025 SDG Index with a score of 67, while China ranks 49th with 74.4 and the US 44th with 75.2 points.
India ranked 109th in 2024, 112th in 2023, 121st in 2022, 120th in 2021, 117th in 2020, 115th in 2019, 112th in 2018 and 116th in 2017. Among India's neighbours, Bhutan takes 74th place with 70.5 points, Nepal ranks 85th with 68.6, Bangladesh 114th with 63.9 and Pakistan 140th with 57 points. India's maritime neighbours, Maldives and Sri Lanka, stood at 53rd and 93rd places, respectively.
The SGDs were adopted in 2015 with the idea that to save the planet, no one should be left behind in the overall development matrix by 2030. The score measures progress on a scale of 0 to 100 where 100 indicates a country has achieved all 17 goals and 0 means no progress has been made. The report's authors flagged that SDG progress has stalled at the global level, with only 17 per cent of the 17 targets projected to be achieved by 2030. "Conflicts, structural vulnerabilities and limited fiscal space impede SDG progress in many parts of the world," said the report, with world-renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs as its lead author.
European countries, especially the Nordic nations, continue to top the SDG Index, with Finland ranking first, Sweden second and Denmark third. A total of 19 out of the top 20 countries are in Europe. Yet even these countries face significant challenges in achieving at least two goals, including those related to climate and biodiversity, largely due to unsustainable consumption, the authors said. East and South Asia have outperformed all other global regions in terms of SDG progress since 2015 largely due to rapid socioeconomic development. The countries in East and South Asia that have demonstrated the fastest progress since 2015 (in points) include Nepal (+11.1), Cambodia (+10), the Philippines (+8.6), Bangladesh (+8.3) and Mongolia (+7.7). The other countries showing rapid progress among their peers include Benin (+14.5), Peru (+8.7), the United Arab Emirates (+9.9), Uzbekistan (+12.1), Costa Rica (+7) and Saudi Arabia (+8.1). Though only 17 per cent of the targets are on track to be achieved worldwide, most UN member states have made strong progress on targets related to access to basic services and infrastructure, including mobile broadband use (SDG 9), access to electricity (SDG 7), internet use (SDG 9), under-five mortality rate (SDG 3) and neonatal mortality (SDG 3). Five targets show significant reversals in progress since 2015. These are obesity rate (SDG 2), press freedom (SDG 16), sustainable nitrogen management (SDG 2), the Red List Index (SDG 15) and the Corruption Perceptions Index (SDG 16). The report said the top three countries most committed to the UN multilateralism are Barbados (1), Jamaica (2) and Trinidad and Tobago (3). Among G20 nations, Brazil (25) ranks highest, while Chile (7) leads among the OECD countries. The United States, which recently withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization (WHO) and formally declared its opposition to the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda, ranks last (193rd) for the second year in a row. The report, which comes ahead of the fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in Seville, Spain, (June 30-July 3) noted the global financial architecture (GFA) is broken.
"Money flows readily to rich countries and not to the emerging and developing economies (EMDEs) that offer higher growth potential and rates of return. At the top of the agenda at FfD4 is the need to reform the GFA so that capital flows in far larger sums to the EMDEs," it said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
What is the legality of U.S. strikes on Iran?
The story so far: On June 22, U.S. President Donald Trump launched military strikes on Iran, joining its ally Israel in efforts to derail Iran's nuclear programme, which both countries claim is approaching weapons production. Iran retaliated the following day with missile attacks on Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command. After nearly two weeks of escalating hostilities, Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. What is a lawful exercise of self-defence? The UN Charter, under Article 2(4), prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in narrowly defined circumstances — a claim of self-defence under Article 51 or with the UN Security Council's (UNSC) authorisation. The restrictive interpretation, grounded in the text of Article 51, permits self-defence only in response to an armed attack that is already under way. A more permissive interpretation allows for self-defence in response to an armed attack that is imminent. This broader interpretation, often referred to as anticipatory self-defence, has been endorsed in several UN-affiliated reports. Notably, the 2004 report of the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change affirmed that 'a threatened State, according to long-established international law, can take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it, and the action is proportionate'. These criteria are derived from the famous Caroline case, which established that the use of force is lawful only when the need for self-defence is 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'. Over time, many states have argued that the Caroline standard is too rigid to address contemporary security threats. This has led to attempts to reinterpret and expand the notion of imminence, giving rise to the controversial doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. Under this doctrine, a state may use force not only in response to an attack that is imminent but also during what is perceived as the 'last window of opportunity' to neutralise a threat posed by an adversary with both the intent and capability to strike. The U.S. has been a leading proponent of this doctrine, invoking it to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 'Pre-emptive self-defence lacks the requisite state practice and opinio juris to qualify as customary international law. States are generally reluctant to endorse its legality, as the absence of an imminent threat renders the doctrine highly susceptible to misuse,' Prabhash Ranjan, Professor at Jindal Global Law School, told The Hindu. Did Iran pose an 'imminent' threat? The U.S. has not submitted an Article 51 notification to the UNSC declaring its strikes on Iran as self-defence. However, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described them as a precision operation to neutralise 'threats to national interest' and an act of 'collective self-defence' of U.S. forces and its ally, Israel. Tehran has maintained that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes and remains under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, on June 12, the UN nuclear watchdog passed a resolution accusing Iran of violating its non-proliferation obligations, while noting that inspectors have been unable to confirm whether the programme is 'exclusively peaceful'. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard initially told Congress that while Iran had stockpiled materials, it was not actively building a nuclear weapon. However, she later warned that Iran could do so 'within weeks,' after President Trump claimed Iran could develop one 'within months.' Dr. Ranjan noted that the criteria for determining an 'imminent threat' remain highly contested, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has never ruled on the legality of anticipatory self-defence or pre-emptive strikes. 'For the U.S. to credibly invoke pre-emptive self-defence, it must present clear evidence of both Iran's intent and capability to strike in the near future. This is a difficult threshold to meet, given that Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon,' he said. He added that ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations indicate that diplomatic means were still available. What about collective self-defence? Under Article 51 of the Charter, Israel can call on the assistance of its allies to exercise collective self-defence against an attack. 'Israel's strikes on Iran, framed as pre-emptive action against perceived nuclear threats, are legally suspect. This, in turn, casts doubt on the legitimacy of any claim to collective self-defence,' Dr. Ranjan said. Israel has also sought to justify its military offensive as part of an 'ongoing armed conflict,' citing a history of attacks by groups like Hamas and the Houthis, which it claims act as Iranian proxies. However, to legally sustain this argument, Israel must meet the 'effective control' test set by the ICJ in Nicaragua versus U.S. (1986). This is a high threshold to meet since it requires proof that Iran exercises 'overall control' over these groups beyond merely funding or arming them. What are the implications? Allowing states to invoke pre-emptive self-defence would effectively grant powerful nations the licence to unilaterally use force based on mere conjecture. This would further weaken the already fragile rules-based international order. It is, therefore, crucial to resist expanding legal definitions of what constitutes an imminent threat, particularly when punitive action by the UNSC against permanent members like the U.S. remains unlikely due to their veto power.
NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
Religious Sites In Mumbai Now "Loudspeaker-Free": Top Cop
Mumbai: Mumbai Police Commissioner Deven Bharti on Saturday asserted that the city is now entirely free of directional loudspeakers after its personnel successfully completed a comprehensive crackdown on public address systems at all religious structures. "All loudspeakers from religious structures have been removed. Mumbai is now loudspeaker-free from all religious structures," Bharti told PTI. The police commissioner, refuting claims of selective targeting, made it clear that religious structures of a particular community had not been singled out and stressed that the operation was conducted methodically, in line with the Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis's directive for proper and non-arbitrary action. "We engaged in deliberations with community and religious leaders and also political party leaders and prevailed upon them," Bharti explained, highlighting the collaborative approach taken before implementing the measures. This action follows an order issued by the Bombay High Court in January this year, in which the police were directed to take prompt action against loudspeakers violating noise pollution norms and rules. The high court reiterated that the use of loudspeakers is not considered an essential part of any religion. Commenting about the scale of the operation, the police chief said, "We have removed around 1,500 directional loudspeakers from religious structures across the city. The police will also ensure that such loudspeakers are not put up again." While the ban on permanent loudspeakers is now in effect, the police commissioner clarified that temporary permissions for the use of loudspeakers will be granted during religious festivals. The high court, in its order, had noted that noise was a major health hazard and no one can claim that their rights are affected in any manner if he or she is denied permission to use loudspeakers. Mumbai was a cosmopolitan city, and obviously, there were persons of different religions in every part of the city, the court had said. The court order was passed on a petition by two housing associations from suburban Kurla - Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association and Shivsrushti Co-op. Housing Societies Association Ltd. - alleging police inaction against noise pollution caused by loudspeakers installed on masjids in the area. The petitioners contended that the use of loudspeakers for religious purposes, including the recitation of 'Azaan,' disturbed the peace and violated the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, as well as provisions under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
Delhi To See Its First-Ever Artificial Rain To Combat Air Pollution In July
New Delhi: In a first for the national capital, Delhi is set to witness artificial rain aimed at reducing air pollution, with cloud seeding scheduled between July 4 and 11, subject to weather conditions, Delhi Environment Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa said on Saturday. The flight plan for the seeding operation has been submitted by IIT Kanpur to IMD Pune for technical coordination, Sirsa told PTI. "Conditions are not suitable for cloud seeding until July 3, but a flight window has been proposed between July 4 and 11," Sirsa said. He added that a proposal has also been sent to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), requesting an alternative window in case the weather remains unfavourable during the scheduled period so that the trial can be conducted at a later date. "This initiative marks a historic step in urban pollution control and is being carried out for the first time by the Environment Department under Chief Minister Rekha Gupta's leadership," Sirsa said. "Our aim is to give Delhiites clean air," he emphasised, asserting that it's the most basic right of every resident, and the government is exploring every possible solution to achieve it. "That's why we're taking this bold step of artificial rain. We are hopeful it will bring meaningful change," he added. In response to the accusations from AAP Delhi chief Saurabh Bharadwaj on Friday, who claimed that the BJP and the Centre hindered the city's pollution-control efforts and mocked the proposal for artificial rain during peak winter pollution, Sirsa clarified, "We were the ones who signed the MoU first, made all the payments to IIT Kanpur, and applied for the necessary approvals because we want to take real action." "They didn't do anything except talk about artificial rain. We, on the other hand, have worked sincerely. That's why, within just four months of forming the government, we are at the stage of finalising the date for Delhi's first artificial rain," he added. The project, titled 'Technology Demonstration and Evaluation of Cloud Seeding as an Alternative for Delhi NCR Pollution Mitigation,' will involve five aircraft sorties over low-security air zones in northwest and outer Delhi. Each sortie, lasting around 90 minutes, will cover approximately 100 square kilometres, dispersing a scientifically formulated seeding mixture using flare-based systems on modified Cessna aircraft. The formulation, developed by IIT Kanpur, includes silver iodide nanoparticles, iodised salt, and rock salt, designed to catalyse artificial rain by accelerating droplet formation in moisture-rich clouds.
