Committed to by world leaders at the UN Summit in New York, the 17 proposed goals and 169 targets aim to be a charter for people and the planet in the twenty-first century. Debated by civil society and UN member states for more than two years, the goals will stimulate action over the next 15 years in areas of critical importance to building a more equitable and sustainable world for all.

The aim of the SDGs is ambitious: End extreme poverty; fight inequality and injustice; fix climate change. In all countries, for all people. The goals come not a moment too soon: Climate change is rapidly becoming the greatest threat to poverty eradication and negatively affecting sustainable development efforts. If action is not taken to cut emissions and support communities to adapt to the changes, its impacts will only increase.

Ultimately, the SDGs will affect organisations and institutions of all shapes and sizes, from the European Union to municipalities and corporations, and engagement from a wide scale of actors will be crucial in shaping the future agenda. The playing field and the adoption of the SDGs mark a new era for both the public and private sectors to deepen and broaden their sustainability efforts. In comparison to their predecessors, the SDGs are much broader and more difficult to measure. However, they represent a bold move towards a more ambitious, yet more realistic and inclusive development agenda – a golden opportunity for governments, private enterprises and civil society to work together in tackling the biggest challenges on the planet.

Where the agenda of the predecessors, the Millennium Development Goals, was centred around actions by governments, the SDGs seek to involve a diverse range of actors – including, crucially, a more prominent role for the private sector.

Contributing to the SDG agenda can enhance one’s own goals and aspirations as an organization.  For the private sector, the SDGs can provide a more focused direction on how to boost the quality of sustainability goals, position them as commitments, and better communicate them in a credible and meaningful manner. Not to mention improving standards and mitigating risks along the supply chain. By striving to better integrate sustainability in its operation, Ikea has sparked transformational change in the market for commodities, namely cotton, and more efficient use of resources within its own supply chain. Partnering with the Better Cotton Initiative, Ikea not only improved the livelihoods of 43,000 farmers in South Asia but also significantly reduced the amounts of costly artificial fertilizers it used. This is inspiring news for anyone operating in the textile industry where pesticides and chemicals can account for up to 60 per cent of farming costs, and where forecasts see production costs increasing as conventional cotton farming becomes more water and chemical-intensive.

In the public realm, the SDGs can create a fine opportunity for goal-oriented policies that will improve the quality of democratic practices around the world. The SDGs are also likely to spur growth in the Results-based Financing model, in which a “payer” (a government, international donor, or a foundation for example) conditions its payment to a service provider (a private company or an NGO for example) on desired outcomes. Results-based financing bears great potential to improve the efficiency and quality of public services (and development aid in general) through greater private sector involvement and other benefits such as reduced corruption. Carbon markets are currently the biggest and most prominent form of Results-Based Financing within the realm of sustainable development. The lessons learned in carbon markets over the last 15 years, will play an important role in helping to expand this experience to other SDGs.

Women’s business
The stories of Comfort, Esther, and Hamida are commonplace across Africa, where the selling of street food has proliferated in the last 35 years, mainly due to urbanization and its effects.

On the one hand, increased commuting distances and fast urban living have driven demand for easily accessible ready-to-eat and cheap food amongst African urban dwellers.

On the other hand, the labour market has become more competitive, meaning marginalized social groups such as women and ethnic minorities struggle to find jobs because of a lack of education and professional skills. For these people, self-employment often becomes the only way to earn a living.

As street food vending requires little start-up capital and no formal education, it represents an ideal opportunity for women. With their cooking skills and kitchen utensils and the help of unpaid family members – in particular, young daughters and sisters – it is one of the easiest ways for them to be self-employed. This is the main reason why women dominate the street food vending business in most of Africa, apart from in countries where women’s economic activities are restricted.

Nutritious and safe street food
The FAO study in Accra has highlighted how street food vendors tend to operate in poorer areas of the city and near schools, meaning many poor children rely on them for nutrition. Thankfully, the overall hygiene and safety conditions under which street food is prepared in Accra have proven to be of an acceptable standard. This is despite street food vendors not being subject to food controls by public authorities.

Regardless, vendors have shown a real improvement in knowledge of hygiene, safety standards, food handling, and storage in recent years. Factors contributing to the improvement include rising levels of education and increased collaboration between local authorities and FAO.

In 2012-13, FAO teamed up with the Ghana Food and Drug Authority to conduct successful capacity-building sessions on handling and storage for selected food vendors. These sessions dealt with challenges such as poor infrastructure and lack of fresh water. More recently, in 2016, FAO trained 14 research assistants from the School of Public Health of the University of Ghana in “Mobile-Based Data Collection for Monitoring Street Food Vending in Urban Areas”. This training laid a great foundation in digital data collection techniques and methodology for Ghana’s future national food inspectors.

Finally, on the back of awareness campaigns targeting the general public, Ghana’s consumers have also become more knowledgeable and demanding, forcing vendors to adopt improved practices and higher hygiene standards to satisfy ever-greater public scrutiny.

The EU's food assistance ‘toolbox’ offers many ways of safeguarding the availability, access and consumption of safe and nutritious food at every stage of an emergency:

Before - In the months before a crisis when markets are still well stocked and functioning, it can be more effective and cheaper to provide cash or vouchers, rather than food. Doing this allows beneficiaries to buy food according to their individual needs, protect their livelihoods and boost the local economy.

During – Depending on the nature of the crisis, little food may be available in local markets during the crises themselves. In this case, it may be necessary to provide food commodities directly. If food is available, cash interventions are preferred to ensure access to basic needs, including food.

After - In other contexts, people can best be helped by protecting or supporting their existing livelihood activities (e.g. farming, livestock herding). This can be done, for example, by providing seeds and tools, or by delivering veterinary care, which allows people to continue to feed themselves and their families.

Ongoing – In places where acute undernutrition is widespread, the priority is to treat acutely undernourished children, and at the same time prevent other children and vulnerable people from becoming acutely undernourished.

However, to find real long-term solutions, undernutrition needs to be addressed from different angles and through a wider approach, for example by reducing public health risks by ensuring access to safe water or by improving mothers' knowledge and awareness about their children's health and nutritional needs.

The Beverage Model

Countries using the Beveridge plan or variations on it include Great Britain, Spain, most of Scandinavia and New Zealand. Cuba represents the extreme application of the Beveridge approach; it is probably the world’s purest example of total government control.

The Bismarck Model

Named for the Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck it uses an insurance system — the insurers are called “sickness funds” — usually financed jointly by employers and employees through payroll deduction.

Unlike the U.S. insurance industry, though, Bismarck-type health insurance plans have to cover everybody, and they don’t make a profit. Tight regulation gives the government much of the cost-control clout that the single-payer Beveridge Model provides.

The Bismarck model is found in Germany, of course, and France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, and, to a degree, in Latin America.

The National Health Insurance Model

This system has elements of both Beveridge and Bismarck. It uses private-sector providers, but payment comes from a government-run insurance program that every citizen pays into. Since there’s no need for marketing, no financial motive to deny claims and no profit, these universal insurance programs tend to be cheaper and much simpler administratively than American-style for-profit insurance.

The single-payer tends to have considerable market power to negotiate for lower prices. The classic NHI system is found in Canada, but some newly industrialized countries — Taiwan and South Korea, for example — have also adopted the NHI model.

The Out-of-pocket Model

Most of the nations on the planet are too poor and too disorganized to provide any kind of mass medical care. As a result, there is great inequality in provision. In rural regions of Africa, India, China and South America, hundreds of millions of people go their whole lives without ever seeing a doctor. Patients and their families are required to scratch together enough money to pay a doctor's bill. If they have nothing, they don’t get medical care

Source: Adapted from http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/health_care_systems_four_basic_models.php