Whose SDGs and Who’s Making Them Happen?: Insights from Women in Uganda

Abstract

This Feminist Participatory Action Research project with a cohort of women in Uganda explored how they understood the SDGs in relationship to their lived realities. A postcolonial feminist lens was used to engage with critical ethnographic policy theoretical perspective to consider the research questions: 1) Which SDGs are the most important to you? 2) What do unrealized SDGs look like in your context? 3) What would realize goals look like and what would it take to achieve them?; 4) Who is responsible for achieving the SDGs? Participants had had no prior knowledge of the SDGs but once introduced to them the participants ranked SDG1: No Poverty and SDG4: Quality Education as the highest in importance to them, followed by SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being, SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, SDG: 10: Reduced Inequalities, and SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production. Participants expressed the implications of unrealized SDGs in their lives as well as the transformative change realized SDGs would bring. They also shared their thoughts on how the SDGs could be achieved in their context. The study recommends that those who are meant to benefit most from the SDGs be consulted on how to achieve them.

1. Introduction

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are meant to “…[end] poverty and other deprivations …[through] strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth” [1]. Presumably, those who are most impacted by poverty, inequality, and injustices should be prioritized within all elements—including development, implementation, accountability, assessment, and revised strategies—of the SDGs. However, are the people whose quality of life and opportunities would be most improved by the SDGs even aware they exist? Have they been consulted on what achievement of the goals might look like for them and how they might be achieved? Have they experienced positive changes they can attribute to the SDGs? What do they perceive as obstacles towards achieving the SDGs?

Drawing upon stages four (2018) and six (2022–2023)—of a longitudinal study (2004) with a cohort of women in Uganda who attended secondary school together, this chapter discusses which SDGs they believed to be unrealized, what the realization of these goals would look like, what they believe is required to move from unrealized to realized goals, and who they believe is responsible for working towards the realization of the goals. The research questions were: (1) Which SDGs are the most important to you? (2) What do unrealized goals look like in your context? (3) What would realize goals look like and what would it take to achieve them?; (4) Who is responsible for working towards the realization of these goals?

2. The SDGs

The SDGs are intended to unite nations of the world in a collaborative undertaking to

end poverty and hunger everywhere; to combat inequalities within and among countries; to build peaceful, just, and inclusive societies; to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls; and to ensure the lasting protection of the planet and its natural resources. We resolve also to create conditions for sustainable, inclusive and sustained economic growth, shared prosperity, and decent work for all, taking into account different levels of national development and capacities (Agenda 2030, p. 3)

Given that the goals seek to achieve equality, social justice, and a healthy planet, the Agenda is responding to the reality that serious, deprivations and inequalities exist throughout the world.

Many of these deprivations (such as lack of adequate food, shelter, clean water, protection, education, and health care) are not simply “unfortunate circumstances”, but in fact constitute violations of basic human rights. Thus, it would seem to be the priority focus of the goals, demanding prioritized, and collaborative action for their immediate remediation. However, problematically, the SDGs have been conceived as “development goals” as opposed to human rights goals:

[there is a] deep tension between presenting moral ambitions in the language of (human) rights and presenting them in the language of (development) goals. The development goals discourse invites an incremental approach to overcome deprivations: we have a certain distance to traverse, and so we set off towards our destination and approach it step-by-step. The human rights discourse, by contrast, suggests that deprivations must be ended right away. ([2], p. 2)

The kind of ambitious transformation necessary to achieve the SDGs and respond to human rights violations would require a radical shift in global power structures – economic and political – and a redistribution of wealth so that the rights of all human beings could be met [3, 4, 5]. Yet, consideration and confrontation of historical as well as extant phenomena, practices, and attitudes – such as colonialism, unfair trade, exploitation by multinationals of labour and resources of poorer countries, “tied aid”, problematic and rapacious development programs, and crippling debt-servicing by developing countries – that have contributed to and/or caused extreme poverty, destruction of culture, and desecration of the environment in some countries whilst privileging globally dominant cultures, languages, knowledges, and over others are absent from Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. Instead, the “…big countries, international financial institutions, transnational corporations and even international NGOSs that have produced and reproduced inequalities in income, wealth and power at national an global levels [are] cause the very problems the SDGs are trying to solve” ([5], p. 19; see also [6]). As Esquivel [3] states, “…power relations are the big elephant in the room of Agenda 2030” ([3], p. 12).

Furthermore, despite claiming to be a “supremely ambitious and transformational vision” for the world, The Agenda and the SDGs have no teeth. The Agenda is a non-binding intergovernmental agreement reliant upon the voluntary implementation of the SDGs. The “how” and “who” with respect to responsibility for implementation, resourcing, and accountability are glaringly absent [2, 3, 4, 5]. Without a clear designation of responsibilities for fulfilling specific actions on the path to achieving the SDGs, they are bound to flounder. Unsurprisingly, the recent assessment of progress towards the SDGs is lamentable, as conveyed by the UN Secretary of State in the SDG Progress Report Special Edition (May 2023):

It’s time to sound the alarm. At the mid-way point on our way to 2030, the SDGs are in deep trouble. A preliminary assessment of the roughly 140 targets with data shows only about 12% are on track; close to half, though showing progress, are moderately or severely off track and some 30% have either seen no movement or regressed below the 2015 baseline ([7], p. 2).

Lack of accountability suggests that dominant actors within the neoliberal, global capitalist economic system that perpetuate and exacerbate global inequality eschew concessions of their power and privilege that would be necessary in order to realize the vision of Agenda 2030.

Another criticism of the goals is the lack of attention that has been given to gender-specific issues that render women and girls disproportionately disadvantaged, oppressed, and marginalized. The causes, nature of, and consequences of poverty for girls and women and the particular ways in which poverty intersects with opportunities, status, societal participation, education, and power and has been shaped by colonial histories as well as traditional, patriarchal cultures have not been addressed in the SDGs [3, 5]. Although SDG 5: Gender Equality speaks broadly to the need for gender justice, it does not openly articulate ways in which common themes of gender inequality prevalent throughout the world need to be addressed. Furthermore, even though there is a reference to the need for “‘women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life” (Target 5.5):

there is a clear problem with this target which mean it will prove to be empty rhetoric. Women’s full and effective participation and leadership are not only dependent on women’s own effort and interest in coming to the national and international negotiating tables and having equal opportunities to men to participate…but also on access to the resources that act as preconditions for participation (money, time, confidence, and education among them), and on the existence of concrete mechanisms for promoting women’s participation [3, 8].

3. The Ugandan context

Uganda shares a poverty pattern of colonialism, indebtedness to international financial institutions (e.g., the International Monetary Fund (IMF)), Structural Adjustment Programs (conditions placed by IMF and the World Bank on countries with outstanding loans to liberalize the economy, privatize, and reduce the role of the state in the economy, across sectors, including healthcare and education [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]), aid-dependency and “tied aid” which “can increase the costs of a development project by as much as 15 to 30 percent” [15], and multinational “plundering” of resources [16, 17] as well as committing human rights and environmental crimes [18] that are shared by so many other LICs.

Uganda was a British Protectorate from 1894 to 1962. After “gaining independence” in 1962, Uganda accrued enormous debt from loans through the IMF and due to global market upheavals during the 1980s [13] was forced to adhere to spending priorities and cuts (in such areas as health, education, and other social programs) through Structural Adjustment Programs to try and repay them. Although, like many other African and Low-Income Countries (LICs) throughout the world. Uganda is rich in resources such as gold, oil, tungsten, tin, copper, limestone, and iron [19], and it is considered the “bread basket of Africa” because of its fertile lands and good growing climate for crops, yet it remains a LIC and is one the 39 Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) [20]. As of March 2023, Uganda’s Outstanding Purchases and Loans (SDR) amounted to 812.25 million USD [21]. These globally-centred economic issues as well as state governance issues (ref) have contributed enormously to the persistent poverty experienced by the majority of Uganda’s citizens:

Poverty is a significant challenge in Uganda, and natural resource use and exploitation has a significant impact on the densely populated country. A majority of the population still face a lack of education, health services, and poor living standards ([22], n.p.)

Amidst these various challenges and lingering legacies, Uganda adopted the SDGs in 2015 and has purportedly been “steadfast in its efforts to realize the aspirations of her people” [23]. Aligned with the “human rights” foundation of the Agenda, Uganda is a signatory to many international documents committed to upholding human rights such as: The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ratified in 1987), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified in 1995), and The Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified in 1990). As stated in the Government of Uganda White Paper [24]: “…the provision of shelter, clothing, education, health care, freedom of expression and communication, the citizens’ right to property and to control adequately and benefit from the products of their labour…and rule of law for all citizens” as basic human rights for all Ugandan citizens (p. 6) and in the Uganda Vision 2040: “Ugandans aspire to live and work in a peaceful, secure, harmonious and stable country, and at peace with its neighbors, where the rule of law prevails and respect for fundamental human rights is observed” ([25], p. 9).

As part of its commitment to human rights, Uganda has also made explicit commitments to gender equality: it is a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (ratified in 1985), has a Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, and has developed policies such as the National Gender Policy (2007), and the Gender in Education Sector Policy (2016). Yet, gender inequality remains hugely problematic in Uganda in multifarious areas – girls and women suffer from a lack of the same opportunities for education, employment, wages, and freedom of movement, as well as from domestic violence, sexual abuse, child marriage and pregnancy, and poverty. With respect to SDG monitoring processes for SDG 5: Gender Equality, “As of [D]ecember 2020, only 42.6% of indicators needed to monitor the SDGs from a gender perspective were available, with gaps in key areas…” [26].

As Ugandan economist Dr. John Ddumba-Ssentamu [27] remarked, “One of the more underappreciated aspects of any sustainable development agenda is the nation’s collective mindset. It’s individuals, communities, and institutions who build the necessary confidence to pursue complex and challenging solutions to their problems” (n.p.).

4. Theoretical framework

Although Agenda 2030 and the SDGs constitute a “shared blueprint” and “plan of action” [1] and are not policies per se, this study used a postcolonial feminist lens to engage with critical ethnographic policy theoretical perspectives to explore how the participants read and understood the SDGs in relationship to their lived realities. This theoretical approach is germane to understanding the impact of the SDGs and the Agenda with respect to the lives of those who are meant to benefit from them.

Postcolonial feminism acknowledges the diverse, multiple, and heterogeneous contexts and experiences of gender inequality (and all inequality) constructed and situated within cultural, economic, historical and geopolitical realms, and identifies, exposes, and challenges the colonial and patriarchal structures of power and dominance that have caused and perpetuate inequality [5, 28, 29, 30, 31]. Postcolonial feminism insists that researchers and scholars – especially white, Western, and feminist researchers and scholars – acknowledge their own relational positionality with respect to intersections of power and privilege and commit to authentic representation of the participants’ voices as well as the limitations that arise when representing the voices whose positionalities are fundamentally different – historically, geographically, economically, socially, culturally, and politically – than theirs. With this attention and commitment to positionality, there is the potential to support a global feminist project that unites the interests of feminists worldwide to work towards equality and well-being for all: “Feminist solidarity becomes possible when First World feminists can use the experiences and perspectives of the poorest women in the world to envision, and collaborate with them in producing, a just society” ([31], pp. 235–244).

A critical ethnographic approach to policy research seeks to gain understanding into the intersectional complexities of individuals’ lives as well as possible shared experiences and how/if policies effectively respond to them in order to help individuals overcome and remove barriers and expose power differentials that perpetuate injustices: “…[there is] emphasis on relations of power, on cultural practices that affect policy interpretations, and on sustained engagement with residents in a local setting” ([32], p. 175). Ethnographic policy research is also highly participatory and oriented around the lived experiences of individuals [32]: “Ethnography can bring a ‘critical’ contribution to policy studies, not only by furnishing information that cannot be obtained with other methods, but also by challenging the taken-for-grantedness at work in, and (re)produced by, public policies” ([33], p. 463).

Combined, research that combines postcolonial, feminist and critical ethnographic approaches to policy analysis considers policies (or similar documents/directives) by exploring how they have or have not impacted the lives of those they are primarily intended to benefit and if they have merit and are well-aligned to real situations [33, 34].

5. Methodology

This longitudinal study employs an ethnographical, postcolonial Feminist Participatory Action Research (FPAR) methodological approach. Ethnographic inquiry investigates the complex layers of lived experiences of participants where their contextualized “emic” (insider) knowledge informs that of “etic” (outsider) researcher to inform understanding of relevance, effectiveness, and evaluation of policy [35]. Feminist Participatory Action Research (FPAR) methodology, which is a de-colonizing approach that positions participants as experts of their own contexts and acknowledges their experiences and insights as essential to explore and address the issue under investigation [36, 37, 38] and taking action to bring about positive change in their lives [39, 40].

An ethnographic, postcolonial, feminist methodology seeks out and contemplates complex intersections of social, economic, cultural, and political factors and influences – locally, regionally, and globally – both to acknowledge divergent knowledges and experiences as well as to identify patterns and themes that prevail within and across diverse contexts [5]. Aligned with Mohanty’s [41] assertion that there is an “…urgent political necessity of forming strategic coalitions across class, race, and national boundaries” (p. 61), an ethnographical, postcolonial FPAR methodology offers fruitful, respectful, collaborative, and meaningful ways that researchers and participants can work together collaboratively to understand topics under consideration. An ethnographic, postcolonial, FPAR research approach requires, foremost, a relationship of trust and reciprocity and acknowledgement of positionality (and what that means in terms of power, privilege, vulnerability, and incentive). Through reflection and discussion of challenges and injustices, opportunities arise for imagining ways to reconstruct the nature of systemic oppression and inequality and work towards a more just society [42].

6. Positionality

As a white, female researcher from a High-Income Country (Canada), I acknowledge, reflect upon, and seek to understand myriad ways in which neoliberal and colonial systems and ideologies have both benefited me whilst disadvantaging others. Intersections of race (whiteness), privilege, and social location position me with the potential to have more power, voice, influence, and opportunities than women whose positionalities are impacted by intersections of, for example, racialization, extreme poverty, exploitation, discrimination, and oppression. I acknowledge my “etic” position with respect to the Ugandan women with whom I work live within conditions of extreme financial hardship as well as multiple forms of contextual gender-based disadvantage that I have not experienced. I cannot “know” what they know and have experienced; I can only relay as accurately as I can what they have shared with me, so that it can be shared more broadly. Their reflections upon, and insights into the realities of daily life in a low income, previously colonized, aid-dependent country within a neoliberal global economy need to be more broadly understood throughout the world if authentic transformative change, such as achievement of the SDGs., is going to happen. I understand this as my role as a researcher: contributing to a global, postcolonial, feminist project that is concerned with the promotion of global gender justice.

6.1 Ethical considerations

Ethics approval pertaining to the stages of the longitudinal study considered in this chapter was obtained from Royal Roads University in Canada and Makerere University and Mbarara University of Science and Technology in Uganda. Research permits were obtained from the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. The study was explained to the participants in both English and Luganda, and the participants were made aware that they were free to decline to participate, and that they were able to withdraw from the study at any time. All individuals who were contacted about the study agreed to participate and signed consent forms.

6.2 The study

This chapter reports on findings from stages 4 (2018), 5 (2022), and 6 (2023) of a longitudinal which focuses on education and its impact on the lives of girls and women over time. This longitudinal case study began in 2004 as my doctoral research that examined challenges and opportunities for girls related to secondary schooling in a rural Ugandan context, as well as the ways in which education impacted their emerging identities (AUTHOR). The 15 girls who participated in the study were at that time 15 to 18 years old. The fourth stage of the study, conducted in May 2018, involved 13 of the original 15 participants and explored the participants’ perceptions of the role of post-secondary education has played in their lives as well as how they interpreted the SDGs in relation to their lives. The sixth stage of the study (2022–2023) explored their understandings and experiences of, and strategies for resiliency and empowerment, particularly in times of crisis. During this study, we also revisited the SDGs to reflect upon whether, in their opinion, any progress had been made towards achieving them as relevant to their lives.

7. Methods

An ethnographic, multimodal [43, 44] approach was used to generate data that captured multiple facets and complexities of the broad social context, as well as the unique aspects of the participants’ lives and provide for triangulated analysis. Ethnographic methods included video-captured Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), participant observation, and multimodal activities. Multimodality conceives of meaning-making through a wide range of semiotic modes such as images, gestures, and sounds [43]. As an approach to research, multimodality enables and encourages participants to share their ideas in creative and interactive ways in response to prompts, such as questions. What is produced – the “signs” – by those communicating meaning- the “sign-makers” – generates opportunities for others to consider and interact with the meaning expressed by the signs [43, 45]. Signs offer communicative opportunities beyond the typically dominant forms of text and speech (especially in formal settings) and thus open up space of discourse to include voices that are often excluded.

8. Processes

In Stage 4 (2018) the participants participated in a two-day workshop, documented through photographs, video-recorded FGDs, and visual representations of responses to questions. During the first day of the workshop, I introduced the 17 SDGs to the participants. Each participant was provided with the UN SDG poster and we discussed the main targets of each (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1.

United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs).

Figure 2.

Participants discussing SDGs of most importance to them.

Following this, the participants formed three teams (two with four members, and one with five members) and each team determined the three SDGs that were most important to them. The members of each team then collaborated on drawings that depicted: 1) what these goals looked like as unrealized; 2) what a realization of these goals would look like; and 3) what would be necessary to achieve these goals. The teams presented their drawings to each other (Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 3.

Participants’ drawings and ideas about, in their context, what unrealized SDGs look like, what participants think it would take to achieve the SDGs, and SDGs realized.

Figure 4.

Participants’ reflections on SDGs.

On Day 2 of the workshop, we reviewed the SDGs, as well as the teams’ drawings. We then engaged in in-depth discussions about the goals they had selected, which are reported on in the Findings section below. During Stage 6 of the study, six of the participants from Stage 4 of the study participated in a focus group discussion during which we reviewed the SDGs and discussed additional thoughts they had on them 5 years later. This discussion was videorecorded for transcription purposes.

9. Analysis

I approached analysis using interpretive policy analysis [34, 35, 46], constructivist grounded theory [47], and triangulation [48]. The research questions constituted thematic parameters within which data was processed. Data from the workshop – drawings, presentations, and group discussions – were documented through video recordings, photographs, and observational notes and then coded and categorized. Individual interviews and questionnaires were similarly coded and categorized to explore intersections of triangulation. From the coded and categorized data, key themes emerged. The findings were member-checked with the participants as a further element of validation.

10. Findings

10.1 Stage 4 (2018)

The SDGs that the participants identified as most important to them are depicted in the table below. SDG 1: No Poverty, SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being, and SDG 4: Quality Education received the most emphasis, followed by SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, and SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production (Table 1).

Team	#1 importance	#2 importance	#3 importance
1	1- No poverty	3 – Good health and well-being	8 – Decent work and economic growth
2	4- Quality education	12 - Responsible consumption and production	10 – Reduced inequalities
3	1 – No poverty	4- Quality education	3 - Good health and well-being

Table 1.

SDGs of importance to participants.

I will discuss the three SDGs (1, 3, and 4) selected by two teams in more detail below, and then briefly summarize key points of the 3 SDGs (8, 10, and 12) that were selected once (Table 2).

Unrealized	Realized	How to get there
Insufficient food, water Lack of decent shelter Lack of money for education, hospitals, medical care Lack of decent employment opportunities	Sufficient food, water Nice home, car Ability to afford quality education for children Access to good and affordable medical care	To get good hospitals To get better schools To get better markets for our products To bridge up the gap between the rich and the poor To reduce on taxes To invest money in agriculture

Table 2.

SDG 1: No poverty.

The participants all identified poverty as the key factor that thwarted their aspirations, as well as their ability to simply live their lives without perpetual stress and anxiety about how to meet the basic needs of their families. Eleven of the 14 participants had employment, two were between jobs, and one worked on the family farm. Of the 11 earning incomes, six had formal, four had informal employment, and one had both formal and informal work. The incomes of these 11 participants were in the general range of 200–300 Ugandan shillings per month (approximately $65–100 US/month). Based on a 40-hour work week (although most worked far more than 40 hours per week), this amounted to about $.40–.65 US/hour, or about $3.20–5.20 US/day. Extreme poverty, defined by the World Bank [49], was $1.90 US per person per day. At first glance, it might seem as if these young women had at least risen above extreme poverty, but considering their various financial outlays and responsibilities, this was generally not the case.

Twelve of the 13 participants were mothers, with numbers of children ranging from one to four, ages infant to 10 years old. Eight of the 14 women were sole heads of households, seven of them single mothers; five received no financial support at all from the children’s fathers, and two received very minimal (and erratic) support. The women were thus responsible for meeting all, or almost all, of the financial demands related to their children. One income of approximately $3–10 US/day, divided among one participant and two dependent children would equal $1–3.35 US/day per person, and with three dependents would equal $.75–2.50 US/day each. As such, the participants lacked financial resources for adequate and nutritious food, clean water, adequate medical treatment, rent; and other basic necessities such as clothing, firewood (for cooking), and school-related costs.

The participants envisioned the achieved goal of SDG 1 as having sufficient food and water, a nice home (and even a car), free/affordable quality education for their children, and free/affordable quality medical care. The thought SDG 1 could be achieved by investment in the government in education, medical care, better markets for their products (for those who had shops or sold food grown on their land), lessening of the extreme financial divide between the rich and poor in Uganda, decreased taxes (for the few who had formal employment with taxes deducted from their pay), and more investment in agriculture. Contributing factors to poverty for the participants included: lack of reasonable employment income; lack of child support from absentee fathers; school fees and related expenses for their children; and expensive transportation (Table 3).

Unrealized	Realized	How to get there
Inability to afford good medical attention or medication for themselves or their children (often self-diagnose and purchase drugs over the counter) Women at risk ante- and post-natal Poor sanitation, contaminated water Weakness, hunger, prone to sickness and even early death Fatigue because of poor infrastructure (e.g., long walks for water, or to market, or to school because of lack of transportation, poor roads) Mental health problems: stress, depression, loneliness	Medical treatment and medicine accessible when needed Sufficient, nutritious food and clean water to sustain healthy bodies Strong infrastructure that eases access to schools, hospitals, etc. Good mental health	Money (by getting jobs) Health facilities – clinics and hospitals Balanced diets Rest, relax, having some fun Need clean water in terms of hygiene Make new friends Good infrastructrures, that’s hospitals and roads To have enough food where people can eat a balanced diet To have jobs where people can earn money and look after their family To have clean water and better sanitation

Table 3.

SDG 3: Good health and well-being.

The participants shared many thoughts about the importance of SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being. As per the discussion of SDG 1: No Poverty, they conveyed their frustration with the lack of free/affordable, quality medical care and their unaffordability of medication for themselves and/or their children. They also stated that they self-diagnosed and purchased drugs (that would require a prescription in, for example, North America) over the counter for themselves and their children. They talked about the fact that there was inadequate ante- and post-natal care and women were still at high risk during pregnancy and childbirth, and some relayed difficult experiences of miscarriages, traumatic births and post-natal complications, and inadequate medical attention. They also had to pay for medicine and treatment, which was costly. Tracy, for example, discussed the expense of providing specialized food for her disabled child:

Tracy: I pay for his medication. He has a special formula for food cuz he’s not able to chew …it is so expensive…80,000 for only one week.

Shelley: So, you spend about 80,000 on food? And then you have medicine. How much does medicine cost?

Tracy: It depends on which condition [he] has……For example, if he has malaria, it depends on the dose the doctors give him. So, you can find yourself you bought a dose of 100,000 per month.

Poor sanitation was another major concern for the participants. None had indoor plumbing in their homes; they and their families used outdoor latrines, which they did not consider to be sanitary. Diseases related to poor sanitation include cholera and dysentery, as well as typhoid, intestinal worm infections, and polio, and these are common in Uganda (ref). Neither did any of the participants have running water easily accessible; most had to walk a distance to collect water in jerry cans to take back to their homes for cooking, drinking, washing clothes, and cleaning. Often the sources of water were contaminated or at risk of being so, and many Ugandans suffer from related diseases including cholera, diarrhea, dysentery, hepatitis A, typhoid, and polio [50].

The participants also experienced the affliction of hunger and inability to access a healthy diet. The participants, especially the single mothers, said that they did not have the money they required to buy sources of protein, dairy, or even fresh vegetables, and often their meals consisted primarily of posho (a maize flour porridge) which has little nutritious content, but it is filling. As a result, they and their children often suffer from hunger/nutrient deficiency diseases and conditions such as extreme fatigue, compromised immune systems, susceptibility to colds and flus, and heightened susceptibility to malaria and anemia all of which are a heavy burden on the country’s medical system. Many children in Uganda die of hunger/malnutrition [51]. The participants also discussed the problem of intense and sustained fatigue. In addition to employment (or farming), caring for children and often parents and younger siblings, cooking and cleaning, they had to make long and arduous walks to collect water, firewood, and access markets because they could not afford to hire a boda-boda (motorcycle) to take them and there is no public transportation outside of the major cities and towns. In addition, the roads in the village areas are generally in poor condition, unpaved, and they are hard and dangerous to negotiate because of the traffic as well as the slippery conditions when it rains.

Aside from these many challenges to the participants and their children’s physical health, these hardships took a severe toll on their mental health. They shared feelings of perpetual stress about whether or not they would be able to afford school fees for their children for the coming term; stress about accessing medical care for their children and themselves, and often their parents and siblings, as well; the anxiety that came with caring for sick – and in one case severely disabled – children; the constant pressure to provide sufficient food for their families. They felt that there was seldom any reprieve from the demands on them to provide the basic survival necessities for their households, caring for children and family (and community) members, paid work, domestic work, and myriad other obligations. Several of the participants expressed feeling depressed because there did not seem to be a way out of poverty and exhaustion.

The participants also expressed feelings of loneliness. Even though they all experienced deep and unrelenting stress related to poverty (including the physical health of their children, themselves, and other family members) in the group discussion on Day 2, they said that they did not talk much about their feelings, except with their friends in the research group. For example, Tracy discussed not telling most people in the community about the existence of her severely disabled child because of the stigma and discrimination that they – and her other child – could face but feeling comfortable and supported when confiding with the other participants. They had little, if any access to mental health services (e.g., counseling) even during times of intense crisis. Tracy discussed the birth of her severely disabled child and the “counseling” with which she was provided before being discharged to go home and learn how to care for the child on her own:

Tracy: It is a hard thing to give birth to a kid with cerebral palsy…The husband said “I don’t want that kid”…so he went away…I was in the hospital... I was still on oxygen. I didn’t have a normal birth. It was surgery…I was weak. My husband had left. The kid is weak.

When I asked Tracy about any counseling or support that she may have received before returning home with her severely disabled newborn, she relayed that a nurse had spoken to her for a few minutes about the need to be strong because the child would require a great deal of care. And then she and her baby were sent home. Subsequently, she occasionally was able to talk with “those people who counsel people with HIV AIDS…So I kept going there for counseling, going there for information”. After a few months, however, that ceased: “…they thought that maybe it was time that I can do that alone, that it was okay, …And I am strong… [crying]”.

With respect to reaching SDG 3, the participants stated that they needed access to decent, quality employment that paid them enough to buy nutritious food, shelter, and medical care and reduce the perpetual stress related to worrying about their ability to pay for their children’s school fees. Access to quality free/affordable health facilities – clinics and hospitals – as well as medical care (especially for individuals with complex and expensive health care requirements) were also deemed necessary. The participants also noted the importance of good roads and means of transport to access medical care when necessary. Also deemed of enormous importance was infrastructure that supported good sanitation (e.g., sewage systems) and easy access to clean water. The participants also noted that for their improved socioemotional well-being they needed an easing of burdens in order to have sufficient rest, to be able to relax and “have some fun”. In addition, they believed that it was important to have opportunities to make new friends, as well as spend quality time with existing friends. Several times the participants stated that this research group had helped them to share their feelings and that they had learned from, listened to, encouraged, and supported each other (Table 4).

Unrealized	Realized	How to get there
Adults with lack of knowledge of and/or ability to take care of themselves Adults with lack of opportunities to earn decent incomes Lack of schools, lack of resources Unqualified teachers Teacher absenteeism High costs for school requirements Need to send children to private schools for education – high school fees, requirements, and other expenses	Sufficient number of schools, with proper classrooms, learning and teaching resources No “extra” or “hidden” fees Cap of number of children per class Qualified teachers Accountability of teachers and administrators Equal treatment of girls and boys in school	Quality schools, i.e., good buildings Quality teachers Infrastructure Free schooling Books, pens, science lab, library

Table 4.

SDG 4: Quality education.

The participants identified many issues related to SDG 4: Quality Education as unrealized. They were unwaveringly committed to ensuring their children received a reasonable education and school fees and related expenses generally constituted the highest household expense, up to two-thirds of their income [52]. Although Uganda has government schools that offer “free” education (although in practice they still solicit funds from parents for maintenance, new buildings, furniture, and school supplies and equipment), these schools are plagued by issues such as untenably large class sizes (often with hundreds of children), lack of classrooms and furniture, teacher absenteeism, lack of textbooks and other school materials, and poor teaching and learning outcomes [53, 54, 55]. The participants stated that only “desperate” parents, or parents who “did not care about their children’s education” sent their children to government schools. Even so, the private schools their children attended were often only of marginally better quality than the government schools: class sizes were often large, many teachers were not fully qualified, and the schools were severely under-resourced with respect to textbooks and other educational materials. In addition, the schools were often a long distance from the participants’ homes, so their children required fees for room and board, as well as school uniforms and other supplies. Depending on the boarding fees, children often lacked satisfactorily nutritious meals.

Participants described SDG 4 would be realized if there were a sufficient number of schools with proper classrooms; adequate teaching and learning resources; no “extra” or “hidden” fees; a cap on a number of children per class; qualified teachers; accountability of teachers and administrators; and equal treatment of girls and boys. To move from unrealized to realized, participants identified the following: investing in well-constructed schools with adequate furniture; ensuring teachers were qualified; free education; and providing notebooks, pencils, and other necessary supplies for all children.

The three additional SDGs identified by the participants in their “top 3” were SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, and SDG 12: Responsible Production and Consumption. With respect to SDG 8, participants associated this goal unrealized with informal labour, undignified work, poor incomes, and no benefits. Further discussion around this topic exposed additional concerns such as the precarious nature of employment, poor working conditions, lack of consistency with work hours (and pay), lack of benefits, and lack of recourse for bullying, intimidation, sexual harassment, aggression, and assault. Furthermore, there was little, if any, support from employers for mothers who were forced to miss work to tend to their children when they were severely ill. Formal employment, with good working conditions, “liveable wage”, benefits, and being treated with “dignity” were all markers of SDG 8 achieved. The participants believed that in order to go from unrealized to realized required quality education so that workers would be prepared to undertake decent work opportunities, for workers to “work harder to improve our daily lives”, “proper health so we can improve on our income”, and “proper savings [groups’ so we can improve on our income”.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities was also selected by one team as one of their top 3 SDGs. They described SDG 10 unrealized as characterized by: “extreme rich refus[ing] to help extreme poor”; unfair taxation, where high-income earners were not proportionately taxed to support infrastructure to benefit society at large; discrimination against the “weak, vulnerable, and disabled” especially with respect to education and employment; and gender discrimination “girls/women not treated equally to boys/men.” The participants’ vision of SDG 10 achieved included: decent homes for all families; free, accessible, and quality for all children; “good infrastructure for everyone – including electricity and running water”; families have sufficient, nutritious food (including their own gardens and livestock); and families have access to good transportation. The participants believed that moving from unrealized to realized would require: adult education (to compensate for education that individuals may not have had as children, as well as upgrading of skills and knowledge and qualifications); “work so hard”; “make good friends” (i.e., friends who are influential and able to support others financially or otherwise); “make women’s groups/savings”; “good policies”; “investments”; and “being creative and innovative”.

SDG 12: Responsible Production and Consumption was chosen by one group to be one of their top three SDGs. They characterized SDG 12 unrealized as only a small segment of the population – the wealthy – as engaging in lavish and excessive consumption while most people lived in crowded homes, and lacked basic needs such as adequate food, clothing, clean water, electricity, transportation, and sanitation. SDG 12 realized would involve all people having access to adequate food, housing, clothing, transportation, medical care, and sanitation.

10.2 Stage 6 (2023)

In the FGD during Stage 6 of the longitudinal study, 5 years after Stage 4, five of the women discussed their thoughts on the SDGs. SDG 1: No Poverty, SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being, and SDG remained of top concern, followed by SDG 5: Gender Equality (which had not been identified as a top-three priority for any of the groups in Stage 4), and 4: Quality Education. The participants felt that very little, if any, progress has been made towards the achievement of these goals.

With respect to SDG 1: No Poverty, the participants stated that – in their experience – poverty levels were even worse than 5 years before (Stage 4 of the research), as inflation had made many basic necessities unaffordable. The COVID-19 pandemic created a crisis situation for several participants and their families who experienced extreme food shortages. One of the participants who had long-term, formal employment at a local clothing manufacturing company had been terminated because she had to care for her seriously ill child, which made it almost impossible for her to fund the tests for diagnosis – sickle cell disease – and the treatment child required. Two others who worked at the same company were living in fear of losing their jobs because the company was much less profitable post-pandemic; they were already experiencing greatly reduced work hours and had to find ways to supplement their incomes. One of the participants who had her own business in selling matooke (plantain) wholesale, said her sales had dropped dramatically, and additionally, she had been defrauded of an enormous amount of money by another wholesaler. When asked who they thought was responsible for fulfilling SDG 1, Doreen said, − “The Ugandan government is responsible…[it should be]…managing inflation”. When asked if anyone else was responsible, Doreen suggested, “Even me”.

With respect to SDG 4: Quality Education, the participants believed that the situation same, in some ways even worse because as children grew older, they required more funding for education. In addition, during the pandemic, Uganda had one of the strictest lock-down policies in the world and children missed two full years of schooling. The divide between the rich and poor was exacerbated as families with higher incomes were able to afford technology that enabled their children to continue learning, whilst those with minimal incomes could not afford to do so.

There was consensus among the participants that no progress had been made towards SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being. If anything, health care seemed to be worse. Tracy continued to struggle to provide the highly specialized treatment required for her disabled son and was anxious about an operation he required which would cost three and a half million Ugandan shillings (close to 1000 USD), which would be impossible for her to save. Even unexceptional medical treatment was hard to access and expensive, as is evident in this exchange between Tracy and Gelly:

Tracy: We can go to health centres and reach there and not even get paracetamol.

Gelly: You can’t get anything. Even if you need the injection, you have to go outside [the government hospital] and buy the syringe. When you do not buy, they will not care for you.

Tracy: Sometimes you go to the hospital because they tell you need to get medicine and you find that there is no medicine.

Gelly: From what I see. In the hospitals, the medicine reaches there, but those doctors, just pick them and put them aside. So, when you go there, there are some people, they have money and some who do not have it. When you go there, they say the medicine is not around. But if you bring someone aside and say you have [money] immediately they bring the medicine. Which means the medicine is there. They just hide it.

SDG 5: Gender Equality, emerged as an identified priority in Stage 6, where it had not in Stage 4. Interestingly, the participants connect gender inequality with poverty. Tracy remarked, “There are few people on the ground who do not know about gender equality, but because of poverty there is little done about it”. When asked to elaborate on the connection between poverty and gender inequality, Gelly said: “…up to this time there is the men who do not allow the women to go to work…[and] if she is not working, she cannot avoid poverty”. Tracy also added that poverty curtailed opportunities for justice that might ameliorate poverty, such as demanding child support from absentee fathers: “You can take a gender-related case to the police and because you do not have money, your case is not considered”. Ireen also discussed how in cases of theft, for example, legal processes weighed against poor women as it had in her case when another, wealthier, businesswoman stole a significant amount of money from her: “As an example, the lady who stole my money, she was in jail, she was in prison, but the moment I left the place, the lady gave them [police] money. And she was out of jail….” Ireen claimed that the money the woman had stolen from Ireen had likely been used to bribe the police and Ireen was convinced that she would not receive the legal support to recover her money or to ensure that the culprit was appropriately charged, tried, and sentenced for her crime. Additionally, Yudaya discussed how she had been severely bullied at work (a job she had had for 9 years) by a new male supervisor, to the point that she felt she could no longer endure working at the company. Yudaya had since opened a small retail shop in the trading centre after leaving the company, but it provides precarious and minimal income.

Not only had Yudaya’s financial stability been decimated by bullying from a male co-worker, but her socioemotional well-being had been deeply impacted:

My love [for the company] was so strong, we’ve [the company] come very far together and I never thought such thing would ever happen, but I was totally wrong and that one month I worked with him…made me think and decided to leave the company I love. It was very painful and difficult but for the good of my future plans and life I had to strongly decide and move on even though am still hunting for a job but I don’t regret my resignation coz now I feel like I’m out of bars. It’s unbelievable!

Gelly had also experienced more overt and violent threats to her health and well-being. Gelly’s ex-husband, who had been an absentee father for 5 years and had provided no child support for their children, had threatened to take the children unless she paid him money as he claimed she had been preventing him from seeing the children (which she had not).

He said he was going to put a fire on the house where I sleep with the kids….from there he went to Airtel and blocked my account…I was washing clothes and [someone] came to tell me that the chairman [of the village] was calling for me…I went there and found that man [the ex-husband] with the papers to arrest me from the police…

Ultimately, the chairman heard both sides of the complaint (from Gelly’s ex-husband) and sided with Gelly, and a male friend was able to accompany Gelly to the police station to report the situation. The police did not pursue charges against the ex-husband’s threats, but they did warn the man that he was in arrears with child support payments, and thus the situation subsided. However, Gelly did not receive any financial support from the father of the children.

During Stage 6, I posed a question that was not asked in Stage 4: Who do you think is responsible for fulfilling the SDGs? Interestingly, the participants looked first at themselves. For example, Linda said, “We, as human beings…Even me”. Secondly, they noted the Ugandan government. Tracy said, “It starts with me and then I go to the government”. When asked if they thought there was any responsibility beyond the Ugandan government, they had no response. I pushed the question a bit further: “But the SDGs are a United Nations commitment. The UN is saying we as a world need to eliminate poverty throughout the whole world…If all the countries in the world say we are going to get rid of poverty, everywhere, who is responsible for doing that”? Again, there was silence. Eventually, Tracy ventured a response:

Tracy: It’s possible that Uganda is party to other countries, but the help is minimal.

Shelley: But this is United Nations – the UN is saying we need to eliminate poverty throughout the whole world…If all the countries the world say we are going to get rid of poverty, everywhere, who is responsible for doing that?

Tracy: Once they have made the goals, they [looking and raising her hands up to the ceiling] have to make a plan. They up there. They must come down with not only goals, but actions. And those actions should come down to me. I’m looking at myself as the last person.

11. Discussion

Unsurprising, but profoundly discouraging and unsatisfactory, is the fact that none of the participants had ever heard of the SDGs prior to this study. When introduced to the SDGs, the women seemed to regard them as a “wish list” [4] rather than goals that had any likelihood of being achieved, at least for them in their contexts. When asked about responsibility for fulfilling the SDGs they looked first to themselves, then to the Ugandan government: it did not occur to them that this responsibility may rest with the world as a whole that has signed onto them as a UN initiative. Tracy’s comment “…those actions should come down to me. I’m looking at myself as the last person” speaks volumes to the fact in order to achieve “‘women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life” (Target 5.5) barriers must be identified and removed to provide women with “…access to the resources that act as preconditions for participation (money, time, confidence, and education among them), and on the existence of concrete mechanisms for promoting women’s participation [56]” [3]. The participants had no difficulty identifying and depicting what both unrealized and realized SDGs would be for them as well as suggesting ways by which the SDGs could be achieved. Yet, there is little evidence that voices like theirs have been included in formal deliberations about the SDGs.

Poverty was the central and intersecting factor for the lack of achievement, or even progress towards the SDGs. Lack of education and medical care that was affordable and free, or at least affordable, access to reasonable sanitation, and the inability to be able to provide adequately nutritious food for their families (particularly during times of crisis, such as the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic) can and should be considered human rights violations [57]. These things are not “nice to have” but most fundamental requirements to meet the basic criteria for well-being: “When engaging the issue of poverty…there are two rights of particular importance…the right to life, and freedom from discrimination. When speaking of the former, the concern should not merely be with the fact that the individual is alive as opposed to dead. It is also related to the status or condition of that individual’s life” ([57], p. 26). As commented by Pogge and Sengupta [4] “When severe deprivations constitute unfulfilled human rights – and, given their social origins, even human rights violations – then they categorically require immediate and top-priority remedial attention. We must spare no effort to realize human rights as fast and fully as we can” (p. 2).

Additionally, the particular ways in which poverty impacts women must be acknowledged ([57], p. 27). The participants’ experiences of inadequate wages and working conditions, lack of enforcement of child support, gender violence, failure of public services and infrastructure, lack of leisure time, and overburden of work and care for others all speak to this gendered face of poverty. The participants did not seem to think that their rights should be available to them as a matter of course. Instead, as Gelly stated, “We have to fight hard for our rights, …fight for your voice, this is key”. Why, in addition to all the other demands made upon them, should these women (like so many other women in the world) also be expected to “fight for” what are, according to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (Preamble), are “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” to which they belong? As long as there is little accountability and responsibility for fulfilling the SDGs, and as long as the “hegemonic project” [58] of neoliberalism continues unabated in its “shift of power and wealth back to the already rich and powerful ([58], p. 721), and as long a human rights violations are not acted upon, the SDGs would be more aptly described as the “Sustainable Development Wishes” [59]. And women will continue to suffer disproportionately.

However, this study did reveal a glimmer of hope beyond a wish with respect to the participants’ growing awareness of their rights and the global commitments embedded in the SDGs, meant to realize and uphold them. The participants’ critical consideration of the SDGs, through critical ethnographic policy analysis approach, elicited some revelatory discussions in which they voiced frustrations with systems and institutions – legal, medical, educational, political, economic, and social – that failed them. They communicated how the discussions we had during this study had expanded their awareness of these issues and, importantly, enabled them to connect their personal experiences with broader patterns and shared realities of other women. Some of their comments included: “I learned [that we can] advise and learn from each other”; “I learned not to hide my own problems but stand up and push forward”; “As women, we need to stand firm, participate in politics, and not stay back, and when you try to go through and represent others…”; “we are able to be here, we are able to talk, we are able to come together”. This is arguably the most critical element in bringing about women’s empowerment. Women need to know about their rights and the commitments – such as the SDGs - made to uphold them, and then demand that responsibility be delegated, and accountability be undertaken to ensure this happens: “New forms of consciousness arise out of women’s newly acquired access to the intangible resources of analytical skills, social networks, organizational strength, solidarity and sense of not being alone” ([60], p. 246).

12. Conclusion

Increasingly, global pathways of connection are multiplying and tightening, providing rich opportunities for global movements and solidarity to challenge and overcome oppressive systems that perpetuate inequalities, social injustices, and human rights violations, prioritizing the world’s most oppressed, vulnerable, disadvantaged, disempowered, and marginalized, such as women living in poverty in LICs.

The SDGs, although laudably aspirational, and purportedly constituting a “supremely ambitious and transformational vision” for the world are “severely off track” [7] and even regressing especially with respect to the basic fulfillment of human rights, a universal reasonable standard of well-being, as well as participatory privilege and opportunities for empowerment. This study indicates that the needs of those the SDGs are meant to impact the most – such as women living in poverty in LICs – are not being met, even at a basic human rights level. Far from being included in, or involved in any discussions about (aside from this study) “this supremely ambitious and transformative vision”, the participants had never even heard of the SDGs. Clearly, the SDGs had not heard from them either. Where are their voices? Who is listening? For truly transformative change to transpire, much greater attention to the voices and lived experiences of women who are so often excluded from the very policies, initiatives, and programs meant to benefit them is essential, as is knowing who is responsible for fulfilling them. At present, this is not the case and as such, the SDGs remain mere “wishes”.