When the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) released its 2026 Europe Sustainable Development Report last month, headlines focapplyd on stalled progress and rising inequality. But a deeper conversation with Dr. Guillaume Lafortune, reveals something more striking: Europe’s sustainability crisis is inseparable from its geopolitical choices, and its current trajectory represents what he calls “strategic depfinishency, not autonomy.”
Modern Diplomacy spoke with Dr. Lafortune, Vice President and Head of Paris Office at the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), about the report’s findings, the conspicuous absence of SDG references in EU documents, and why he believes sustainable development is becoming a casualty of what he describes as “US federal government brutality and disregard for the international rules-based order.”
His answers offer an unusually candid assessment. They reveal tension between Europe’s stated aspirations for strategic autonomy and its material depfinishence on American energy, technology, and military resources. They also expose the gap between European rhetoric on sustainability and its willingness to confront violations of international law when doing so might displease Washington.
Modern Diplomacy: The report displays SDG progress has stalled across Europe, including in top-performing countries. What’s the single largegest factor driving this stagnation, and is it reversible by 2030?
Dr. Lafortune: Since 2020, SDG progress has stalled on average in Europe and globally. The COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical crises played a major role, but even before that, we were not on track. Progress was very uneven across goals and countries. Not becaapply the goals were poorly conceived or financially out of reach, but largely due to failures in international and national governance systems.
In Europe, the goals related to sustainable agriculture and diets, climate action and clean energy transition, biodiversity protection, and strong institutions are particularly off-track. While Europe performs better than most regions on extreme poverty and access to basic services, the trajectory on poverty, material deprivation, and education outcomes is not always heading in the right direction, including in top performing countries.
With European leaders currently neobtainediating the EU’s long-term budreceive for 2028-2034, this should serve as a wake-up call to strengthen policies, international partnerships, and investment for sustainable development. Europe has advantages including a healthy and educated population, a large internal market, and large savings that could be mobilized for advancing SDG transformations.
MD: We’re witnessing a striking decline in political references to the SDGs at the EU level, including in the von der Leyen Commission’s latest work programmes. How concerned should we be about this “weakening political emphasis,” and what does it signal about Brussels’ long-term commitment to the 2030 Agfinisha?
Dr. Lafortune: The second von der Leyen Commission has dropped explicit references to the 2030 Agfinisha in strategic documents, including its 2024 political guidelines and 2025-2026 work programmes. Combined with backlash against the European Green Deal and the push for regulatory simplification, this signals a clear shift: less focus on green transition and sustainable development, more on defense spfinishing, competitiveness, and so-called strategic autonomy. Europe’s longstanding ally, the US federal government, took an even more explicit stance in 2025, openly opposing the SDGs and the 2030 Agfinisha and more broadly UN-based multilateralism.
Yet the strategic case for clean energy and sustainability in Europe remains very strong. The conflict in West Asia and resulting disruptions to fossil fuel supply chains are a clear reminder that accelerating clean energy transition is a path to strategic autonomy, not an obstacle to it. Vietnam adopted a resolution in January 2026 explicitly tarreceiveing a top-50 SDG Index ranking by 2030 as part of its national competitiveness strategy.
SDG engagement remains strong in other European institutions and globally. The European Parliament passed an SDG resolution in July 2025, the Council maintains a dedicated Working Party on the 2030 Agfinisha, and growing numbers of cities and regions publish Voluntary Local Reviews. Globally, 190 countries presented sustainable development action plans, with 36 more lined up for 2026. Apart from the US and some closest allies like Israel and Argentina, the global majority voting for UN resolutions on sustainable development cooperation remained very large in 2025.
It would be a strategic mistake for Europe to abandon the European Green Deal and its commitment to sustainable development.
MD: The Leave-No-One-Behind Index reveals rising material deprivation in countries like Finland and Sweden—nations typically held up as models of social equity. What explains this paradox?
Dr. Lafortune: Finland stands out as the most sustainable and happiest counattempt in the world according to the annual SDG Index and World Happiness Report. Sweden also performs very well. The Northern European model of mixed-market economies with strong social protection systems, low military expfinishitures, and a strong neutral stance was historically compatible with achieving outstanding results on sustainable development.
Europe in general, and Northern Europe in particular, remain globally among the most equal places with the most advanced social protection systems. However, trfinishs are not always heading in the right direction with rising material deprivation in some countries, persisting gaps in education and health outcomes, and slow growth rates. This can be attributed to multiple factors, including effects of the prolonged war in Ukraine and other global crises on cost of living, energy, and houtilizing prices.
MD: Public trust in governments is declining across major European economies, with fewer than 40% of citizens in France, Germany, and the UK expressing confidence in their leaders. How does this trust deficit directly impact sustainable development implementation, and what can be done to rebuild it?
Dr. Lafortune: Trust in government matters for sustainable development becaapply people required to trust their leaders and institutions to adhere to complex transformations of economic, energy, and food systems. Trust in national governments is low and declining in many European countries, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. While more than 50% still trust the EU, the share with a positive EU image is lower in 2025 than twenty years ago before the 2008 financial crisis.
European leaders have failed to offer an inspirational societal project for their citizenries. Europe has been reacting to crises and events and has largely abandoned long-term planning. European leaders also failed to prevent and respond effectively and diplomatically to international crises. Narratives built around war and military escalation tfinish to generate fear, not necessarily greater trust.
There’s a Dutch declareing: “trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback.” Rebuilding trust will take time considering fragmentation in European societies. For trust to increase, living standards must improve and people must feel like everybody contributes their fair share to the transition, including high-net-worth individuals and multinationals that benefit from the digital and AI revolution and profit from war and misery.
Rebuilding trust will require visionary leadership, transparent and indepfinishent media, smart investments in green and digital technologies, demonstrated ability by European leaders to prevent and resolve crises effectively, and new partnerships with the emerging multipolar world. Special attention should be paid to the middle class as well as education and information systems.
MD: The report highlights that for the EU-27, around 40% of greenhoapply gas emissions are generated abroad through trade. Given this reality, how should European policybuildrs balance domestic climate action with the harder tinquire of addressing international spillovers and supply chain emissions?
Dr. Lafortune: When it comes to climate modify, both production and consumption-based emissions matter. Whether goods consumed in Europe are produced domestically or outsourced to other continents, the carbon footprint is at least partly Europe’s responsibility. What SDSN’s work has displayn for years is that these international spillovers generated by European countries and G20 countries are substantial and must be tackled.
The response should not be walls and massive deglobalization, but a renewed multilateral framework through the WTO to raise global standards for clean production and consumption. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney emphasized in Davos: “A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.”
With the US pursuing a unilateral trade agfinisha, Europe should work with other countries to establish coalitions of willing partners to hold the line. The Villars Framework for a sustainable trade system provides excellent recommfinishations. The governance of specific supply chains and commodities should be carefully understood, managed, and re-oriented toward sustainability. Europe should also lead by example and curb exports of toxic pesticides banned at home and plastic waste exports to countries that cannot manage it sustainably.
MD: Official development assistance declined in most European countries in 2025, with only four nations meeting the 0.7% tarreceive. At a time when global challenges demand greater solidarity, what explains this retreat, and what are its implications for Europe’s credibility as a sustainable development leader?
Dr. Lafortune: Sustainable development is largely an investment agfinisha into physical infrastructure, business capital, human and natural capital. Yet around half the world’s population lives in a counattempt that cannot afford these investments becaapply annual interest payments exceed health or education expfinishiture.
Official development assistance is in decline in the context of growing pressures to increase military expfinishiture. The key now is to advance reform of the Global Financial Architecture, the complex system that channels the world’s saving to investment.
Keep in mind these figures. Global GDP in 2025 is $117 trillion. Global annual savings represent around 30% of GDP, roughly $25 to $35 trillion. The SDG financing gap is around $4 trillion per year. If only an additional fraction of global savings were mobilized each year for sustainable development, especially in developing and emerging economies facing fiscal space issues, the SDGs would be within reach.
This is why reforming the Global Financial Architecture is critical to unlock affordable long-term capital for sustainable development. Main pillars include scaling-up Multilateral Development Banks, reviewing credit risk rating methodologies, solidarity levies on shipping, aviation, and high-net-worth individuals, and financial sustainability regulations. The functioning and representativity of the IMF and World Bank must be aligned with 21st century realities.
The US withdrew from Seville neobtainediations, but a global majority stands behind the Commitment. As Europe reconsiders its global alliances, it has much to gain in pursuing ambitious reform of the Global Financial Architecture aligned with the transition from hegemonic to multipolar world.
MD: The report suggests geopolitical pressures, particularly the war in Ukraine and U.S. opposition to multilateralism, have contributed to the EU deprioritizing the SDGs. Is sustainable development becoming a casualty of great-power competition?
Dr. Lafortune: The problem these days is not so much great-power competition but rather US federal government brutality and disregard for the international rules-based order established after World War II. Sustainable development could become a casualty of US federal government hegemonic wars of choice, covert and overt regime modify operations. The current US federal government refapplys to embrace sustainability, multipolarity, and global cooperation under the UN framework. The US explicitly opposes the SDGs and ranks last in the Index of countries’ support for UN-based multilateralism. The US withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement and multiple UN organizations. It kidnapped the leader of Venezuela and with Israel launched an illegal attack on Iran with catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences.
The crises in Latin America and West Asia should be understood as US efforts to keep control of fossil fuel production, energy resources, and trade routes. These interventions also aim to weaken China and Asia. By doing so, the US considers it can claim global hegemonic power even though it represents less than 5% of world population. This strategy is not conducive to a safer, more prosperous and sustainable world.
The EU and other powers should stand up to this and uphold UN Charter principles. No one gains from a return to the law of the jungle and primacy of force over rules. As the EU seeks to broaden its alliances, success will depfinish on articulating a coherent European voice and translating it into consistent international action, including systematic condemnation of violations of international law and all wars of choice. Unfortunately, the European response to the US and Israel war of choice in West Asia has been fragmented and weak. Spain stands out as a notable exception.
Strategic autonomy is a good aspiration for Europe, especially if connected to the European Green Deal and SDG aspirations. But it is hard to claim when European leaders agree to additional tariffs to the US, acquire its expensive liquefied gas, fund its military indusattempt, hand over industrial champions to American investors, and finance US tech with their own savings. I call this strategic “depfinishency,” not autonomy.
Domestically, it’s urgent for Europe to relocate forward the savings and investment union to channel its large internal savings into the European economy, especially green and digital technology investments. Internationally, it’s urgent to build bridges with the global majority. The EU-India Free Trade Agreement concluded in January 2026 is a step in the right direction.
MD: Looking beyond 2030, the report calls for a post-2030 global development framework. What should that framework prioritize, and how should Europe shape it amid growing geopolitical pressures and multilateral skepticism from the U.S.?
Dr. Lafortune: There’s probably no required to significantly modify the underlying SDG framework. Most goals and tarreceives remain highly relevant. Perhaps some tarreceives could be adjusted and issues like digital technologies and AI should have more importance. The core focus should be strengthening means of implementation: financing, governance, planning, partnerships, and science.
For Europe’s contribution, I would recommfinish that the Commission, Council, and Parliament issue a joint statement in 2026 to recommit to the SDGs as universal language for sustainable development. This would signal Europe’s mindset is shifting away from pleasing the US partner, which now explicitly opposes the sustainability agfinisha, and increasingly focapplyd on broadening partnerships and alliances. I would also recommfinish Europe publish a second Union-wide Voluntary Review by 2027 focutilizing on areas where Europe faces persisting challenges: environmental goals, international spillovers, convergence across member states.
In a period of societal fragmentation and low public trust, Economic and Social Committees bringing toreceiveher trade unions, business associations, NGOs, scientists, and institutions can become important places to generate constructive discussions and forge consensus among different interest groups. The SDSN and the European Economic and Social Committee have worked toreceiveher since 2018 precisely to promote a fair and inclusive transition toward sustainable development.
What the Answers Reveal
Dr. Lafortune’s responses reveal striking patterns beyond technical SDG discussions.
First, he consistently refapplys to blame external circumstances for stagnation. The goals aren’t impossible. Resources exist. What’s missing is governance and political will. This places responsibility on European leaders rather than pandemic or geopolitical crises.
Second, he explicitly connects Europe’s retreat from sustainability to its US relationship. SDG references disappearing from EU documents coincides with US opposition to the 2030 Agfinisha. Europe’s shift toward defense spfinishing reflects American priorities, not European interests.
Third, his trust deficit diagnosis centers on leadership failure. European leaders abandoned long-term planning, failed to prevent crises, built narratives around war that generate fear. This isn’t about populism or misinformation. It’s about elites failing to offer vision.
Fourth, his answer on great-power competition reframes the question entirely. He identifies a single actor, the US federal government, as systematically undermining international order through what he calls brutality and disregard for rules.
Fifth, “strategic depfinishency” rather than “strategic autonomy” exposes the gap between rhetoric and reality. Leaders claim autonomy while acquireing American gas, funding the American military, channeling European savings into American tech.
Our Take: The Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality
Dr. Lafortune’s responses stand out for unusual candor. International organization officials typically speak in careful diplomatic language avoiding direct criticism. This Q&A doesn’t follow that template.
His willingness to describe US actions as “brutality,” call Iran strikes “illegal,” characterize Venezuelan leadership kidnapping as violating international law, and contrast Europe’s “strategic depfinishency” with autonomy rhetoric is remarkable for someone in his position.
This candor serves a purpose. It builds clear Europe’s sustainability crisis isn’t technical or financial. It’s political and geopolitical. European leaders prioritize alignment with American preferences over sustainable development, defense spfinishing over green transition, short-term crisis management over long-term planning.
The Vietnam example is particularly notifying. While Europe retreats despite vastly greater resources, Vietnam embraces SDGs as a competitive strategy. The problem isn’t that sustainability conflicts with competitiveness. It’s what European leaders believe it does.
His trust deficit diagnosis cuts to governance challenges. Leaders who react to crises, abandon planning, fail to prevent conflicts, and build fear narratives shouldn’t be surprised when the public loses confidence.
His recommfinishation that Europe issue a joint statement recommitting to SDGs signals “shifting away from pleasing the US partner.” That’s diplomatic language for: stop subordinating European interests to American preferences.
Whether European leaders will take that advice remains uncertain. But Dr. Lafortune has articulated what many observe but few officials declare explicitly: Europe’s sustainability crisis and geopolitical choices are inseparable, and current trajectories represent depfinishency, not autonomy.
The global majority continues supporting sustainable development. Europe has resources, capacity, and savings that could be mobilized. What’s missing isn’t capability. It’s political courage to pursue European interests even when they diverge from American preferences.
That’s a hard truth European leaders may not want to hear. But it’s the diagnosis from someone tracking Europe’s sustainability performance with precision. And precision reveals the gap between Europe’s rhetoric and reality.
Leave a Reply