IISD’s Stefan Jungcurt has interviewed Marianne Beisheim, Senior Associate, Global Affairs, at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP). Beisheim shares her perspectives on connecting science and policy for SDG implementation, UN reform, and keeping the momentum in an increasingly fragmented world.

How is your organization advancing sustainable development in Germany and in other countries?

The German Institute for International and Security Affairs advises the German parliament, the government, and international organizations on foreign policy and security issues. Researchers at SWP perform independent, applied research, in my case on multilateral governance, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its SDGs. While SWP does not take institutional positions on public policy issues, we advise policymakers who make critical decisions for Germany’s engagement and follow-up in multilateral processes.

For example, in 2016, I suggested that Germany publish a voluntary national review (VNR) in the first round of reporting to set an example and learn from the feedback received. Later I supported the Partners for Review Project (P4R) that established a transnational dialogue with partners from other countries to strengthen the 2030 Agenda follow-up and review process. It created a community of practice to share good ideas for participatory, whole-of-society reporting. Germany’s third VNR followed that tradition with a strong focus on inclusion and led a peer-learning process with other countries presenting in 2025.

What do the SDGs mean to you ten years after their adoption?

The 2030 Agenda acts like a compass for the UN system overall, allowing for a better understanding and awareness of the UN and its processes. In 2015, we had universal support for the SDGs and recognition of the linkages between them. UN members supported integrated thinking. The leave-no-one-behind principle created a bridge between sustainable development and human rights. The SDGs incorporated the lessons learned from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), especially regarding the need to include marginalized groups. They represent the best of two worlds, Rio’s Agenda 21 and the MDGs. We only realize this now that we risk losing them.

At the political level, the SDGs have changed the narrative, we see discursive change, but legislative and institutional change lag behind. However, international decisions take time to trickle down. The SDGs only just arrived at the local level where they are beginning to change implementation approaches. But changing behavior often meets strong resistance because some fear a loss of welfare or status, making it hard for governments to survive politically. In Germany we have seen this with the adoption of a law on residential heating requiring a minimum share of renewable energy for new buildings and setting deadlines for replacing heating systems using fossil fuels. The law took a long time to negotiate and adopt and significantly damaged the previous coalition government.

How do you engage with German SDG implementation and the VNR process?

Together with others we have engaged in several initiatives to strengthen the role of science for sustainable development, including an initiative by the German Federal Ministry of Research to create a science-policy interface for sustainable development – the Science Platform Sustainability 2030 – based on existing institutions and networks like Future Earth Germany, SDSN Germany, and the Research Institute for Sustainability (RIFS, previously Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies). In our discussions, we realized we have to work on both sides of the interface, as scientists also need to understand the political process, what incentives drive decision makers, and how they can become interested in science. For example, the Platform facilitates a dialogue that brings together representatives of about 20 advisory councils from across federal ministries into a biennial, structured exchange, because we realized that we must go beyond the sustainable development community to promote policy coherence. Most advisory bodies shared our concern about lack of attention to science, but only about half of them had engaged with the SDGs before. We discussed the German VNR as part of this dialogue and plan to convene again after the UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) to provide feedback and discuss follow-up recommendations.

For Germany’s third VNR, members of the Platform supported stakeholder contributions at multiple levels. The German government included them not only in the VNR itself in text boxes, but they also published all stakeholder submissions in full, alongside the VNR.

What impact do you expect from Germany’s third VNR?

Germany is in a special situation because our government changed earlier than anticipated. While this creates a challenge for VNR follow-up because the VNR had been initiated by the previous government, it can also be an opportunity for a new government to demonstrate continuity. We still see lots of momentum in the three levels of SDG implementation – national (in Germany), bilateral (with Germany), and multilateral (supported by Germany).

We have also had good pickup of the findings of the Global Sustainable Development Reports (GSDRs), which provide a scientific basis for the identification of transformation areas and political levers to drive them. Germany created seven inter-ministerial transformation teams for areas like energy, the circular economy, and human well-being, to foster collaboration between government entities and support integrated SDG implementation for systemic change. We can also build on the work of two whole-of-society commissions on phasing out lignite coal and on sustainable agriculture that developed a societal consensus and comprehensive strategies on tackling these important challenges. But we need good follow-up on the VNR to create a continuous loop and keep the momentum.

What are your priorities for the next five years to 2030?

The next years will be difficult. At the international level, the current crises will continue to overshadow SDG implementation. We also face increasing opposition to sustainable development thinking and global governance with the UN at its center in general. And while discussions around UN reform and the Secretary General’s UN80 initiative provide opportunities, they will also bind resources and attention. It is hard to imagine what HLPF 2026 will look like under these pressures on top of the heavy funding shortfall for the UN caused by the US’ decision to withdraw funding.

I think that to move forward, Germany and the EU must clarify their offerings to the Global South. The EU’s Global Gateway project, for example, aims to create new partnerships around infrastructure development with the intention to balance China’s Belt and Road and Global Development Initiatives. But so far it has mainly regrouped existing projects. In Germany, there has been talk about establishing a North-South Commission, building on the legacy of a 1970s initiative, to focus and reposition the country’s development cooperation. Given shrinking budgets for international cooperation, it could discuss what we are offering to the Global South.

I am more optimistic about progress at the local level. Voluntary local reviews (VLRs) are becoming an established means for community engagement and local sustainable development planning. If mayors can win elections with the SDGs, there is hope. But we must ensure that the SDG framework remains intact.

What are your thoughts for the SDGs after 2030?

At this point I have more questions than answers. How can we communicate that all aspects of the SDGs are important for a good life? I think we need a convincing narrative to generate broader ownership of the SDGs. If the SDGs stay a project of the elites, this will be difficult. How can we promote transformational change, given that the current UN system is based on national sovereignty and the principle of non-interference? How can we strengthen leadership of the Global South? The Pact for the Future and the Seville Commitment are important documents, but we must keep in mind that the US opposed key elements of them. Projects to reform structural framework conditions, like the international financial architecture, won’t work without the US. Even if we continue with the SDGs at the multilateral level, implementation might shift towards bilateral deals and regional cooperation. The US has suggested talking about “responsible development.” But what does this mean? We need a narrative that brings us as close as possible to a shared understanding and consensus.