 The Sustainable Development Goals are a new set of 17 commitments that governments are entering into that cover a very broad spectrum of human activity and its interactions with the planet. So they include goals on ending poverty, reducing inequality within and between countries, addressing environmental degradation in oceans, forests, land. So a real spectrum of social, environmental and economic issues. There are new framework that's been negotiated by governments, so this is an intergovernmental agreement and it frames collective action for the world's countries over the coming 15 years, so this has a time horizon up to 2030. The 17 goals each include a set of targets which measure progress in more detailed terms towards the overarching objective set out in the goals. So it's a really comprehensive framework. Well, they're important because they represent the highest level of agreement among governments on what their shared ambition is for change, for a transition over the next 15 years. I think there are a number of characteristics of the SDGs which are really significant and represent a change of progress on the previous framework which was the Millennium Development Goals that have been in place from 2000 up till the current year. The first change is that they're universal. So they provide ambitions, targets, imperatives for change for all countries, not just for the poorest countries and for countries that are giving development assistance. So they're much more universally relevant. The second is that they're framed around sustainability. They're framed around effective use of natural resources, recognizing the vulnerability of ecosystems and people's reliance on natural resources as a critical factor which was not reflected at all in the Millennium Development Goals. It was compartmentalized in one goal and not reflected across the whole framework. I think the third way in which they're really significant is that they've been framed as an integrated whole. They're not silos which can be addressed in isolation from one another, it's a package. And the goals very strongly reflect the interrelations between progress on each of the issues and the fact that you can't achieve progress on one area without achieving progress on others. So that also reflects a much more mature framework that requires action across a spectrum of areas. So what happens next from where we are now is firstly that governments will confirm this package, this goal framework at a head of government's summit in New York in September 2015. And all things going to plan that will essentially entail rubber stamping the framework that's been negotiated without reopening any of it. The next phase will be more detailed work on the indicators that sit underneath each of the targets. And although that gets a bit wonky for us policy nerds, actually there's huge significance in that. The detailed things of what's measured in order to track progress had huge significance in the MDG process and is really where the devil lies in the specifics of what constitutes progress towards these very broad goals. A third area that's significant is going to be the COP 21 of the UN climate convention in Paris at the end of the year. And clearly there are huge overlaps between this agenda around sustainability and the more binding commitments governments will enter into in terms of energy, policy and practice in terms of their commitments to reducing emissions. So that's a huge piece of the broader puzzle. So those are three major areas. Obviously one of the overarching challenges is implementing this new framework and that's the ultimate next step. So it's fine for governments to negotiate a framework and to come up with a nice rhetorical package. But what they actually do and what they change using this framework is the real asset test of how much impact and how much influence it has. Will the SDGs actually make a difference? I think one of the challenges in that question is the gap between the rhetoric of this framework and the hard choices, the hard prioritization that's required actually to achieve progress towards this goal set. So in order to promote change, they will require commitment of significant resources. They will require changes in policy, changes in regulation, changes in mindset from a whole spectrum of actors in order to translate the framework into something much more concrete. I think as a point of reference they're really valuable and not having them would make it much harder to have that kind of major change put into effect at different levels. So if they set a framework for a transition from where we are now towards much greater sustainability, much greater equity and resource use over the next 15 years, that's a good start. So do I have a favourite goal? I think an interesting one is the commitment to reducing inequality between and within countries. This hasn't been reflected as a overarching target in any other international agreements that I'm aware of. There's a proposition tied up in that goal which is that growing inequality, growing gaps between the richest and the poorest in itself is unsustainable and drives poverty, drives overexploitation of natural resources. I guess that proposition has yet to be tested and I know the government in the UK doesn't buy into that analysis. But for me it's a quite provocative inclusion in this goal set and I think there's a lot that could be done with that principle if it's translated into harder actions, commitments, requirements for change. So that's the one I'd pick.