Next Article in Journal
Multiscale Drought Assessment in Kien Giang Province, Vietnam: Comparing MSPI and MSPEI for Monitoring in a Coastal Mekong Delta Setting
Previous Article in Journal
Mapping Scientific Research on Microplastics in Wetland Ecosystems in South Asia and Southeast Asia: Bibliometric Insights on Remediation Technologies, Including Nanoremediation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Earth
Volume 7
Issue 2
10.3390/earth7020070
earth-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainable Development Goals in the Horn of Africa: Human Rights to Food, Water, Health, and Education

by
Karen G. Añaños
1,*,
Wendi A. Gonzales Asto
2,
Alina D. Corpodean
3 and
José A. Rodríguez Martín
4
1
Department of Private International Law, University of Granada, 18001 Granada, Spain
2
Doctoral Programme in Economic and Business Sciences of the Business Administration, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
3
Doctoral Programme in Education, University of Granada, 18011 Granada, Spain
4
Andalusian Institute for Research and Innovation in Tourism (IATUR), Department of Applied Economics, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Earth 2026, 7(2), 70; https://doi.org/10.3390/earth7020070
Submission received: 9 March 2026 / Revised: 14 April 2026 / Accepted: 16 April 2026 / Published: 21 April 2026
(This article belongs to the Topic Water Management in the Age of Climate Change)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

The Horn of Africa (Kenya, Djibouti, Uganda, Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia, South Sudan, and Sudan) faces the highest rates of hunger and malnutrition in the world, exacerbated by conflict and adverse weather conditions. These factors have serious health, educational, social, and economic consequences, especially for children under five and pregnant women. In this context, we analyze each country’s progress toward Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1, 2, 3, and 4, which are closely linked to the eradication of hunger, improved health, and access to quality education. Using comparable data from the United Nations 2030 Agenda up to 2019, the achievement of the SDGs is assessed through a multidimensional approach based on Pena’s P2 distance method, constructing a composite indicator that allows for robust cross-country comparisons. This method helps identify the key measures needed to prevent future humanitarian crises in the Horn of Africa, including providing urgent assistance to these countries in vital areas such as water, nutrition, education, sanitation, and child and maternal immunization. Factors related to the work of qualified healthcare personnel in treating diseases and improving maternal and neonatal health, as well as facilitating access to basic services such as clean drinking water and sanitation and ensuring girls’ access to primary education, top the rankings in terms of their correlation with greater progress by these countries in achieving these four SDGs, which are crucial for improving the well-being of their populations.

1. Introduction

In this study, we use a spatial perspective to investigate the progress made in achieving United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Horn of Africa (Kenya, Djibouti, Uganda, Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia, South Sudan, and Sudan). More specifically, we develop an indicator to measure the achievement of these goals and use this indicator to analyze disparities in 2019, taking SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 within the framework of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [1] as a reference.
Our indicator enables a comparison among the countries in the Horn of Africa based on the information contained in a set of variables defined by the UN. These variables determine the evenness or unevenness of progress towards these four SDGs in comparative terms, up to the date of the study in the context of the region. Our index holds significance as it has not been previously applied to measure SDGs 1–4 within these countries as of 2019, considers the criteria defined in the UN SDGs (within the framework of the 2030 Agenda), and applies a multidimensional approach. These four interrelated goals are designed to eradicate poverty and hunger and improve health, well-being, and education worldwide [1,2,3,4]. Our aim is to draw conclusions about which issues are most relevant in explaining spatial disparities in the achievement of these SDGs in the Horn of Africa.
The SDGs recognize that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand in hand with strategies that improve health and education and reduce inequality [3,5]. They are universal and inclusive but context-specific, and therefore require country-specific, actions [6]. The SDGs address not only extreme poverty and its symptoms (including health impacts), but also (among many other areas) the underlying dynamics of human, environmental, and economic developments [7] that govern individual, social, and ecological determinants of health [8,9]. The successful extension of respect for human rights to all parts of the world is a major challenge for the international community [10]. The UN Istanbul Programme of Action 2011–2020 for the world’s least developed countries, which include the countries analyzed in this paper, contains numerous references to human rights, such as the right to development, food, health, sexual and reproductive health, gender equality, education, and women’s empowerment [11].
Although the countries of the Horn of Africa—the region with the lowest human development indices (HDIs) in the world [12]—differ in aspects such as customs, traditions, languages, and religions [13], they share a set of elements that justify our decision to focus on them to achieve our study objectives. They have high structural poverty, low productive capacity, poor wealth distribution, low literacy, hunger, unfavorable climate conditions such as droughts and floods, plagues, political instability, environmental degradation, poor health systems, and high infant and maternal mortality [14,15,16,17,18,19].
From a global perspective, the trajectory towards achieving the different SDGs has been not only insufficient [20] but also uneven, both between countries and across dimensions of development [1,21]. In the case of the Horn of Africa, where natural disasters and successive wars pose an additional obstacle to food security and reductions in severe child malnutrition, achieving the goal of “zero hunger” has been very difficult [22].
This region also lags in another area of the SDGs: overcoming the gender gap, including important issues such as low female representation in national parliaments and female employment rates, and the high proportion of women participating in the informal economy [23]. Despite some improvement in the last decade, high school dropout rates continue to affect young women in the Horn of Africa [24].
To this day, Africa as a whole remains one of the regions of the world hardest hit by the persistence of extreme poverty and malnutrition. Despite efforts to achieve the SDGs [25], it continues to encounter great difficulties in meeting the most basic needs—health, education, and access to water and sanitation, among others [11]. The continent is highly vulnerable to global crises such as the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak, which may jeopardize the progress made on the previous MDGs to reduce mortality [26]. Prior to the pandemic, significant progress had been made in increasing life expectancy and reducing some common causes of death associated with infant and maternal mortality [4].
The pandemic was a turning point for health emergency preparedness and for the study and regional comparison of countries in terms of UN SDG variables in the Horn of Africa, where populations are powerfully affected by health crises [11]. In such areas, millions of people lack access to electricity and reliable drinking water [27,28], and one in four people is malnourished [29] or lacks access to mosquito nets to prevent malaria [30]. Furthermore, the least progress towards the former SDGs in the Horn of Africa appears to have occurred in areas of conflict and massive population migration, coupled with a lack of infrastructure, food shortages, and minimal reduction in poverty and hunger [2,18,31,32].
For example, more than 500,000 children suffer from severe malnutrition in the Horn of Africa [12]. These alarming figures have been aggravated by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may further worsen child mortality, especially in populous countries like Ethiopia [33]. The region also failed to meet the SDG on access to improved water supply and sanitation [34,35]. Over 25% of the projected reductions in child mortality in these territories could be achieved through SDG-related policies on food, water, and energy [36,37]. In economies with a very low gross domestic product per capita [38], such as those of the countries in the Horn of Africa, the efficiency of the primary sector is a very significant factor in reducing inhabitants’ vulnerability and providing access to sufficient food [1].
Finally, we stress that the SDGs are interdependent [4], as achieving the targets of one goal contributes to achieving those of others [39]. Within this framework, we have designed our study to assess regional disparities in the values of indicators associated with the achievement of UN SDGs in the Horn of Africa by 2019. This group of countries, affected especially severely by poverty as discussed above, is experiencing severe famine, and half of those in need are children [3].
In this study, we apply a spatial approach and compare countries’ progress towards SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 to determine the degree of progress towards each goal in the region up to 2019, the most recent year for which data are available. By also showing the new information contained in each variable when analyzing a set of variables defined within the SDGs, the index represents a significant advance in research for supporting policies aimed at achieving or approaching these goals. Given the difficulty of finding up-to-date statistics on SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4, especially for this region, the construction of this indicator is itself an important contribution, enabling us to provide policy recommendations and highlight future directions for research and action.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Selection and Variable Justification

As mentioned above, the goal of this study and its main contribution are to compare the achievement of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Horn of Africa, one of the most impoverished areas on the planet [15,18,22,24]. Using the latest available data and analyzing a broad set of variables associated with these UN SDGs, we measure and ascertain the degree of progress towards these goals in the countries in this region up to 2019, with a view to 2030 and the end of the current Global Development Agenda. This article measures regional disparities in the Horn of Africa based on the values of a set of variables associated with four UN SDGs (1, 2, 3, and 4) in the context of the severe humanitarian crisis in this region. To perform this measurement, we evaluated the regional value disparities between variables associated with the comparative degree of fulfillment of these four SDGs in the Horn of Africa. Ultimately, our goal is to enhance the quality of life of the region’s inhabitants.
Our methodology is based on the construction of a synthetic index following Pena’s method (DP2) [13,40,41,42,43,44,45,46]. We performed this procedure using the R statistical package and implemented the calculation algorithm with a computer program designed for this purpose [47,48]. Specifically devised to measure distances between varied situations [43], the DP2 indicator enables comparisons among countries in the study year, taking as a reference the information contained in a set of social indicators established by the UN within the framework of the SDGs (Table 1) [41,43,47,49].
The global indicator framework was adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017 and is contained in the General Assembly’s Resolution on the work of the Statistical Commission on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [1]. We chose this framework because the SDG report coordinated by the UN Statistics Division contains detailed, reliable statistical information. These statistics are compiled jointly by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group (IAEG) on SDG indicators, coordinated by the UN Statistics Division.
Since our approach to measuring the SDGs uses indicators, we must choose a partial indicator system that enables us to measure SDG compliance in the Horn of Africa. The index includes information from different variables across the different development domains set out in the SDGs.
Given this approach, we do not intend to argue that the set of variables in this paper is an “ideal” list. Rather, it represents reasonable options given the limited availability of comparable measures of the status of SDG 1, 2, 3, and 4 compliance in the Horn of Africa.
For this stage, we followed the OECD methodology [50], which reflects changes over time in the phenomenon analyzed to address the concept of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4, taking the UN SDG variables as our reference. Studying the SDGs at the level of territorial and country disaggregation is of great interest for decision-making and policy development aimed at improving these conditions [51], in our case, in the Horn of Africa. Our index applies a multidimensional approach to one of the poorest, most fragile regions in the world, one that needs more external assistance, especially to protect its most vulnerable population groups [12].

2.2. Method: The P2 Distance

This manuscript provides valuable insights into sustainability challenges across poverty, food security, health, and education in a highly vulnerable region. In particular, this paper studies the differences between a set of variables associated with the UN SDGs by applying a social indicators approach [41,52]. This approach enables both the classification of the eight member countries of the Horn of Africa and an examination of the impact of each individual indicator to determine country disparities in SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4.
To achieve our goals, we perform an interspatial comparison up to 2019, the reference year, based on the latest available data from the UN [1,3]. In future studies, we will try to detect whether another geographical grouping of these eight African countries in this type of analysis eliminates some differences in the index values compared to a hypothetical case that would include other countries on the continent.
We also aim to verify whether any country in the Horn of Africa is close to the lower limits in the set of targets associated with SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4. Such a result would reveal that the country is in the theoretically worst possible, least optimal situation [41,46,48,53]. In this scenario, the country’s distance from the SDGs would be extreme, so great that it would be almost impossible for it to meet them by 2030 or even years later. A higher DP2 value thus reflects a greater achievement of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4, as it indicates a greater distance from the theoretically “least desirable” situation [54].
To achieve the objectives discussed, we compare a large amount of data from the UN’s extensive, reliable statistical information on progress toward the SDGs in the countries under consideration [1,3,5,7,55]. More specifically, we apply the Pena distance method to compare each country individually, while also determining the situation of each country in the context of the Horn of Africa. This method enables us to examine the impact of each variable of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the final result for the synthetic indicator to determine the disparities in meeting SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 among countries in 2019.
To complement our work, we include the human development index (HDI) (Table 2), which has been calculated annually for several decades [56]. Developed by the UN Development Programme [26], this economic and social index is based on a synthesis of three factors [57]: (1) long and healthy life, (2) education, and (3) a decent standard of living. The UNDP categorizes countries into four groups: countries with very high human development (0.8 ≤ HDI ≤ 1), countries with high human development (0.7 ≤ HDI < 0.8), countries with medium human development (0.55 ≤ HDI < 0.7), and countries with low human development (HDI < 0.55).

2.2.1. Definition and Properties of the Synthetic Distance DP2 Indicator

The DP2 method provides an optimal solution to the main problems involved in constructing a synthetic indicator [14,15,58,59]. Pena’s DP2 solves problems related to the aggregation and weighting of variables expressed in different units and to arbitrary weighting, while avoiding the duplication of information [2,44,46,60,61,62,63,64], and is also designed for interspatial and intertemporal comparisons [45,48,65,66]. To resolve the difficulty of comparing variables expressed in different measures, the data are presented in abstract units [47], that is, in relative terms, divided by a standard deviation [58].
This measurement method verifies a set of properties such that the weight of partial indicators is determined in a non-arbitrary way, enabling an interpretation of the results from an economic point of view [2,48]. Finally, the DP2 is the ideal measure for our research because it verifies a set of “properties required for a good synthetic indicator” [41,43,65,67]. These properties are existence and determinacy, monotonicity, uniqueness, invariance, homogeneity, transitivity, exhaustiveness, additivity, invariance with respect to the baseline, neutrality as demonstrated by Zarzoza [67], and completeness.
The DP2 measures the distance between the concept studied in each country and a fictitious baseline as a cardinal measurement [65]. That is, we take as a reference a theoretical country that obtains the worst values for the variables studied [43,53]—in our case, the variables linked to SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4. The DP2 indicator calculates each country’s distance from that theoretical country of reference [63].
The DP2 of country j is defined as follows [40,41]:
D P 2 = ∑ i = 1 n { ( d i σ i ) ( 1   −   R i , i − 1 , … , 1 2 ) }
where di = |Xji … X*i| is the distance between the value of variable i in country j and the baseline [49,67,68]. As indicated above, the baseline comprises the results of an imaginary country that reflects the worst-case scenario for all variables [43,69], where X* = (x*1, x*2, …, x*n) coincides with the minimum vector [4] and would thus be assigned a value of zero in the synthetic indicator of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4. One could also take the country with the highest values as the baseline, where a smaller distance relative to the baseline reference would indicate a better situation [43].
In the present study, the baseline is assigned a value of zero in the synthetic indicator [62,70], n is the number of variables, σi is the standard deviation of variable i, and (1 − R2i,i−1,…,1) is a “correction factor” [40,47] to avoid redundancy [71]. The correction factor expresses the part of the variance of Xi not explained by Xi−1, Xi−2, … X1. Multiplying each variable by the corresponding correction factor enables us to deduce the portion of information from the preceding indicators already explained [48,51].
The correction factors were obtained from the order defined by the linear correlation coefficients corresponding to the final iteration [47], incorporating the useful information and eliminating redundant information [71]. This property is one of the main reasons that multiple studies on the construction of synthetic indicators with international diffusion have chosen this technique (see Bibliography).
R2i,i−1,…,1 is the coefficient of determination in the regression of Xi on Xi−1, Xi−2, …, X1 [49,52,61], which is already included, with R21 = 0 [13,72]. The coefficient thus measures the part of the variance of each variable explained by the linear regression estimated using the preceding variables [46].

2.2.2. Hierarchy of Variables

The order of entry of the partial indicators conditions the relative weight of each variable. This order is determined by an algorithm that achieves convergence and is stabilized to verify the condition of conformity with a non-random, neutral method of variable ranking [58,69].
We reiterate that a major advantage of the DP2 method is its property of neutrality [47], as the order of the variables corresponds to their relative weight measured in terms of linear correlation with the final synthetic indicator [44,45]. We thus maintain the ranking of the variables based on their respective correlations [53] to obtain the value of the DP2 indicator for each country [71].
To ensure that the properties of the synthetic indicator are met [43], variables whose increase indicates worsening levels of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 were multiplied by −1. An increase in the value of these variables (partial indicators 1, 3, and 6 [Table 1]) would thus indicate an improvement in the levels of the SDGs [73].
In short, when compared to other methods [43,67], the DP2 indicator has the advantage of solving significant problems, such as the aggregation of variables expressed in different units, arbitrary weighting, and the duplication of information when these variables are synthesized using the same indicator [2]. For a more detailed explanation of the method, see, for example, the work of Somarriba and Zarzosa [48].

3. Results

3.1. Ranking of DP2 Countries in the Horn of Africa, According to SDG 1, 2, 3, and 4 Variables

Table 2 displays the results of applying Pena’s DP2 method, constructed from the variables in Table 1 [40,41], and ranks the eight countries of the Horn of Africa in order of their indicator values for SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4. To obtain the final results per country, we take as a reference the dummy territory, in which the variables associated with SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 take the minimum values. Following the definition given in the baseline reference, the higher the value of DP2 (Table 2), the better the country’s position in the ranking according to the set of variables analyzed in the study year [58].
The country ranked last, Somalia, yielded the lowest values in relative terms (in the context of the Horn of Africa) (Table 2) and is thus far behind in achieving SDG 1, 2, 3, and 4 targets by 2030. In interpreting these results, we first note that the maximum distance between countries (in relative terms) was high in 2019. The difference between the scores obtained for DP2 for the first country, Djibouti, and the last, Somalia, was 7.1 (Table 2). Another way to clarify these differences is through the coefficient of openness (quotient of the maximum and minimum values), which reached a maximum of 15.2. As to the indicators for SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4, the results of the analysis point to disparities between countries for the indicators considered in our study, especially for the countries ranked last: South Sudan and Somalia (Table 2).
The results show that Djibouti, which represents 0.5% of the region’s total population, achieved the greatest progress towards SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Horn of Africa in 2019—that is, before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic—showing a distance of 7.6 from the baseline (Table 2). This result is not surprising given Djibouti’s high relative values in most of the variables analyzed (values above the mean distance of 4.5). In the years immediately prior to the spread of COVID-19, Djibouti had significantly improved its incidence of malaria and tuberculosis, promoted measures at a national level to advance child health and food security, and increased the participation of women in primary education [11].
This result does not mean, however, that Djibouti was close to meeting the targets associated with UN SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in 2019. The country’s progress towards these goals is conditioned by issues such as the still-limited access of mothers and infants to health services and adequate daily nutrition [74]. Rather, Djibouti obtained the highest values for the estimated variables in relative terms compared to the rest of the countries in the region (Table 1). According to the HDI, Djibouti still ranks 166th among the 189 countries classified using 2019 data, obtaining an index of 0.60 (Table 2). It achieved a privileged position in our ranking for 2019 (Table 2) because its values exceed those of the other countries in the region for the set of variables associated with SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Table 1).
Djibouti is followed by Kenya (6.4), the country that achieved the second-best actual situation with respect to SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in 2019. Kenya has a much larger population than Djibouti in absolute terms and had high relative values for all partial indicators considered. Together, Djibouti and Kenya account for almost one-fifth of the total population of the Horn of Africa. Moreover, they are the countries with the best theoretical scenarios, registering higher values for the variables than the rest of the countries in the region in the study year (Table 2). In the years immediately prior to the crisis generated by COVID-19 and the major drought experienced in 2019, which further increased child acute malnutrition and food insecurity [33], Kenya had achieved relatively high levels of growth [38], with an average human development of 0.52 (Table 2) and a decrease in the number of inhabitants living below the international poverty line [3].
Until 2019, the country also had implemented effective measures to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS and improve prenatal and delivery care by skilled health personnel [19]. It had also increased women’s participation in primary and secondary education, as well as the number of schools offering basic services [1], and provided access to a human right—safe drinking water [4]—to a larger proportion of its population, improving child and maternal health and decreasing cases of anemia among women [12].
The first two countries in the ranking are followed at a relatively short distance, first, by Uganda (6.1), with an HDI of 0.54 and 15% of the total inhabitants of the region, and, second, by Eritrea (5.8), with an HDI of 0.46 and one of the least populated territories in the Horn of Africa (Table 2). In an environment of increasing stability, and rising life expectancy and income for its inhabitants [1], Uganda made progress up to 2019 [12]. It is worth highlighting that the pre-2019 improvements in the targets linked to SDG 1, reducing at the national level the proportion of the population living below the international poverty line, SDG2, expanding employment and productivity in agriculture, SDG3, strengthening the health system, and SDG4, significantly increasing schooling of boys and girls, foster the inclusion of the most vulnerable segments of the country’s population [3].
The final synthetic indicator (Table 2) showed, in contrast, that Sudan, which represents approximately 15% of the Horn of Africa’s population today, obtained a relatively low position for the achievement of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in 2019. Its value (4.3) is below the average for this group of countries (4.7). Entering a new era in their history, Sudan and South Sudan (which is second-to-last in our ranking) (Table 2) were admitted to the UN in August 2011. They face an unprecedented opportunity to make and build peace and respect for human rights [2]—very important tools in promoting social and institutional change [19]. However, poverty, malnutrition, the scarcity of drinking water, child and maternal mortality, malaria and other diseases, and conflicts remain powerful constraints to achieving or even approaching the SDGs in these territories [3,75]. These countries do not comply with the provisions of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and fall far below the minimum standards recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for a dignified life, which include access to water for drinking, washing, cooking, and bathing, among various other issues [33].
Another of our goals specified above was to determine whether any country in the Horn of Africa was approaching the theoretically least desirable scenario—that is, whether it obtained the minimum values for SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the study year. We found Somalia, which represents approximately 5% of the region’s total population, to be very close to this situation, at a distance of 0.5 from the baseline (a score of zero on the synthetic indicator) for the variables included in our study. Somalia is far from guaranteeing human rights to food, zero hunger, health, and education (Table 2), as it has experienced decades of intense negative conditions, including severe drought, disease outbreaks, famine, insecurity (especially for women and girls), displacement, and conflict [4]. Even before the eruption of COVID-19 [76], data on Somalia were worrying, and a large proportion of its inhabitants needed daily humanitarian aid. One million children under 5 years of age suffer from acute malnutrition in Somalia [77]. The country has water, food, and pasture shortages, and one of the highest infant and maternal mortality rates in the world [11], combined with one of the lowest rates of schooling of children and the presence of health personnel [3].
Finally, Ethiopia (3.5), the most populous country in the Horn of Africa, has approximately 100 million inhabitants and a GDP per capita of €840. Its HDI was 0.49 (among the lowest in the world for the year studied), and it was also relatively close to the minimum threshold of our ranking for SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Table 2). This situation stems from a very adverse scenario with a lack of basic services for its population, increasing malnutrition and food insecurity, droughts, floods, famines, and a poor healthcare system. Although it suffers from outbreaks of infectious diseases, Ethiopia has only one doctor per 10,000 of its inhabitants.
The country also has highly congested displacement sites, with limited access to sanitation facilities and water fit for consumption, in a context of locust plagues causing crop failures and successive wars and conflicts, such as the recent one in the northern region of Tigray [1]. Half of the children in Ethiopia aged 6 months to 5 years suffer from malnutrition, and millions of minors need some form of daily assistance to survive [18].
Ethiopia has, however, made progress in achieving the SDGs in recent years, experiencing an environment of economic growth [38] (especially before the pandemic) in key sectors for the most vulnerable groups (values included in our indicator—see Table 1), such as those related to education, drinking water, hunger, health, and agriculture [1], though Ethiopia still requires humanitarian aid for about 10 million people in any scenario. Based on their adverse situation relative to the variables and targets analyzed, a specific post-2030 Agenda to achieve the SDGs could be proposed for the countries analyzed, along with other countries in Africa and Asia.

3.2. Order of the Variables

To fulfill another study goal, this section analyzes the relative importance of each variable in constructing the synthetic indicator and the results obtained using the correction factor [41]—that is, the amount of new, useful, or non-redundant information attributable to each variable [48].
Table 3 shows the variables’ order of entry and weight in the final synthetic indicator, determined through the iterative calculation of DP2. Each variable’s ranking corresponds to its entry in the overall synthetic indicator [43,52] (e.g., variable 1 is the proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel, the only partial indicator for which we do not correct). Moreover, variable 1 has a correction factor of 1 (Table 3), which means that 0% of its variability was explained by the previous variables, thus capturing 100% of the information. Since it contains all the information and its corresponding correction factor is 100% (Table 3), it is the variable that provides the most useful (new) information.
The prevalence of anemia in women aged 15–49 years according to gestational status is the second variable involved in calculating the synthetic indicator, and it obtains a large specific weight in the final result. This variable includes 68% of the new information contained in the indicator and has the second highest correlation with the levels of achievement for SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 for countries in the Horn of Africa in 2019. The results of the other variables can be interpreted in the same way (Table 3).
Based on the order in which the variables appear, we affirm that the variables associated with health (under Sustainable Development Goals 2 and 3) and another variable related to Goal 1 (end poverty in all its forms everywhere) clearly exert the greatest influence, generally weigh strongly in the ranking of the countries, and are highly relevant in explaining the levels of achievement for SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Horn of Africa in 2019. More specifically, variables 5 (proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel), 3 (prevalence of anemia in women aged 15–49), and 2 (proportion of the population living in households with access to basic services) occupy the top three positions, with substantial relative importance in the final result.
These factors are followed relatively closely by the “education” component, captured in SDG 4 (ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all). This variable also correlates closely with the level of explanation of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Horn of Africa in the study year, especially with variable 4 (proportion of girls among all pupils in primary education), which shows a high specific weight in the final result for the indicator. This variable retains 34% of its information as useful—that is, not duplicated and not included in the previous particular indicators—and it is thus important to incorporate variable 4 in DP2 as well.
This finding reflects the growing importance of the active role of women in the education system, as well as of maternal health and other dimensions such as gender equality and environmental sustainability. In our study, we thus incorporate these as key areas for action promoting sustainable development in countries in the Horn of Africa, in accordance with the goals of the UN 2030 Agenda.
At this point, we stress the vital importance of making progress in health and education in countries in the Horn of Africa for increasing these territories’ sustainable economic and social development. Often, these countries’ size and highly dispersed populations, split between urban and rural areas, lead to higher costs for infrastructure and public services.
The importance of partial indicator 5 (proportion of agricultural land devoted to productive and sustainable agriculture, framed in SDG 2) when measuring the achievement of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Horn of Africa in 2019 is also worth noting. This partial indicator has a correction factor of 0.25 and thus provides a relatively high degree of useful (new) information (Table 3).
Although variable 6 (proportion of the population living below the international poverty line) appears in a relatively low position, with little importance in the construction of the final indicator for the achievement of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4, it does retain information not included in the higher-ranked variables. Because this partial indicator retains 18% useful non-duplicated information, it is important to incorporate it into the DP2 procedure.
The variables related to Goal 3, number 7 (under-5 mortality rate), and Goal 4, number 8 (proportion of schools offering basic services, by type of service), are not among the partial indicators most closely related to the achievement of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Table 3), but they are weighted with non-zero values in the DP2 method.
This difference may be due to the fact that the information contained in these variables is included in the other variables considered in this study. For example, variable 7 (under-5 mortality rate) presents a correction factor of 0.10 and barely retains any new information. Such a result is unusual in this type of analysis, where this partial indicator is usually an important variable explaining disparities between countries. Variable 7 may exert only a small influence on the final estimated score of the index because most of its information is contained in other variables studied (Table 3). In other words, by considering this variable in the DP2 procedure, we have eliminated redundant information.
Finally, note that the DP2 selection criterion only completely eliminates a variable when that variable does not provide any new information. We thus retain all partial indicators, including variables 6–8, because they present a non-zero correction factor, suggesting that their relevance is not negligible (Table 3). This result corroborates the suitability of the variables selected for inclusion in this study.

4. Discussion

Measuring progress towards SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 involves assessing different dimensions of the human rights to food, water, zero hunger, health, and education, as well as the simultaneous use of multiple variables defined in the SDGs of UN Agenda 2030. Thus, a suitable methodology is essential for aggregating information from the variables studied, ultimately synthesizing these into a cardinal index that enables meaningful comparisons among countries in the study year.
In this study, we have approached the measurement of regional disparities from the data on a set of variables associated with the comparative level of fulfillment of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Horn of Africa in 2019 (including South Sudan) in the context of the serious humanitarian crisis this area is experiencing. We measure these disparities by constructing a global indicator of compliance with these four SDGs from the UN 2030 Agenda using the Agenda’s statistical contribution, the most current reliable data from the UN [1,3].
The multidimensional DP2 has proven to be an ideal method for constructing synthetic indicators [15,43,63] as it verifies a set of properties that ensure a non-arbitrary determination of the weight of partial indicators and is designed to perform interspatial comparisons [2,47,59]. We chose the DP2 method because it overcomes the main limitations of a synthetic indicator—specifically, the use of disparate measures, the lack of neutrality in weighting partial indicators [47], and the redundancy of information. This method also enables us to analyze a wide range of multidimensional phenomena [46]—in our case, the comparative level of fulfillment of four SDGs, as well as the role of each individual variable of the synthetic indicator.
Our study was based on eight variables, previously selected on a very broad initial basis and linked to SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in eight countries in the Horn of Africa in 2019. Our index is important because it contributes to individual country analysis and provides a methodology to approximate measures for SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in that year.
The results of our ranking showed fairly clear differences between countries in their progress towards SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4. Djibouti and Kenya rank highest, whereas South Sudan and Somalia rank lowest within the regional SDG achievement assessment. In addition, we should note the differences in ranking between Sudan and South Sudan, which became independent in 2011, in the study year (Table 2).
Somalia emerges as one of the poorest countries not only in the region but in Africa as a whole, in a context with severe negative conditions including conflict, insecurity, massive displacement (especially of women and girls), political instability, food insecurity, malnutrition, lack of agricultural productivity, and droughts—a situation of severe humanitarian crisis [26,76]. Somalia thus presents extremely low values in the set of variables studied here and linked to SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4, and needs urgent help from the international community and the UN, especially considering that our analysis was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to our estimates, the gap between the best- and worst-ranked country is very high, at 7.1 units away from the theoretical baseline of a country that would register the worst possible results. This result reveals that progress towards SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 is very uneven in the context of the Horn of Africa. This significant situation should be addressed by the next UN Sustainable Development Agenda, perhaps by 2045. One possibility might be to implement less general, more country-specific programming to improve achievement levels for the human rights to food, water and sanitation, zero hunger, health, and education, with a human rights-based approach to social inclusion and access to basic services in these territories.
Kenya and Djibouti show the best results for the trajectory described up to 2019 based on the values of the SDG variables considered. In contrast, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, and South Sudan—with populations in need of large amounts of humanitarian aid to survive and living in an environment of continuous conflict and successive wars with very weak, deficient health systems [3]—are receding, not advancing, in their achievement of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4. The disparities recorded in the achievement of this UN goal draw attention to progress in reducing maternal and neonatal mortality and in providing skilled healthcare during childbirth.
More specifically, the results indicate that Djibouti, which represents only 0.50% of the total population of the Horn of Africa, achieved the highest values for the variables incorporated in our global indicator, showing the most progress towards all four SDGs in 2019. From a political point of view, it is worth noting that, in 2014, the country’s government launched “Vision Djibouti 2035,” a new economic development strategy aligned with various SDGs that aims, among other issues, to reduce absolute poverty by one-third by 2035 [11].
Djibouti is followed by Kenya, with a much larger impact in terms of the region’s population—with almost one-fifth of the total population of the Horn of Africa—at a distance of 6.4 from the baseline (Table 2). Among the factors contributing to progress towards SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Kenya are the reduction in chronic child malnutrition and the improvement of maternal mortality [26], one of the targets with the greatest impact on the final ranking of countries (Table 3) and key to achieving not only SDG 2 but also the other goals included in our study.
The most populated country, Ethiopia, with almost 40% of the Horn of Africa’s population and a low HDI, presents levels of achievement for SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 well below the average for the region in the year studied. Ethiopia obtained very low values in all variables, showing very limited results in fulfilling its main obligations toward these UN goals. Ethiopia’s very low position in our ranking (Table 2) is not surprising. For this country’s population, in an environment in which conflicts have ended and a definitive peace is achieved throughout its territory, access to drinking water and improved sanitation, ending malnutrition in women and children, improving maternal and child health services, and incorporating a high number of health personnel are essential [20].
Finally, Somalia, which has just approved its ninth National Development Plan (NDP), is at the opposite extreme, with the lowest values for the variables included in the synthetic indicator for SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4. Somalia’s very high maternal mortality rate places it closer to the least desirable theoretical situation than any other country in the Horn of Africa (Table 2). Decades of conflict, permanent insecurity, widespread poverty, and a predominantly agricultural economy with very low productivity, combined with a lack of basic social services and lack of water resources, have had a very negative effect on the quality of life in Somalia. The country fails in sustainable food security, especially among women and girls, most of whom lack access to formal education [75].
As our estimates show a relatively high disparity in progress towards SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 among countries in the Horn of Africa, we would stress our proposal to establish individual agendas specific to each country, even prioritizing some goals over others depending on the specifics of each country in the region.
Our findings show a clear need to focus aid primarily on strengthening health human capital, improving maternal health, increasing access to drinking water and other basic services, improving women’s nutrition, and improving girls’ primary education. These and other issues will, in parallel, promote progress on other issues that are so important for these countries, including child health (profoundly affected in this region, especially among orphans) [78], poverty, nutrition, and the prevention of infectious diseases. The DP2 ranking for these countries differs in general from that of the HDI for countries with low human development in 2019 (Table 2). Our analysis includes multiple SDG variables, some of which are not included in the HDI.
We have sought to collaborate in the search for lasting solutions to the recurrent humanitarian crises affecting the Horn of Africa, considering the uneven pace of progress in the various countries of the region toward achieving the SDGs, as indicated by our estimates. The SDGs plot a useful path for donors, governments, civil society, and the private sector. While the MDGs focused on poverty eradication, the SDGs shed light on the need for an inclusive development process, constituting a new approach for achieving an inclusive, sustainable, long-term development process. The SDGs are, however, a work in progress, and the problem of how to measure them has not yet been fully resolved [16]. Therefore, the processes for evaluating the achievement of the SDGs must be improved, and our aim in this study was to provide new ideas for expanding our knowledge of both the SDG variables analyzed and the impact of measures made to achieve them.
Another contribution of our study on the variables of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in countries in the Horn of Africa is its exploration of the relative impact of each variable when constructing the synthetic indicator (Table 3), using the statistical correction factor proposed by Pena [40,41]. The main results obtained using this procedure enable us to draw the following general conclusions.

5. Conclusions

1. Our aim in this study was to contribute new insights on the impact of the SDG variables analyzed, in particular, factors related to the work of qualified healthcare personnel in treating diseases and improving maternal and neonatal health, and related to facilitating access to basic services such as drinking water and sanitation and girls’ access to primary education, rank highest in our classification in terms of their correlation with the composite indicator for SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the year of the study. Therefore, we identify them as key elements for achieving better results for the variables associated with the new goals of a hypothetical new United Nations 2045 Agenda for sustainable development in all countries of this region, which has been so severely affected by humanitarian crises for decades. These variables should receive more attention in the aid programs of international organizations, especially those of the UN.
2. Variables related to child health or the percentage of the population living below the poverty line, on the other hand, contribute less to the composite indicator, since the information they contain is already included in the other variables considered, which rank higher in the classification (Table 3). All the variables analyzed provide relevant information for determining the level of achievement for SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Horn of Africa. The single variable that correlates most closely with the composite indicator is “Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel,” which contributes all of its information when constructing the indicators for SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4. The “prevalence of anemia among women aged 15–49, by pregnancy status (percentage)” is the variable with the second-closest correlation to the composite indicator, contributing 68% of its useful and non-redundant information to the composite indicator. The greatest disparities in these variables occurred between the most privileged countries—Djibouti and Kenya—and the least privileged countries—South Sudan and Somalia—in terms of the achievement of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Table 2).
3. Priority must be given to providing urgent assistance to these countries in key areas such as water, nutrition, and sanitation, as well as childhood and maternal vaccination, in order to prevent a future humanitarian emergency. There is an urgent need to find ways to ensure food supply, improve food processing, and increase agricultural efficiency for food security by promoting research in this field, incorporating sustainable technological advances, and significantly increasing the number of skilled workers trained in this region in the areas of the environment, education, water management, health, agriculture, or energy, as part of the transition to a green economy. Consequently, measures must be taken to improve water management and storage capacity in order to ensure a continuous supply of water for domestic and economic use. In this regard, through a coordinated approach, the involvement of local communities in the Horn of Africa in these interventions can encourage a greater use of fertilizers and improved seeds by farmers, as high food prices—due in part to droughts, energy costs, and the depletion of food reserves—will remain a major obstacle to reducing hunger in these areas.
4. As noted above, poor harvests, water shortages, and flooding—exacerbated by conflict in the region—have led to food shortages and skyrocketing prices. Outbreaks of measles, cholera, yellow fever, chikungunya, meningitis, and other infectious diseases account for the majority of serious public health incidents in the Horn of Africa, and vaccination coverage in the region with life-saving childhood vaccines is well below the threshold needed to prevent disease outbreaks. More essential medical equipment and supplies, vaccines, medicines, and kits for severe malnutrition or diseases such as cholera and measles are needed to support essential health services, especially for children and women. Additionally, health centers should be equipped with smartphones, tablets, and a telemedicine kit for gynecological examinations. The telemedicine kit has been a major breakthrough in enabling ultrasound scans for pregnant women, as local health workers can easily transport it to different homes or health posts [32].
In practice, the design and implementation of a specific agricultural greenhouse project using seawater and solar energy or other water infrastructure projects can significantly improve the supply of drinking water in certain areas.
5. Energy, a key factor in achieving most of the SDGs, also facilitates food preparation and is essential for healthcare facilities—such as operating rooms—to function at full capacity, as well as for the refrigeration of vaccines and medicines, factors that are crucial for improving maternal and child health in these countries. However, the lack of resources to finance energy investments remains an obstacle to increasing electrification and reducing the region’s unsustainable reliance on forests as an energy source. Greater external support is needed to continue investing in renewable energy solutions that help limit the risks of further deforestation [11,79].
Ultimately, a lack of access to sustainable energy resources has remained a major challenge for many parts of this region for decades, despite the fact that access to adequate and sustainable forms of energy is necessary for the achievement of SDGs 1 through 4, considered in this document for the Horn of Africa, among other regions. Furthermore, to maintain momentum and sustain the implementation of these sustainable development programs in the Horn of Africa, it is absolutely necessary for countries to incorporate mechanisms to strengthen their institutional framework in the context of conflict cessation and the achievement of lasting peace as an essential condition for mitigating adverse consequences.
6. Aid should be provided in the medium and long terms to help these countries advance toward the UN goals for maternal and child health to align with Agenda 2030 and the very distant but nevertheless approaching Agenda 2063 of the African Union. In this context, we wish finally to note that the right to health is fundamental to human development [80]. In the Horn of Africa, however, some hopeful gains in child development in the region have stalled [81]. Despite the serious problems described in this study, it is not too late, through international solidarity and with special attention to the countries at the bottom of our ranking (Table 2), to reshape the future and enable a much better world beyond 2030 for every child, respecting their basic human rights in the Horn of Africa. In this regard, the successes or failures in achieving the SDGs, such as those examined in our study, must be viewed within the context of respect for the human rights of the entire population of these countries, particularly the most vulnerable groups, such as children, with reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [82] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [83]. Our results reveal that progress towards SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 is very uneven in the context of the Horn of Africa, and this significant situation should be addressed in the next UN Sustainable Development Agenda, perhaps by 2045. One possibility might be to implement less general, more country-specific programming to improve achievement levels for the human rights to food, water and sanitation, zero hunger, health, and education, with a human rights-based approach to social inclusion and access to basic services in these territories.
7. Achieving sustainable and inclusive development requires a foundation of peace and stability, essential for upholding human rights across the entire population. These concerns could be addressed when programming UN aid to this area of the world to reduce territorial disparities and help the millions of children and women affected. We conclude by reiterating our desire to contribute to improving well-being in the Horn of Africa and welcome further complementary initiatives to further this effort.
These initiatives, which require global collaboration for their success [84], can be applied and integrated, to a large extent, on the path to achieving the SDGs in other regions of the world, including the least developed countries of Africa and Asia [1,19], which we plan to explore in the coming years as the end date of the UN 2030 Agenda draws ever closer and a new global sustainable development strategy needs to be adopted and implemented. Such data will enable us to capture any differences that may emerge. Finally, we wish to emphasize that the absence of reference data makes it difficult to monitor and analyze some SDG variables adequately in Africa, despite the significant efforts being made by the UN to provide increasingly complete statistics for African countries as a whole.
Taking this difficulty into account, we have approached the measurement of SDGs based on the data available. We hope that this study will be complemented by new proposals for research on this topic taking into account the unequal pace of progress for the different countries in the region toward fulfillment of the SDGs as derived from our estimations. Overall, progress towards achieving the SDGs was limited and uneven among Horn of Africa countries throughout the study year. We reiterate our intention to continue researching this line within the framework of the 2030 Agenda of SDGs to analyze the negative impact of COVID-19 on these countries’ progress when the data become available.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.G.A., A.D.C. and W.A.G.A.; methodology, W.A.G.A. and A.D.C.; software, A.D.C.; validation, J.A.R.M., K.G.A. and W.A.G.A.; formal analysis, J.A.R.M. and A.D.C.; investigation, K.G.A., A.D.C. and W.A.G.A.; resources, K.G.A., W.A.G.A. and J.A.R.M.; data curation, J.A.R.M. and A.D.C.; writing—original draft preparation, K.G.A.; writing—review and editing, K.G.A.; visualization, W.A.G.A. and A.D.C.; supervision, K.G.A.; project administration, J.A.R.M.; funding acquisition, J.A.R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is part of the project VADESSOS (PID2022-1383339OB-I00) funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by ERDF/EU and project (PID2022-136235NB-I00) funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by ERDF/EU.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

K.G.A. thanks the project VADESSOS (PID2022-1383339OB-I00) “Regulatory gaps and progressive development of the 2030 Agenda and the principle of sustainability. Special relevance for Spain”, the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, funded by the Generation of Knowledge 2022 Programme, the Spanish State Research Agency (AEI). The author would also like to thank the Francisco de Vitoria Institute of International and European Studies. J.A.R.M. gratefully acknowledges that this research is part of the project PID2022-136235NB-I00 funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by ERDF/EU.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Martin, J.A.R.; Aguilera, J.D.J.; Martín, J.M.M.; Fernández, J.A.S. Crisis in the Horn of Africa: Measurement of Progress towards Millennium Development Goals. Soc. Indic. Res. 2018, 135, 499–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Añaños, K.; Rodríguez, J.A.; Añaños, F.T. Human Rights in the Least Developed Countries of Asia: An Index for Quantifying Sustainable Development Goal 3 (Good Health & Wellbeing). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2016; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  6. Omisore, A.G. Attaining Sustainable Development Goals in sub-Sahar and Africa: The need to address environmental challenges. Environ. Dev. 2018, 25, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2015; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  8. World Health Organization. Health Systems Financing: The Road to Universal Coverage. The World Health Report; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  9. World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2016: Monitoring Health for the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goal; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  10. Mejía, K.A.Z.; Bedriñana, K.G.A.; Martín, J.M.M.; Fernández, J.A.S.; Martín, J.A.R. Human rights in the Horn of Africa: An index of child & maternal health. Gac. Sanit. 2020, 34, 186–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2019; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  12. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Key Statistics and Trends in Regional Trade in Africa; UNCTAD: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  13. Rodríguez, J.A.; Holgado, M.; Salinas, J.A. An index of progress towards eradicating extreme poverty and hunger (MDG1) in southern Africa and the Horn of Africa. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2013, 8, 467–480. [Google Scholar]
  14. Brikci, N.; Holder, A. MDG4—Hope or despair for Africa? Rev. Econ. Mund. 2011, 27, 71–94. [Google Scholar]
  15. Rodríguez, J.A.; Moreno, D.; Sánchez, J.A. An index of education and child health in the Horn of Africa. Qual. Quant. 2014, 48, 863–870. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bianchi, A. From MDGs to SDGs: Where Does Africa Stand? Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale (ISPI): Milan, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  17. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2015; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. UNICEF. La Respuesta a la COVID-19. Informe Anual de UNICEF 2020; Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rodríguez, J.A.; Añaños, K. Index of the Right to Child Health in Africa. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research; Maggino, F., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Global Report on Internal Displacement—Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2017; UNHCR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  21. Permanyer, I. The measurement of success in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. J. Econ. Inequal. 2013, 11, 393–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. World Health Organization; United Nations Children’s Fund. Tracking Progress Towards Universal Coverage for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health. The 2017 Report; WHO/UNICEF: Geneva, Switzerland; New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  23. Türkeli, S.; Wong, P.H.; Yitbarek, E.A. Multiplex Learning: An Evidence-Based Approach to Design Policy Learning Networks in Sub-Saharan Africa for the SDGs. In Africa & the Sustainable Development Goals; Ramutsindela, M., Mickler, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. African Development Bank. African Economic Outlook 2020; AfDB: Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  25. Abotebuno, I. Agenda 2030 in sub-Saharan Africa: What the Millennium Development Goals’ narrative teaches about poverty eradication. Afr. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2018, 10, 3–22. [Google Scholar]
  26. United Nations Development Programme. COVID-19 and Human Development: Exploring Global Preparedness and Vulnerability; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ebhota, W.S.; Tabakov, P.Y. Power inadequacy impedes economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 2018, 9, 610–622. [Google Scholar]
  28. Azadi, H.; Burkart, S.; Moghaddam, S.M.; Mahmoudi, H.; Janečková, K.; Sklenička, P.; Ho, P.; Teklemariam, D.; Nadiri, H. Famine in the Horn of Africa: Understanding Institutional Arrangements in Land Tenure Systems. Food Rev. Int. 2022, 38, 829–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nkiaka, E.; Okpara, U.T.; Okumah, M. Food-energy-water security in sub-Saharan Africa: Quantitative and spatial assessments using an indicator-based approach. Environ. Dev. 2021, 40, 100655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Crawleya, H.; Blitz, B. Common agenda or Europe’s agenda? International protection, human rights and migration from the Horn of Africa. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 2019, 45, 2258–2274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. MDG Report 2015: Assessing Progress in Africa Toward the Millennium Development Goals; UNECA: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; African Union: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; African Development Bank: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; United Nations Development Programme: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  32. UNICEF. Levels and Trends in Child Mortality: Report 2017. Estimates Developed by the UN Inter-Agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation; United Nations Children’s Fund: New York, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  33. World Health Organization. The Potential Impact of Health Service Disruptions on the Burden of Malaria. A Modelling Analysis for Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  34. World Health Organization; United Nations Children’s Fund. Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. A Snaphot of Sanitation and Drinking Water in Sub-Saharan Africa Region; WHO/UNICEF: Geneva, Switzerland; New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lucas, P.L.; Hilderink, H.B.M.; Janssen, P.H.M.; Kc, S.; van Vuuren, D.P.; Niessen, L. Future impacts of environmental factors on achieving the SDG target on child mortality—A synergistic assessment. Glob. Environ. Change 2019, 57, 101925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Queenan, K.; Garnier, J.; Nielsen, L.R.; Buttigieg, S.; de Meneghi, D.; Holmberg, M.; Zinsstag, J.; Rüegg, S.; Häsler, B.; Kock, R. Roadmap to a One Health Agenda 2030. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour. 2017, 12, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kiross, G.T.; Chojenta, C.; Barker, D.; Loxton, D. The effects of health expenditure on infant mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from panel data analysis. Health Econ. Rev. 2020, 10, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. International Monetary Fund. COVID-19: An Unprecedented Threat. Regional Economic Outlook for South-Saharan Africa, April 2020; IMF: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  39. Najafizada, S.A.M. Policy Research Institutions and the Health SDGs: Building Momentum in South Asia. Country Report; Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU): Kabul, Afghanistan, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  40. Pena, J.B. Problemas de Medición del Bienestar y Conceptos Afines; Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE): Madrid, Spain, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  41. Pena, J.B. La medición del bienestar social: Una revisión crítica. Estud. Econ. Apl. 2009, 27, 299–324. [Google Scholar]
  42. Rodríguez, J.A. Propuesta de un índice de bienestar social en los países menos adelantados (PMA) de África. Econ. Soc. Territ. 2011, 11, 19–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zarzosa, P.; Somarriba, N. An assessment of social welfare in Spain: Territorial analysis using a synthetic welfare indicator. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 111, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ray, S. An Index of Maternal and Child Healthcare Status in India: Measuring inter- and intra-state variations from capability perspectives. Soc. Indic. Res. 2014, 117, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Canaviri, J.A. Measuring the concept of “wellbeing”: A first approach for Bolivia. Int. J. Wellbeing 2016, 6, 36–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Martín, J.M.; Salinas, J.A.; Rodríguez, J.A. Comprehensive evaluation of the tourism seasonality using a synthetic DP2 indicator. Tour. Geogr. 2019, 21, 284–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zarzosa, P. Aproximación a la Medición del Bienestar Social; Secretariado de Publicaciones: Valladolid, Spain, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  48. Somarriba, N.; Zarzosa, P. Quality of Life in the European Union: An econometric analysis from a gender perspective. Soc. Indic. Res. 2019, 142, 179–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zarzosa, P. La Calidad de Vida en los Municipios de la Provincia de Valladolid; Diputación Provincial: Valladolid, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  50. OECD. Society at a Glance. OECD Social Indicators 2002; OECD: Paris, France, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rodríguez, J.A.; Holgado, M.; Salinas, J.A. An index for quantifying female education and child health in emerging economies. Arch. Dis. Child. 2015, 100, s10–s12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cuenca, E.; Rodríguez, J.A. Medición de las disparidades entre indicadores asociados al bienestar social en los Países Menos Adelantados (PMA) de Asia. Rev. Econ. Mund. 2010, 25, 83–108. [Google Scholar]
  53. Rodríguez, J.A. An index of child health in the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) of Africa. Soc. Indic. Res. 2012, 105, 309–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zarzosa, P. The social welfare in Spain before the crisis: Territorial and chronological analysis. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2012, 1, 165–171. [Google Scholar]
  55. United Nations. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sen, A.; Anand, S. The Income Component of the Human Development Index. J. Hum. Dev. 2000, 1, 83–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Peláez-Herreros, O. Análisis de los indicadores de desarrollo humano, marginación, rezago social y pobreza en los municipios de Chiapas a partir de una perspectiva demográfica. Econ. Soc. Territ. 2012, 12, 181–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Somarriba, N.; Pena, B. La medición de la calidad de vida en Europa. El papel de la información subjetiva. Estud. Econ. Apl. 2009, 27, 373–396. [Google Scholar]
  59. Montero, J.M.; Chasco, C.; Larraz, B. Building an environmental quality index for a big city: A special interpolation approach combined with a distance indicator. J. Geogr. Syst. 2010, 12, 435–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rodríguez, J.A.; Salinas, J.A.; Ubiña, A.J. An index of progress towards the MDG 6 in Sub-Saharan Africa: Combat HIV, AIDS and Malaria. Child Indic. Res. 2012, 5, 99–213. [Google Scholar]
  61. Escobar, L. Indicadores sintéticos de calidad ambiental: Un modelo general para grandes zonas urbanas. EURE 2006, 32, 73–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chasco, C. Objective index of quality of life in Spain. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life Research; Michalos, A., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  63. Somarriba, N.; Zarzosa, P. Quality of Life in Latin America: A proposal for a synthetic indicator. In Indicators of Quality of Life in Latin America; Tonon, G., Ed.; Social Indicators Research Series; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 62, pp. 19–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Guaita Martínez, J.M.; Martín Martín, J.M.; Salinas, J.A.; Mogorrón-Guerrero, H. An analysis of the stability of rural tourism as a desired condition for sustainable tourism. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 100, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rodríguez Martín, J.A.; Martín Martín, J.M.; Salinas Fernández, J.A.; Zermeño Mejía, K.A.; Añaños Bedriñana, K.G. A Spatial Analysis of the Achievements, in Terms of Regional Development, Accomplished by the Initial EU-Member Cohesion Fund Beneficiaries Using a Synthetic Indicator. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Salinas Fernández, J.A.; Serdeira Azevedo, P.; Martín Martín, J.M.; Martín, J.A.R. Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness in the countries most visited by international tourists: Proposal of a synthetic index. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 33, 100582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Somarriba, N. Aproximación a la Medición de la Calidad de Vida en la Unión Europea. Doctoral Thesis, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  68. Rodríguez, J.A.; Salinas, J.A. An index of maternal & child health in the least developed countries of Asia. Gac. Sanit. 2012, 26, 190–192. [Google Scholar]
  69. Zarzosa, P. El criterio de discriminación en la selección de indicadores de bienestar. Análisis del coeficiente de discriminación de Ivanovic. Estud. Econ. Apl. 1994, 2, 169–185. [Google Scholar]
  70. Martín, J.M.; Salinas, J.A.; Rodríguez, J.A.; Jiménez, J.D. Assessment of the Tourism’s Potential as a Sustainable Development Instrument in Terms of Annual Stability: Application to Spanish Rural Destinations in Process of Consolidation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Somarriba, N.; Zarzosa, P.; Pena, B. The economic crisis and its effects on the quality of life in the European Union. Soc. Indic. Res. 2015, 120, 323–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Cuenca, E.; Rodríguez, J.A.; Navarro, M. The features of development in the Pacific countries of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group. Soc. Indic. Res. 2010, 99, 469–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Merino, M.C.; Somarriba, N.; Negro, A. Un análisis dinámico de la calidad del trabajo en España. Los efectos de la crisis económica. Estud. Econ. Apl. 2012, 30, 261–282. [Google Scholar]
  74. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Draft Djibouti Country Strategic Plan (2020–2024); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  75. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2018; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  76. African Development Bank. Economic Impacts of COVID-19 on Africa and Some Policy Options; AfDB: Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  77. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The Elimination of Food Insecurity in the Horn of Africa. A Strategy for Concerted Government and UN Agency Action; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  78. UNICEF. La Convención Sobre los Derechos del Niño; UNICEF: New York, NY, USA, 2021; Available online: https://www.unicef.org/es/convencion-derechos-nino/convencion-version-ninos (accessed on 21 January 2026).
  79. Economic Commission for Africa. New and Emerging Challenges in Africa Summary Report; Economic Commission for Africa: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  80. Helliwell, J.; Layard, R.; Sachs, J. World Happiness Report; Sustainable Development Solutions Network: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  81. Obregón, J.A. Perspectivas económicas en África en tiempos de la COVID-19. Inf. Comer. Esp. 2020, 914, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights; United Nations General Assembly [Resolution 217 A]: Paris, France, 1948; Available online: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights (accessed on 27 March 2026).
  83. United Nations. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; United Nations General Assembly [Resolution 2200A (XXI)]: New York City, NY, USA, 1966; Available online: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights (accessed on 27 March 2026).
  84. Blicharska, M.; Teutschbein, C.; Smithers, R.J. SDG partnerships may perpetuate the global North–South divide. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 22092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Variables of United Nations’ SDGs and sign of each variable’s relationship to increase in SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Table 1. Variables of United Nations’ SDGs and sign of each variable’s relationship to increase in SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4.
VariableSustainable Development Goal
(1)
Proportion of the population living below the international poverty line (negative sign −).
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
(2)
Proportion of the population living in households with access to basic services (positive sign +).
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
(3)
Prevalence of anemia in women aged 15–49 years, by pregnancy status (percentage) (negative sign −).
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.
(4)
Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture (positive sign +).
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.
(5)
Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel (positive sign +).
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
(6)
Under-5 mortality rate (negative sign −).
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
(7)
Share of girls among all primary education students (positive sign +).
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.
(8)
Proportion of schools offering basic services, by type of service (positive sign +).
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.
Source: Authors, based on United Nations Data for 2019.
Table 2. Countries in order of relative Pena distance method and HDI in 2019.
Table 2. Countries in order of relative Pena distance method and HDI in 2019.
CountryDP2 Indicator% of Total Population in the Horn of AfricaHuman Development Index (HDI) a
(1)
Djibouti
7.60.5%0.60
(2)
Kenya
6.418%0.52
(3)
Uganda
6.115%0.54
(4)
Eritrea
5.82%0.46
(5)
Sudan
4.316%0.51
(6)
Ethiopia
3.539.6%0.49
(7)
South Sudan
1.94.5%0.43
(8)
Somalia
0.54.4%a NA
Source: Authors, based on United Nations data for 2019 [1]. a NA: not available. Countries with high HDI (≥0.8), medium HDI (0.5 < 0.8), and low HDI (HDI < 0.5).
Table 3. Classification of partial indicators by order of entry into DP2: order of variables. Correction factor in 2019.
Table 3. Classification of partial indicators by order of entry into DP2: order of variables. Correction factor in 2019.
PositionVariableSustainable Development GoalCorrection Factor
1Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel.Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.1.00
2Prevalence of anemia in women aged 15–49 years, by pregnancy status (percentage).Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.0.68
3Proportion of the population living in households with access to basic services.Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere.0.47
4Share of girls among all primary education students. Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.0.34
5Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture.Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. 0.25
6Proportion of the population living below the international poverty line.Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere.0.18
7Under-5 mortality rate.Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.0.10
8Proportion of schools offering basic services, by type of service.Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.0.07
Source: Authors, based on United Nations Data for 2019 [1].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Añaños, K.G.; Gonzales Asto, W.A.; Corpodean, A.D.; Rodríguez Martín, J.A. Sustainable Development Goals in the Horn of Africa: Human Rights to Food, Water, Health, and Education. Earth 2026, 7, 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth7020070

AMA Style

Añaños KG, Gonzales Asto WA, Corpodean AD, Rodríguez Martín JA. Sustainable Development Goals in the Horn of Africa: Human Rights to Food, Water, Health, and Education. Earth. 2026; 7(2):70. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth7020070

Chicago/Turabian Style

Añaños, Karen G., Wendi A. Gonzales Asto, Alina D. Corpodean, and José A. Rodríguez Martín. 2026. "Sustainable Development Goals in the Horn of Africa: Human Rights to Food, Water, Health, and Education" Earth 7, no. 2: 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth7020070

APA Style

Añaños, K. G., Gonzales Asto, W. A., Corpodean, A. D., & Rodríguez Martín, J. A. (2026). Sustainable Development Goals in the Horn of Africa: Human Rights to Food, Water, Health, and Education. Earth, 7(2), 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth7020070

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop