Implementing the “Sustainable Development Goals”: towards addressing three key governance challenges—collective action, trade-offs, and accountability

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Volumn 26-27, Issue , 2017, Pages 90-96

  Bowen, Kathryn J ^a   Cradock Henry, Nicholas A ^b   Koch, Florian ^c   Patterson, James ^d   Häyhä, Tiina ^e,f   Vogt, Jess ^g   Barbi, Fabiana ^h  

^a The Australian National University   (Australia)

^b LANDCARE RESEARCH   (New Zealand)

^c HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^d INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Netherlands)

^e STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^f PBL NETHERLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY   (Netherlands)

^g DEPAUL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCOUNTABILITY; CIVIL SOCIETY; COLLECTIVE ACTION; DECISION MAKING; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TRADE-OFF;

EID: 85020646392     PISSN: 18773435     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.002     Document Type: Review

References (81)

1. Cutter, S.L., Ismail-Zadeh, A., Alcántara-Ayala, I., Altan, O., Baker, D.N., Briceño, S., Gupta, H., Holloway, A., Johnston, D., McBean, G.A., et al. Global risks: pool knowledge to stem losses from disasters. Nature 522 (2015), 277–279.
2. Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., Brown, C., The social dimension of sustainable development: defining urban social sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 19 (2011), 289–300.
3. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347, 2015, 1259855.
4. Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., Bäckstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M.M., Bulkeley, H., Cashore, B., Clapp, J., Folke, C., et al. Navigating the Anthropocene: improving earth system governance. Science 335 (2012), 1306–1307.
5. Biermann, F., Bai, X., Bondre, N., Broadgate, W., Arthur Chen, C.-T., Dube, O.P., Erisman, J.W., Glaser, M., van der Hel, S., Lemos, M.C., et al. Down to earth: contextualizing the Anthropocene. Glob. Environ. Change 39 (2016), 341–350.
6. Kingdon, J.W., Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2003, Longman.
7. Roberts, E., Andrei, S., Huq, S., Flint, L., Resilience synergies in the post-2015 development agenda. Nat. Clim. Change 5 (2015), 1024–1025.
8. DeFries, R.S., Ellis, E.C., Stuart Chapin, F., Matson, P.A., Turner, B.L., Agrawal, A., Crutzen, P.J., Field, C., Gleick, P., Kareiva, P.M., et al. Planetary opportunities: a social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. BioScience 62 (2012), 603–606.
9. Turner, I.I.B., Esler, K.J., Bridgewater, P., Tewksbury, J., Sitas, N., Abrahams, B., Chapin, F.S. III, Chowdhury, R.R., Christie, P., Diaz, S., et al. Socio-environmental systems (SES) research: what have we learned and how can we use this information in future research programs. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19 (2016), 160–168.
10. Brown, K., Global environmental change I: a social turn for resilience. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 38 (2014), 107–117.
11. Cutter, S.L., Building disaster resilience: steps toward sustainability. Chall. Sustain. 1 (2014), 72–79.
12. Olsson, P., Galaz, V., Boonstra, W.J., Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspective. Ecol. Soc., 19, 2014, 1.
13. Häyhä, T., Lucas, P.L., van Vuuren, D.P., Cornell, S.E., Hoff, H., From planetary boundaries to national fair shares of the global safe operating space—how can the scales be bridged. Glob. Environ. Change 40 (2016), 60–72.
14. 14• Tanner, T., Lewis, D., Wrathall, D., Bronen, R., Cradock-Henry, N., Huq, S., Lawless, C., Nawrotzki, R., Prasad, V., Rahman, M.A., et al. Livelihood resilience in the face of climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5 (2015), 23–26 The authors bring a sustainable livelihood perspective to resilience to highlight social justice, fairness and equity considerations as they relate to climate change adaptation and human well-being. A people-centred approach to resilience can help ensure these social dimensions are accounted for in sustainable development and climate change policy and planning.
15. Glaser, G., Base sustainable development goals on science. Nature, 491, 2012, 35.
16. United Nations Transforming Our World, The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015, United Nations.
17. Horton, R., Why the sustainable development goals will fail. Lancet, 383, 2014, 2196.
18. Persson, Å., Weitz, N., Nilsson, M., Follow-up and review of the sustainable development goals: alignment vs. internalization. RECIEL 25 (2016), 59–68.
19. 19• Oldekop, J.A., Fontana, L.B., Grugel, J., Roughton, N., Adu-Ampong, E.A., Bird, G.K., Dorgan, A., Vera Espinoza, M.A., Wallin, S., Hammett, D., et al. 100 key research questions for the post-2015 development agenda. Dev. Policy Rev. 34 (2016), 55–82 The results of expert consultation with a diverse group of researchers identified 100 key research questions in nine thematic areas to help guide sustainability research. The questions provide the basis for further debate, research and collaboration, and can help foster dialogue between scientific and policy communities.
20. Joshi, D.K., Hughes, B.B., Sisk, T.D., Improving governance for the post-2015 sustainable development goals: scenario forecasting the next 50 years. World Dev. 70 (2015), 286–302.
21. 21• Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Reyers, B., Kanie, N., Stigson, B., Shrivastava, P., Leach, M., O'Connell, D., Integration: the key to implementing the sustainable development goals. Sustain. Sci. 11 (2016), 1–9, 10.1007/s11625-016-0383-3 Interlinkages between sectors, societal actors and countries must be recognised and promoted in order to avoid perverse outcomes and to help realise synergies between SDGs and associated targets. Using SDG 17 as an example, the authors highlight linkages between finance, technology, capacity building, policy coherence, partnerships, and data, monitoring and accountability to demonstrate the challenges and opportunities of local-scale implementation.
22. 22•• Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., Visbeck, M., Map the interactions between sustainable development goals. Nature 534 (2016), 320–322 A simple seven-point scale is presented to rate the interactions between different goals and related targets, from positive to negative. The framework provides a basis for further empirical analysis in local, national and regional contexts of the interactions between goals to ensure successful implementation of the SDGs.
23. Patterson, J.J., Smith, C., Bellamy, J., Understanding enabling capacities for managing the wicked problem of nonpoint source water pollution in catchments: a conceptual framework. J. Environ. Manage. 128 (2013), 441–452.
24. Henry, A.D., Vollan, B., Networks and the challenge of sustainable development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39 (2014), 583–610.
25. Alexander, S.M., Andrachuk, M., Armitage, D., Navigating governance networks for community-based conservation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14 (2016), 155–164.
26. Dewulf, A., Meijerink, S., Runhaar, H., The governance of adaptation to climate change as a multi-level, multi-sector and multi-actor challenge: a European comparative perspective. J. Water Clim. Change 6 (2015), 1–8.
27. McAllister, R.R.J., McCrea, R., Lubell, M.N., Policy networks, stakeholder interactions and climate adaptation in the region of South East Queensland, Australia. Reg. Environ. Change 14 (2014), 527–539.
28. Booth, D., Development as a Collective Action Problem: Addressing the Real Challenges of African Governance. 2012, Overseas Development Institute.
29. Ostrom, E., Understanding Institutional Diversity. 2005, Princeton University Press.
30. Weible, C.M., Sabatier, P.A., Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A.D., deLeon, P., A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: an introduction to the special issue. Policy Stud. J. 39 (2011), 349–360.
31. Wong-Parodi, G., Krishnamurti, T., Davis, A., Schwartz, D., Fischhoff, B., A decision science approach for integrating social science in climate and energy solutions. Nat. Clim. Change 6 (2016), 563–569.
32. Geels, F.W., Berkhout, F., van Vuuren, D.P., Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions. Nat. Clim. Change 6 (2016), 576–583.
33. Frumhoff, P.C., Heede, R., Oreskes, N., The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers. Clim. Change 132 (2015), 157–171.
34. Althor, G., Watson, J.E.M., Fuller, R.A., Global mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change. Sci. Rep., 6, 2016, 20281.
35. Bernstein S, Gupta J, Andresen S, Haas PM, Kanie N, Kok M, Levy MA, Stevens C: Coherent governance, the UN and the SDGs. POST2015/UNU-IAS Policy Brief; 2014.
36. Gupta J, Baud I, Bekkers R, Bernstein S, Boas I, Cornelissen V, Iguchi M, Kanie N, Kim RE, Lima MB, et al.: Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. POST2015/UNU-IAS Policy Brief; 2014.
37. Heinrichs, H., Biermann, F., Sustainability: politics and governance. Heinrichs, H., Martens, P., Michelsen, G., Wiek, A., (eds.) Sustainability Science, 2016, Springer, Netherlands, 129–137.
38. Pattberg, P., Widerberg, O., Transnational multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: conditions for success. Ambio 45 (2015), 42–51.
39. Brisbois, M.C., de Loë, R.C., Power in collaborative approaches to governance for water: a systematic review. Soc. Nat. Resour. 29 (2016), 775–790.
40. 40• Boas, I., Biermann, F., Kanie, N., Cross-sectoral strategies in global sustainability governance: towards a nexus approach. Int. Environ. Agreem. 16 (2016), 449–464 Food, water and energy must be considered in a cohesive way, to better understand the potential synergies, help avoid trade-offs, and identify opportunities for institutional cooperation. Using nexus thinking, the authors offer a way forward to raise awareness of interconnections between policy domains to avoid tradeoffs in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs).
41. Jordan, A., Lenschow, A., Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review. Environ. Policy Gov. 20 (2010), 147–158.
42. Bowen, K.J., Miller, F., Dany, V., McMichael, A.J., Friel, S., Enabling environments? Insights into the policy context for climate change and health adaptation decision-making in Cambodia. Clim. Dev. 5 (2013), 277–287.
43. Bowen, K.J., Miller, F.P., Dany, V., Graham, S., The relevance of a coproductive capacity framework to climate change adaptation: investigating the health and water sectors in Cambodia. Ecol. Soc., 20, 2015, 13.
44. Institutional context for sustainable development. McNeill, D., Verburg, R., Bursztyn, M., (eds.) Land Use Policies for Sustainable Development: Exploring Integrated Assessment Approaches, 2012, Edward Elgar, 24–44.
45. ICSU, ISSC: Review of the Sustainable Development Goals: The Science Perspective [Internet]. International Council for Science (ICSU); 2015.
46. 46•• Esquivel, V., Power and the sustainable development goals: a feminist analysis. Gender Dev. 24 (2016), 9–23 Greater attention must be paid to the power dynamics embodied in the SDGs and their implications for equality and women's rights as well as the traditional approach to growth reflected in the 2030 Agenda. The analysis provides a theoretical and empirical basis for further exploration of this neglected topic.
47. Steffen, W., Stafford Smith, M., Planetary boundaries, equity and global sustainability: why wealthy countries could benefit from more equity. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 (2013), 403–408.
48. 48• Rao, N.D., Riahi, K., Grubler, A., Climate impacts of poverty eradication. Nat. Clim. Change 4 (2014), 749–751 Meeting basic human needs to improve wellbeing is more compatible than expected with low-carbon emissions pathways. Understanding the distinction between affluence, human-development and its relationship to climate impacts can focus poverty allevation efforts within planetary boundaries.
49. 49• von Stechow, C., Minx, J.C., Riahi, K., Jewell, J., McCollum, D.L., Callaghan, M.W., Bertram, C., Luderer, G., Baiocchi, G., 2°C and SDGs: united they stand, divided they fall?. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 2016, 034022 The authors draw on the results of energy-economy-climate modelling to analyse the the synergies and trade-offs between meeting sustainable energy objectives and 2°C climate futures. The integrated approach can be used to further explore and develop sustainable development pathways that consider the energy and emissions implications of poverty reduction.
50. 50• van Vuuren, D.P., Kok, M., Lucas, P.L., Prins, A.G., Alkemade, R., van den Berg, M., Bouwman, L., van der Esch, S., Jeuken, M., Kram, T., et al. Pathways to achieve a set of ambitious global sustainability objectives by 2050: explorations using the IMAGE integrated assessment model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 98 (2015), 303–323 Using systems modelling, the authors suggest that meeting basic needs of food and energy security, preventing dangerous climate change, controlling air pollution and conserving biodiversity might involve fewer tradeoffs than expected. The analysis can help inform the development of integrated policy solutions and pathways to meet the SDGs.
51. 51• Biggs, E.M., Bruce, E., Boruff, B., Duncan, J.M.A., Horsley, J., Pauli, N., McNeill, K., Neef, A., Van Ogtrop, F., Curnow, J., et al. Sustainable development and the water–energy–food nexus: a perspective on livelihoods. Environ. Sci. Policy 54 (2015), 389–397 The authors present an integrated monitoring and evaluation framework based on sustainable livelihoods and a nexus approach, capable of assessing water, food and energy needs that support wellbeing. The framework can provide the basis for delivering and measuring progress towards, multiple sustainable development outcomes, across scales.
52. Faeth, P., Hanson, L., A research agenda for the energy, water, land, and climate nexus. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 6 (2016), 123–126.
53. 53• Weitz, N., Nilsson, M., Davis, M., A nexus approach to the post-2015 agenda: formulating integrated water, energy, and food SDGs. SAIS Rev. Int. Affairs 34 (2014), 37–50 The authors present the need to consider food, water and energy in an integrated fashion to increase efficiencies in implementation efforts, reduce the risk of perverse outcomes and ensure sustainable resource use, drawing on empirical examples from around the world. A cohesive approach to the SDGs can support more effective negotiations by identifying synergies between regional and national interests and between goals and targets to ensure fair and equitable outcomes.
54. 54• Obersteiner, M., Walsh, B., Frank, S., Havlík, P., Cantele, M., Liu, J., Palazzo, A., Herrero, M., Lu, Y., Mosnier, A., et al. Assessing the land resource–food price nexus of the sustainable development goals. Sci. Adv., 2, 2016, e1501499 A novel comprehensive modelling approach is used to gain insight into the most effective policy combinations for mitigating trade-offs between environmental conservation and food prices. Trade-offs are minimized when policies to support Goal 12 (Sustainable consumption and production) are central. Results can support implementation strategies by identifying synergies and trade-offs for sustainable socioeconomic futures.
55. Liu, J., Hull, V., Batistella, M., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Fu, F., Hertel, T.W., Izaurralde, R.C., Lambin, E.F., Li, S., et al. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol. Soc., 18, 2013, 26.
56. Moser, S.C., Hart, J.A.F., The long arm of climate change: societal teleconnections and the future of climate change impacts studies. Clim. Change 129 (2015), 13–26.
57. Janus, H., Keijzer, N., Post 2015: setting up a coherent accountability framework. Ger. Dev. Inst. Brief. Paper, 13, 2014.
58. Ocampo, J.A., Gómez-Arteaga, N., Accountability in international governance and the 2030 development agenda. Glob. Policy 7 (2016), 305–314.
59. Biermann, F., Gupta, A., Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: a research framework. Ecol. Econ. 70 (2011), 1856–1864.
60. 60•• Kramarz, T., Park, S., Accountability in global environmental governance: a meaningful tool for action?. Glob. Environ. Polit. 16 (2016), 1–21 The authors propose a novel framework to enhance the utility of accountability in global environmental governance, by focusing on institution design and impementation of interventions at multiple levels. Embedding accountability into the first tier of environmental governance– where the problem is first identified – can help inform future policy solutions, and enlarge accountability's function beyond merely a policing role.
61. SDSN: Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for Sustainable Development Goals: Launching a data revolution for the SDGs [Internet]. Sustainable Development Solutions Network; 2015.
62. United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World. 2015, United Nations Sustainable Development.
63. Schwemlein, S., Cronk, R., Bartram, J., Indicators for monitoring water, sanitation, and hygiene: a systematic review of indicator selection methods. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 13, 2016, 333.
64. Costanza, R., Fioramonti, L., Kubiszewski, I., The UN sustainable development goals and the dynamics of well-being. Front. Ecol. Environ., 14, 2016 59–59.
65. 65• Lucas, P., Ludwig, K., Kok, M., Kruitwagen, S., Sustainable Development Goals in the Netherlands: Building Blocks for Environmental Policy for 2030. 2016, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Existing environmental policy and planning programmes can provide the basis for The Netherlands’ implementation of the SDGs. However it will require clear national targets, greater coordination between governance and institutional actors, participation from civil society in defining desireable futures and policy performance monitoring. The analysis provides insight into the challenges of national implementation of the SDGs, and a framework to effectively leverage existing activities to meet 2030 targets.
66. Weigelt, J., Müller, A., Janetschek, H., Töpfer, K., Land and soil governance towards a transformational post-2015 development agenda: an overview. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 15 (2015), 57–65.
67. Hsu, A., Malik, O., Johnson, L., Esty, D.C., Development mobilize citizens to track sustainability. Nature 508 (2014), 33–35.
68. Flückiger, Y., Seth, N., Sustainable development goals: SDG indicators need crowdsourcing. Nature, 531, 2016 448–448.
69. Kanie, N., Stevens, C., Sustainability call to coordinate actions. Nature, 514, 2014 567–567.
70. 70•. Lu, Y., Nakicenovic, N., Visbeck, M., Stevance, A.-S., Five priorities for the UN sustainable development goals. Nature 520 (2015), 432–433 The authors discuss five priorities for the scientific community's participation in the SDGs, focusing on data gathering and evaluation. The priorities can help inform and guide efforts in the development of suitable monitoring practices for measuring progress towards reaching outcomes for poverty reduction and environmental integrity.
71. Pogge, T., Sengupta, M., The sustainable development goals (SDGs) as drafted: nice idea, poor execution. Wash. Int. Law J. 24 (2015), 571–587.
72. Sachs, J.D., From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet 379 (2012), 2206–2211.
73. Mbah, P.O., Nzeadibe, T.C., Inclusive municipal solid waste management policy in Nigeria: engaging the informal economy in post-2015 development agenda. Local Environ. 0 (2016), 1–22.
74. Chapin, F.S. III, Knapp, C.N., Brinkman, T.J., Bronen, R., Cochran, P., Community-empowered adaptation for self-reliance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19 (2016), 67–75.
75. Jasanoff, S., Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41 (2003), 223–244.
76. Parnell, S., Defining a global urban development agenda. World Dev. 78 (2016), 529–540.
77. 77•• Hajer, M., Nilsson, M., Raworth, K., Bakker, P., Berkhout, F., de Boer, Y., Rockström, J., Ludwig, K., Kok, M., Beyond cockpit-ism: four insights to enhance the transformative potential of the sustainable development goals. Sustainability 7 (2015), 1651–1660 The authors suggest integrating the perspectives of– ‘planetary boundaries’, ‘safe and just operating space’, ‘energetic society’ and ‘green competition’ – can effectively mobilise new actors in implementing the SDGs. Addressing environmental concerns, social justice and equity, new and emerging forms of governance, and economic opportunities together, can enhance cooperation between actors and help realise the transformative potential of sustainable development.
78. Hackmann, H., Moser, S.C., Clair, A.L.S., The social heart of global environmental change. Nat. Clim. Change 4 (2014), 653–655.
79. Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., van der Hel, S., Widerberg, O., Adler, C., Hurlbert, M., Anderton, K., Sethi, M., Barau, A., Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., 2016, 10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001.
80. Stevens, C., Kanie, N., The transformative potential of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Int. Environ. Agreem. 16 (2016), 393–396.
81. Turnheim, B., Berkhout, F., Geels, F., Hof, A., McMeekin, A., Nykvist, B., van Vuuren, D., Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Glob. Environ. Change 35 (2015), 239–253.