Ved Stranden 18 Global Sustainability & Human...

Global Sustainability & Human Prosperity– contribution to the Post-2015 agenda and the development of Sustainable Development Goals

Ved Stranden 18DK-1061 Copenhagern Kwww.norden.org

The development of a Post-2015 agenda and Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs, provide a global window of opportunity to address both social needs and environmental challenges together. This discussion paper by the Stockholm Resilience Centre looks into the links between human wellbeing and the biosphere, and describes why and how these links should influence the formulation of the new SDGs. It explores what we can learn from the MDGs, and how existing international agreements can be reflected in the Post-2015 MDG process. The paper also seeks to contribute to the elaboration of targets, including process-oriented targets and scalable indicators suitable for a rapidly changing world.

Global Sustainability & Human Prosperity

TemaN

ord 2014:527

TemaNord 2014:527ISBN 978-92-893-2770-1ISBN 978-92-893-2771-8 (EPUB)ISSN 0908-6692

TN2014527 omslag.indd 1 09-04-2014 12:05:59

Global Sustainability

& Human Prosperity

– Contribution to the Post-2015 agenda and the development of Sustainable Development Goals

Thomas Elmqvist, Sarah Cornell, Marcus C Öhman, Tim Daw,

Fredrik Moberg, Albert Norström, Åsa Persson, Garry Peterson,

Johan Rockström, Maria Schultz, Ellika Hermansson Török

– with contributions from Victor Galaz and Claudia Ituarte-Lima

TemaNord 2014:527

Global Sustainability & Human Prosperity – contribution to the Post-2015 agenda and the development of Sustainable Development Goals Thomas Elmqvist, Sarah Cornell, Marcus C Öhman, Tim Daw, Fredrik Moberg, Albert Norström,

Åsa Persson, Garry Peterson, Johan Rockström, Maria Schultz, Ellika Hermansson Török

– with contributions from Victor Galaz and Claudia Ituarte-Lima

ISBN 978-92-893-2770-1 ISBN 978-92-893-2771-8 (EPUB)

http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2014-527

TemaNord 2014:527

ISSN 0908-6692

© Nordic Council of Ministers 2014

Layout: Hanne Lebech

Cover photo: J.Lokrantz/Azote

This publication has been published with financial support by the Nordic Council of Ministers.

However, the contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views, policies or recom-mendations of the Nordic Council of Ministers.

www.norden.org/en/publications

Nordic co-operation

Nordic co-operation is one of the world’s most extensive forms of regional collaboration, involv-

ing Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland.

Nordic co-operation has firm traditions in politics, the economy, and culture. It plays an im-

portant role in European and international collaboration, and aims at creating a strong Nordic

community in a strong Europe.

Nordic co-operation seeks to safeguard Nordic and regional interests and principles in the

global community. Common Nordic values help the region solidify its position as one of the

world’s most innovative and competitive.

Nordic Council of Ministers

Ved Stranden 18 DK-1061 Copenhagen K

Phone (+45) 3396 0200

www.norden.org

http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2014-527

http://www.norden.org/en/publications

http://www.norden.org

Content

Foreword ................................................................................................................................................... 7 About the authors ........................................................................................................................... 8

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 The Problem ..................................................................................................................... 10 1.2 Solution .............................................................................................................................. 10

2. Living in the Anthropocene: human well-being and the biosphere .......................... 13 2.1 The Anthropocene – age of humans......................................................................... 13 2.2 Ecosystem services: human dependence on the biosphere ............................ 15 2.3 Ecosystem Services and Human Wellbeing: What is the evidence? ............. 23 2.4 The planetary boundaries: humanity’s safe operating space ......................... 24 2.5 A safe and just space for humanity within boundaries ..................................... 34

3. International policy and the move towards global sustainability .............................. 37 3.1 The Millennium Development Goals........................................................................ 38 3.2 SDGs and developments in UN................................................................................... 43 3.3 International Environmental Agreements ............................................................ 48 3.4 Synergising legal systems for the emerging new development

agenda................................................................................................................................. 52

4. Formulating Sustainable Development Goals in the Anthropocene.......................... 55 4.1 An integrated framework for SDGs .......................................................................... 55

5. Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................................... 65

6. References ...................................................................................................................................... 67

7. Svensk sammanfattning ............................................................................................................ 73

8. Appendix ......................................................................................................................................... 75 8.1 Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................ 76 8.2 Appendix 2 ........................................................................................................................ 79 8.3 Appendix 3 ........................................................................................................................ 83 8.4 Appendix 4 ........................................................................................................................ 84 8.5 Appendix 5 ........................................................................................................................ 85 8.6 Appendix 6 ........................................................................................................................ 87

Foreword

This discussion paper looks into the links between human wellbeing and

the biosphere, and describes why and how these links should influence

the formulation of the future global Sustainable Development Goals. It

explores what we can learn from the Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs), and how existing international agreements can be reflected in

the Post-2015 MDG process. The paper also seeks to contribute to the

elaboration of targets, including process-oriented targets and scalable

indicators suitable for a rapidly changing world.

It is a follow-up to an earlier discussion paper, “Human prosperity

requires global sustainability – a contribution to the Post-2015 agenda

and the development of Sustainable Development Goals,” that was com-

missioned by the Swedish Government Office for the Nordic Environ-

ment Ministers’ meeting in Jukkasjärvi on 7th February, 2013. The

Stockholm Resilience Centre was then asked by the Nordic Environment

Ministers to further elaborate on this issue and exemplify some aspects

and conclusions set out in that first document.

This discussion paper, finalized in October 2013, therefore highlights

its perspectives, approaches and frameworks through concrete exam-

ples and case studies. It will be relevant for a number of processes in

which the Nordic countries are currently engaged, such as:

High-level Panel on Post-2015 Development.

Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals.

Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN).

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

It has also contribute as a background document to two international

meetings. First, an international workshop for scientists, government

experts and stakeholders on “Planetary boundaries and environmental

tipping points: What do they mean for sustainable development and

the global agenda?” was held on the 4–5th of November 2013 in

Geneva, Switzerland, organised by the Ministry of the Environment of

Finland in cooperation with the Ministries of the Environment in

Norway, Sweden and Denmark, United Nations Environment Pro-

8 Global Sustainability & Human Prosperity

gramme (UNEP) and the Stockholm Resilience Centre with the support

of the Nordic Council of Ministers.

Later, on the 2–4th of December 2013, there was a Multistakeholder

Dialogue on Integrating Social-Ecological Resilience into the New Devel-

opment Agenda in Medellín, Colombia. The Dialogue was organised

jointly by the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Research on

Biological Resources, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable

Development of Colombia, and the Stockholm Resilience Centre, with

the full support of the Governments of Colombia and Sweden, and in

consultation with the CBD Secretariat.

This discussion paper is funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers

and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)

through The Resilience and Development Programme (SwedBio) at

Stockholm Resilience Centre.

About the authors

Thomas Elmqvist, Sarah Cornell, Marcus C Öhman, Tim Daw,

Fredrik Moberg, Albert Norström, Garry Peterson, Johan Rockström,

Maria Schultz, Ellika Hermansson Török, Victor Galaz and

Claudia Ituarte-Lima, are all affiliated with the Stockholm Resilience

Centre at Stockholm University. Åsa Persson works at the Stockholm

Environment Institute.

1. Introduction

Over the last two hundred years, the human enterprise has undergone a

period of rapid expansion as if the world we live in had unlimited capaci-

ty for growth in the material economy. The bulk of current concepts and

models of the global economy were developed during this same period,

when the human population still had a small impact on the natural envi-

ronment. In this “empty world” context, the limiting factor to improving

human well-being was labour and the built and manufactured capital

such as houses, roads and factories. Natural capital – our ecological life

support system – as well as our social capital – our myriad relationships

with each other – were not viewed as constraints to development. In

effect, classical models of the economy viewed social and natural capital

as limitless (Costanza et al. 2012). It made sense in this context, not to

worry too much about environmental and social “externalities,” effects

that occurred outside the market, since they could be assumed to be

relatively small and ultimately solvable.

In contrast, we now live in an increasingly interconnected and highly

populated world, where the environmental impacts of human develop-

ment extend globally. The current era is now widely described as the

“Anthropocene” (Crutzen 2002, Steffen et al. 2011), recognizing that

human activities are now the major driver of environmental change,

including the climate system, the water cycle, and the distribution of

living species and dynamics of ecosystems. The human impact extends

across all scales from the local to the global. Over the past 50 years, hu-

manity has moved from being a “small world on a large planet” to be-

coming a “large world on a small planet,” transforming the planet’s at-

mosphere, oceans, ice sheets, waterways, forests, and biodiversity in

ways that could undermine development through exceeding boundaries

that determine the planet’s ability to support human development

(TEEB 2010, GEO5 2012, Rockström et al. 2009).

Now we have to think differently about the relationship between

humans and the rest of nature. It is evident that in order to improve hu-

man well-being and social equity, while at the same time reduce envi-

ronmental risks and ecological scarcities (UNEP 2011), we need a new

vision for sustainability and the economy that is better adapted to the

new conditions. A deeper understanding of what really does contribute


to sustainable human wellbeing is required, an understanding that goes

beyond viewing poverty as merely the condition of having a low mone-

tary income, recognizing the substantial contributions of natural and

social capital, which in many countries already are important limiting

factors for improving human wellbeing (Griggs et al. 2013).

1.1 The Problem

The Post-2015 agenda and the development of Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs) provide a global window of opportunity to address the

above identified social needs and environmental pressures together. The

experiences of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) demonstrate

that concerted attention to global problems does yield positive results

(UN 2013) raising awareness and political accountability worldwide.

While the MDGs have been successful in focusing attention on a range of

issues linked to extreme poverty, such as hunger, gender inequality, and

disease, the MDGs have not succeeded in linking global sustainability to

poverty alleviation and human wellbeing since the environmental di-

mensions have been largely disconnected from the social and economic.

In developing the SDGs, it is therefore important to move beyond the

MDGs and in a much deeper way link the social and economic dimen-

sions of development with environmental dimensions, incorporating the

full spectrum of humanity’s collective assets including social and natural

capital at local, regional, national, and global scales.

1.2 Solution

Ecological and social systems are increasingly viewed as interlinked and

inseparable (Folke et al. 2011). We therefore argue that the twin priori-

ties for the formulation of SDGs must be the protection of the biosphere

– society’s “life-support systems,” and the reduction of poverty as an

essential part of a fair and just global society.

The SDGs must go beyond the usual disciplinary division of sustaina-

bility into separate social, economic and environmental goals (the “three

pillars”), because society, the economy and our environment are intrin-

sically interdependent. Hence, we recommend that goals should be built

around integrated themes such as thriving livelihoods, food security,

water security and clean energy.

Global Sustainability & Human Prosperity 11

The goals should also avoid becoming a piecemeal collection of single

issue objectives, but instead ensure that the sum of the parts really does

contribute to global sustainability (Griggs et al. 2013, Norström et al.

2013). This requires a deeper analysis of the multiple interconnections,

trade-offs and synergies between SDGs. For example, SDGs should be

designed to focus on the role of natural capital and ecosystem services

within (not alongside) economic development and poverty reduction.

This in turn requires a greatly enhanced and much more widespread

awareness and learning in society of the multiple benefits that humanity

obtains from ecosystem resources and processes.

Finally, we suggest that measuring progress on the targets for the

SDGs must require an agreed set of scalable indicators that should be

inclusive, building data and knowledge from local to national, regional

and international levels. Given the rapidity of many global changes (such

as ocean acidification, ice-sheet melting, and altered regional climates

linked to intense urbanisation), the targets should be based on the latest

research on the dynamics of the Earth system and benefit from learning

processes and early warning and monitoring activities emerging in mul-

tiple knowledge systems.

2. Living in the Anthropocene: human well-being and the biosphere

To understand the sustainability challenges in the Anthropocene, we

need to understand both the extent of human impact on the global envi-

ronment, and the role of the biosphere in supporting human wellbeing.

The ecosystem services and planetary boundaries concepts provide im-

portant framings for this understanding and action. The former focuses

on the benefits humans gain from the biosphere, while the latter concept

emphasizes the impacts of human activity on the biosphere and propos-

es precautionary limits for these. In this section, we describe these con-

cepts and explain how they can be used to develop global sustainable

development goals.

2.1 The Anthropocene – age of humans

For millions of years our planet’s atmosphere, oceans, land-masses and

biological life have formed a complex system of processes which have

interacted and co-evolved. Earth has experienced many periods of ab-

rupt change throughout its history, driven by astronomical and geologi-

cal forces, such as changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun or Earth’s

tectonic changes. Over the past several thousand years, human activities

have increasingly affected this global system.

In this context, the Holocene epoch (the present geological era start-

ing 10,000 years ago) has been a climatically and ecologically stable

period, in sharp contrast to the rather large and rapid fluctuations in the

preceding period (Figure 1 shows how global temperature has changed

over the last 100,000 years). Despite some natural environmental fluc-

tuations, complex feedback mechanisms involving processes in the at-

mosphere, the biosphere and the oceans have kept climatic variations

within a narrow range. For instance, global temperatures have varied by

just plus or minus 1 °C in the last 10,000 years. The relatively stable

environment of the Holocene enabled humanity’s development of agri-


culture and complex societies. Humans increasingly invested in settle-

ments and food production, and managed their environment rather than

merely exploiting it.

Within the last century, humanity has become a dominant force for

planetary change (Steffen et al. 2011). Humanity’s recent influence on

the Earth has reached such a magnitude that there is growing scientific

consensus that we have entered a new geological epoch, the “Anthropo-

cene” (Crutzen 2002, Steffen et al. 2007), derived from the Greek word

“Anthropos” meaning “Man”. Today, humans are changing the composi-

tion of the Earth’s atmosphere (IPCC 2013), have modified or trans-

formed most of the Earth surface (Ellis and Ramankutty 2008), substan-

tially altered the flows of water (Vörösmarty et al. 2010), changed ele-

mental cycles and flows of mineral resources (Steffen et al. 2004), and

radically changed the distribution of plants and animals (MA 2005). By

many measures, the changes humanity has caused in the last 50 years

are now at or beyond the variations seen through the entire Holocene.

In the Anthropocene, sustainability depends critically on acting locally while

recognising and understanding global interactions, and acting globally to se-

cure living conditions and livelihoods at local scales.

In the Anthropocene, the new challenge for humanity is to become plan-

etary stewards of our own future. This stewardship must go beyond the

management of the local environment. Scientific knowledge about past

changes and current pressures allows the identification of planetary

boundaries, which the global sustainability targets should recognise and

respect. Flourishing within planetary boundaries requires a global per-

spective, and substantial innovations and technical advancement (West-

ley et al. 2011). Unless the transition from today’s unsustainable path-

way to one of global stewardship is carefully navigated at all scales, we

may risk pushing the global system back into the pattern of violent fluc-

tuations in temperature characterizing most of the last 100,000 years

(Fig. 1) with likely catastrophic consequences for human wellbeing and

civilizations as we know them.


Fig. 1. Earth’s temperature trend through the last glacial cycle and selected events in human history (image from Rockström et al. 2009)

The Holocene is the most recent ~10,000 years. ΔT (right axis) is the difference in temperature from

present day, calculated using δ18

O measured in ice-core (left axis) as the indicator of temperature.

2.2 Ecosystem services: human dependence on the biosphere

All human activities that generate wealth and support progress and de-

velopment are ultimately founded on local management of the natural

resources and ecosystems of Earth’s biosphere. The “Anthropocene real-

ity” will therefore have multiple and substantial consequences for hu-

man wellbeing, and the continuing capacity of ecosystems to deliver the

ecosystem services on which our wellbeing depends. Natural ecosystem

processes support and enriches human lives and contributes to econo-

mies in a wide range of ways. This dependence is increasingly conceptu-

alised as “ecosystem services” (MA 2005, TEEB 2010).

The ecosystem services concept draws attention to the essential bene-

fits that natural ecosystems provide to people. As many ecosystem ser-

vices are not sold on markets they tend to be undervalued by conventional

economics, and can be overlooked in decision-making. Thus apparently

economically rational degradation of ecosystems can result in significant

losses in human welfare (e.g. Folke et al. 2011). The ecosystem services

concept makes the economic case for conserving nature, and aims to im-

prove the efficient use of ecosystems to support human wellbeing.

Ecosystem services reflect a human-centred view of ecology. The Mil-

lennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) used a generalised defini-

tion: “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems.” It distinguished

a) provisioning services, such as food production; b) regulating services,


that maintain a benevolent environment and protect against environ-

mental disturbance, such as flood defence; c) cultural services that are

reflected in religious, recreational or cultural values and practices; and

d) supporting services, comprising the underlying ecological structures

and processes on which all other services rely (Figure 2, Appendix 1).

These four categories have been widely adopted in both research and

policy. Alternative framings have also been suggested that allow more

specific distinction between ecological processes, intermediate services,

final potential services, goods (which may incorporate human inputs

such as labour or capital) and actual benefits to people in terms of im-

provements in wellbeing. These distinctions are proposed to avoid dou-

ble-counting in the economic valuation of ecosystem services (Fisher et

al. 2009), and for conceptual clarity when assessing the contribution of

ecosystem services to human wellbeing (example Figure 3).

Fig. 2. Categories and examples of ecosystem services (TEEB 2010)

Illustration: J. Lokrantz/Azote.

2.2.1 Biodiversity and ecosystem services

Biological diversity has multiple roles in ecosystem functions and the

generation of services. Three major roles have been identified. A high

level of diversity often leads to: 1) an increase in productivity due to

complementary traits among species for resource use, and productivity


itself underpins many ecosystem services, 2) an increase in response

diversity (a range of traits related to how species within the same func-

tional group respond to environmental drivers), resulting in improved

maintenance of ecosystem functioning as the environment changes,

and 3) some protection against “ecological surprises ,” the idiosyncratic

effects due to keystone species properties and unique traits-

combinations which may result in a disproportional effect of losing one

particular species compared to the effect of losing individual species at

random (see Kumar, 2010).

Fig. 3. The multiple benefits to urban inhabitants of a single tree


The TEEB project made the conclusion that

“There is clear evidence for a central role of biodiversity in the delivery of

some – but not all – services, viewed individually. However, ecosystems need

to be managed to deliver multiple services to sustain human well-being and

also managed at the level of landscapes and seascapes in ways that avoid the

passing of dangerous tipping-points. We can state with high certainty that

maintaining functioning ecosystems capable of delivering multiple services

requires a general approach to sustaining biodiversity, in the long-term also

when a single service is the focus.” (Kumar 2010).

The degree to which an individual benefits from biodiversity and ecosys-

tem services depends on a range of mechanisms of access including so-


cial relationships, institutions, capabilities, rights and various capitals

(Ribot and Peluso 2003). Thus, the best opportunities to improve the

wellbeing of poor people may be achieved through more secure and

equitable access to ecosystem services, rather than through increasing

flows of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation

will be treated more in detail in section 2.5.


Three examples of the role of biodiversity and ecosystem services

for human well-being and sustainable development

Box 1 – Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation in coastal East Africa are

affected by global changes

Source: Daw et al. 2011.

Coastal ecosystems in Kenya support the livelihoods and wellbeing of a range of

different types of people through a range of ecosystem services. For example,

coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds provide fish for food and protect coast-

lines for habitation and development. In turn these “provisioning” and “regulat-

ing” ecosystem services support human wellbeing through earnings for small-

scale fishers and tourism employees, the cultural identity of local peoples and

the aesthetic enjoyment of visitors.

These ecosystem services contribute differently to the wellbeing of different

stakeholders as people differ in their ability to access benefits and their priorities

and needs. These are influenced by their culture, wealth, gender and other charac-

teristics as well as formal rights of access. For example, poorer fishers who cannot

own a boat or expensive fishing net, work as hired labour, and earn a small propor-

tion of the profits from the fishery. Meanwhile the fish trade is organised by gender

with men buying more valuable types of fish for higher value markets, including

tourist hotels, while women buy smaller cheaper fish and process it to sell to local

people. Employment in the tourism industry is dominated by immigrants to the

region who have good business and language skills.

Changes in the management of these ecosystem services leads to trade-offs

between different services. For example the establishment of a marine park

sacrifices some fisheries benefits to improve the value of tourism. However,

because people vary in their ability to access benefits such interventions also

have a distributional effect creating winners and losers. For example if the num-

ber of people fishing was reduced, individual catches and the size of fish would

increase, offering higher earnings for remaining fishers. However to achieve this

change requires displacing some fishers from the fishery, and reducing the sup-

ply of small cheap fish that support female traders’ livelihoods.

These coastal systems also illustrate how ecosystem services which contrib-

ute locally to people’s wellbeing are connected to global planetary boundaries

and global connections. Global climate change is showing impacts in the region:

coral reefs in Kenya have begun to suffer from “coral bleaching” due to increas-

ing seawater temperatures which can kill the living corals that form the basis of

the ecosystem. The local system is also connected to the global economy as fish

products from local fisheries are increasingly fed into global trade.


Box 2 – Stewardship of the biosphere in the urban era

Source: Elmqvist et al. 2013.

We are entering a new urban era where cities increasingly become a central

nexus of the relationship between people and nature. On a global scale, cities are

crucial centres of demand for ecosystem services and sources of environmental

impacts. Approximately 6% of the urban land projected to be present in 2030 is

forecast to be built just in the period 2000–2030 (Elmqvist et al. 2013). Urbani-

zation thus not only presents challenges for global sustainability, but also nu-

merous opportunities. In the next two to three decades, we have unprecedented

chances to vastly improve global sustainability through designing systems for

increased resource efficiency, as well as for exploring how cities can be respon-

sible stewards of biodiversity and ecosystem services both within and beyond

city boundaries.

Although cities often strive to optimize their resource use, increase their effi-

ciency, and minimize waste, they can never become fully self-sufficient. There-

fore, individual cities cannot be considered “sustainable” without acknowledging

and accounting for their dependence on ecosystems, resources and populations

from other regions around the world (McGranahan and Satterthwaite 2003,

Seitzinger et al. 2012). Consequently, there is a need to fundamentally revisit the

concept of sustainability, as its narrow definition and application may not only

be insufficient, but can also result in unintended consequences such as the “lock-

in” of undesirable urban development trajectories (Fig. 4).

An example is represented by one of the most critical resources, the provi-

sion of freshwater. Urban areas depend on freshwater availability for residential,

industrial, and commercial purposes; yet, they also affect the quality and amount

of freshwater available to them. Water availability is likely to be a serious prob-

lem in most cities in semiarid and arid climates. Currently 150 million people

already live in cities with perennial water shortage. By 2050, population growth

is projected to increase this number to almost a billion people, and climate

change is projected to cause water shortage for an additional 100 million urban-

ites. There are strong incentives for cities to engage in active and better man-

agement of large and sometimes distant watersheds to ensure the delivery of

sufficient quantities and qualities of freshwater.

To integrate in a meaningful way urban sustainability in the SDGs, it is im-

portant to develop more integrated and scalable indicators. Using indicators that

make sense on a local scale and then possible to scale up on a regional and global

scale opens up the possibility to engage local stakeholder, citizen groups, indige-

nous groups and many other knowledge holders in the monitoring and reporting

on the SDGs. It is necessary that such indicators also capture to what extent urban

regions provide stewardship of all the distant ecosystems on which they depend.


Fig. 4. Urban centers have moved from being more directly linked to their hinter-lands and resource base to a situation where food and other resources are transported across the globe resulting in complex and often masked feedback mechanisms



Box 3 – The benefits of ecosystems services from the Baltic Sea and their

relation to a “regional boundary” of nutrient elements

Source: BalticStern, 2013.

The Baltic Sea provides multiple ecosystem services, including economic activi-

ties such as the fisheries and tourism industries, as well as non-monetary bene-

fits such as a recreational resources as well as natural heritage. Recent surveys

of thousands of people showed how residents from all countries around the

Baltic Sea valued these benefits (Söderqvist et al. 2010). Although the value

people perceived varied by country, these values are notably not captured in

normal calculations of countries’ economic performance.

While the Baltic Sea provides these benefits to the nine countries surround-

ing it, the sea is a complex integrated ecosystem, which is also affected by the

economic activities and industries in these countries, which in turn affect the

ecosystem services that it provides.

One specific problem that has received policy attention is nutrient enrich-

ment of the Baltic Sea, and its undesirable ecological impacts. Phosphorus and

nitrogen compounds, primarily from inefficient fertilizer use, may find their way

into waterways and into the sea. The enhanced nutrient load (eutrophication)

can lead to toxic and unsightly algal blooms. It may further cause oxygen deple-

tion in deep waters affecting organisms living on the sea floor, risking the crea-

tion of “dead zones”. Eutrophication along with other impacts, such as overfish-

ing, pollution and global climate change, alter the Baltic Sea ecosystem and with

that its ecosystem services.

Baltic Sea countries have agreed on the multilateral, cross-sectorial “Baltic

Sea Action Plan” to reduce pollution levels below certain boundaries in order to

guarantee the health of the sea and the benefits it provides. Surveys showed that

people are affected and concerned by pollution, and that they value the benefits

of implementing the Action Plan in full, significantly more than the cost of mak-

ing the changes to ensure the boundaries are met. The way in which the plan is

actually implemented, and how responsibilities and costs are distributed be-

tween nations remains to be finally negotiated.

This regional experience provides important lessons that also apply at the

global level. When environmental thresholds have been identified, the challenge

is to ensure boundaries are set which ensure environmental security and protect

the multiple ecosystem service benefits to humanity.


2.3 Ecosystem Services and Human Wellbeing: What is the evidence?

Overwhelming evidence clearly demonstrates that humans have

changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively in the last 50 years

than in any other period in history (MA 2005), while simultaneously

human wealth, health, education, and life span has been increasing. This

situation appears to be a paradox assuming that human wellbeing in-

deed relies upon nature (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010). However, vari-

ous explanations for this paradox exist. Four common explanations are:

Human well-being is actually declining because current ways to

measure this are incomplete.

Food production and continued agricultural growth trumps all other

ecosystems because provisioning services are easier recognized as

important for human well-being.

Technology makes humans less dependent on ecosystem services.

The worst is yet to come: there is a time lag after ecosystem service

degradation before human well-being is affected.

The evidence supporting these hypotheses is mixed, but examining it

clarifies the relationship between ecosystem services and human well-

being. There is a large body of evidence demonstrating that human well-

being, even of the worst off, has in fact increased during the past fifty

years (MA, 2005), suggesting that the paradox is not an illusion. The

second hypothesis that increases in agricultural ecosystem services have

more than compensated for declines in other ecosystem services is sup-

ported. However, the support for hypotheses three and four is mixed.

Great advances in technology and social organisation have increased the

efficiency with which global civilization uses nature, but this increase in

efficiency has not been used to decrease global reliance on ecosystems.

Rather, global civilization has expanded its use of ecosystem and materi-

als, making our society ever more dependent on a reliable supply of eco-

system services. There is limited evidence from the past of sustained

decreases in human wellbeing caused by environmental decline. Howev-

er, there is substantial evidence that the scale of human activity cannot

increase at the rate it has done so far, and that current use of ecosystems

is undercutting their ability to regulate themselves and provide regulat-

ing services to people. This is illustrated by the concept of overshooting

planetary boundaries.


These findings do not show that the environment is unimportant, but

rather that people are innovative and adaptive. However, the careless

destruction of ecological infrastructure is leaving people worse off than

they would be if we made more thoughtful investments in ecological

infrastructure. We have a good understanding on how humanity alters

the biosphere, but little is known on how these changes influence hu-

manity. There is evidence that regulating ecosystem services (e.g. carbon

uptake, water purification and climate regulation) that maintain stable

environments for people are decreasing locally, while we are also push-

ing the entire earth system across its planetary boundaries. This sug-

gests that there should be more investment in maintaining and enhanc-

ing these regulating services.

We need further transdisciplinary research that better answers ques-

tions of how human wellbeing and the environment are intertwined

both locally and globally to improve global governance. However, we

have enough understanding that we can start to act now.

As human civilization pushes beyond planetary boundaries it desta-

bilizes the natural capital that enables the reliable production of ecosys-

tem services. As the global economy grows, its demand for ecosystem

services increases. However this squeeze between the destabilization of

the planet and the need for more, suggests that civilization needs to gov-

ern the global economy to ensure that it supports rather than undercuts

the biosphere, in order to ensure that the biosphere can continue to

support the economy (e.g. Folke et al. 2011).

2.4 The planetary boundaries: humanity’s safe operating space

The success of human development in the future relies on continued

progress and willingness to protect the ability of the Earth to provide the

ecosystem services that sustain humanity. The concept of planetary

boundaries has recently been introduced to define a “safe operating

space for humanity” in the Anthropocene (Rockström et al. 2009a, b).

The planetary boundary framework seeks to define critical Earth system

processes that regulate the stability of the biosphere and the Earth sys-

tem as a whole, and establish the “Holocene-like” boundaries that pro-

vide a high likelihood of avoiding the transgression of thresholds result-

ing in deleterious or catastrophic changes. In other words, it seeks to

define the planetary conditions under which human societies can con-

tinue to develop and prosper. What the planetary boundary concept


shows is that specific types of human activities can reduce or risk reduc-

tions in the ability of the planet to provide the ecosystem services that

support humanity.

Rockström et al. (2009a, b) identified nine planetary boundaries: cli-

mate change, biodiversity loss, changes in the nitrogen and phosphorus

cycles, freshwater use, land system change, ocean acidification, strato-

spheric ozone depletion, chemical pollution and atmospheric aerosol

loading (Tables 1 and 2).

Research and debate continues in this new area of global change sci-

ence (outlined more fully below). However, the scientific message is

clear: the Earth system is a complex and dynamic system with hard-

wired biophysical processes and interactions that need to be respected

in order to maintain a stable environment for world development. The

profound changes being observed in the Earth system today therefore

need to be taken seriously by the world community.

2.4.1 Human-caused environmental changes have global impacts

Table 1 summarizes the large and growing body of evidence of human

disturbance of Earth system processes, and the increasing social impacts

of these global changes. It can be tempting to consider the planetary

boundary processes in isolation from one another. However, the Earth

system is a tightly coupled system where all parts – land, oceans, atmos-

phere, and life – interact.

Climate change gives many clear examples of this interconnection.

Climate change affects land cover and biodiversity, the global biogeo-

chemical cycles, ocean acidification and freshwater flows, and air quality

and atmospheric aerosol dynamics. The interacting processes regulate

the state of the planet.

For example, when CO2 concentrations rise in the atmosphere due to

human emissions from burning of fossil fuels, land and ocean ecosys-

tems respond by drawing down a substantial portion (approximately

50%) of the CO2 through multiple chemical and biophysical processes.

This biosphere response dampens or buffers the global energy disturb-

ance that the higher emissions of greenhouse gases cause. Moreover, as

we increase our stress on the Earth system through rising emissions

(which have grown from ~4 to ~9 billion tonnes of carbon per year over

the past 50 years), the biosphere carbon sink has increased from ~2 to

~4.5 billion tonnes (Beer et al. 2010). This is Earth resilience at play –

but it also means that without the responsive land and marine ecosys-


tems, sustained by suitable atmospheric and water system conditions, a

much larger amount of CO2 would remain in the atmosphere and climate

impacts would be more severe. However, these interactions also have

ecosystem consequences. A quarter of the CO2 emitted by humans is

dissolved in the oceans, which is leading to increasing ocean acidifica-

tion (Sabine et al. 2004). Moreover, if land systems are degraded (such

as through deforestation), the risk is that carbon stores, sequestered

during periods of stable environmental conditions, may abruptly be re-

leased, causing a feedback and accelerating climate change.

Similarly, human activities do not act on single planetary boundaries

but rather impact on multiple processes at once. For instance, land-use

change is a key driving force behind reductions in biodiversity, changes

in the properties and distribution of atmospheric aerosol, and the preva-

lence of chemical pollution, and it profoundly influences the biogeo-

chemical cycles of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus (Rockström et al.

2009b). Land-use change is also closely linked to altered freshwater

flows, and both are closely interlinked with climate change.

These systemic interconnections have implications for global sus-

tainability policy. For example, efforts to reduce human impacts on the

climate change boundary by shifting from fossil fuels to renewable bio-

fuels to reduce atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases can

potentially put pressure on other boundary processes, for example by

contributing to biodiversity loss.

The planetary boundaries concept acknowledges the inherent uncer-

tainty that will always be associated with large-scale changes in such a

complex system as our own planet. The risk of triggering abrupt and

irreversible changes is extremely difficult to assess, due to the complex

interactions between the living and non-living parts of the Earth system

(i.e., between different planetary boundary processes). In the planetary

boundary approach, the choice was made to place the “safe” boundary

position for each environmental process at the lower (safest) end of the

scientific uncertainty range. Taking climate change as an example, scien-

tific evidence indicates that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in the

range of 350–550 parts per million (ppm) have a high risk of abrupt and

deleterious changes that could push the Earth system outside of the pre-

sent stable Holocene state. The proposed safe boundary is set at an equi-

librium CO2 concentration of 350 ppm, which is at the lower end of the

assessed uncertainty range. Transgressing a boundary thus does not mean

that humanity immediately faces the imminent risk of a catastrophic tip-

ping point. Rather, it means that the world (or its major ecosystems) has

entered a danger zone where large-scale, permanent and socially very


costly changes are likely to occur. For climate change, we are already in

the danger zone (at 400 ppm CO2). The world is seeing the first clear signs

of large scale tipping points, e.g., with the accelerated melting of ice in the

Arctic and major shifts in marine ecosystems (IPCC AR5 2013).

Table 1. Social impacts of the Planetary Boundaries issues

Global problems Assessments and evidence sources

Climate

Many social impacts – health, envi-

ronmental hazards and risks, food

and water security

IPCC Assessment Reports 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, 2013/14 (WGII

due 2014).

IPCC WG I and II (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and

disasters. Cambridge University Press.

UN HDR (2007/8) Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a

divided world. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-8

Ocean acidification

Impacts on food security, commercial

fisheries, coastal environments

Gattuso J.-P. & Hansson L. (Eds.), Ocean acidification, pp. 122–153. Oxford University Press. European Project on Ocean Acidification: www.epoca-project.eu/

index.php/what-do-we-do/science/publications.html

Destruction of ecosystems and

biodiversity

Loss of ecosystem services – e.g.,

impacts on food security, water

quality, environmental hazards,

fuel/fibre resources, many regulating

and cultural services

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Biodiversity and human

wellbeing: current states and trends. Island Press.

IPBES Sub-Global Assessments repository,

http://ipbes.unepwcmc-004.vm.brightbox.net

Cardinale, B. (2012). Impacts of biodiversity loss. Science 336 552–553.

Reich, P.B. et al. (2012) Impacts of biodiversity loss escalate through

time as redundancy fades. Science 336 589–592.

CBD (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3.

www.cbd.int/gbo3/?pub=6667&section=6673

TEEB (2010) Ecological and economic foundations. The Economics of

Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Island Press.

FAO reports:

2010 – The state of the world’s plant genetic resources.

www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1500e/i1500e00.htm

2010 – The Global Forest Resources Assessment.

www.fao.org/forestry/fra/en/

2012 –The State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA).

www.fao.org/publications/sofa/en

2012 –The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA).

www.fao.org/fishery/sofia/en

UNEP (2012) Global Environment Outlook 5: Environment for the

future we want. UN Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

Disturbance of life’s nutrient cycles

Imbalance in global N and P cycles

causes major environmental, health

and economic problems. Projected

increases in population and per

capita consumption of energy and

animal products will exacerbate

nutrient losses, air and water pollu-

tion levels, and land and ecosystem

degradation.

Sutton M.A. et al. (2013). Our Nutrient World: The challenge to

produce more food and energy with less pollution. CEH Edinburgh,

for GPNM/INI. Available from www.unep.org

GESAMP (1990). The State of the Marine Environment. GESAMP

Reports and Studies No 39, IMCO/ FAW/ UNESCO/ WMO/ IAEA/

UN/ UNEP.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-8

http://www.epoca-project.eu/

http://ipbes.unepwcmc-004.vm.brightbox.net

http://www.cbd.int/gbo3/?pub=6667&section=6673

http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1500e/i1500e00.htm

http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/en/

http://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/en

http://www.fao.org/fishery/sofia/en

http://www.unep.org


Global problems Assessments and evidence sources

Alteration of atmospheric chemistry –

ozone layer, atmospheric aerosols

Direct human impacts (health);

indirect impacts through perturbed

ecological and physical/climate

functioning.

Thornton, J. (2000) Beyond risk: an ecological paradigm to prevent

global chemical pollution. International Journal of Occupational and

Environmental Health 6, 318–330.

Land use and degradation

Reduced food security, reduced

options for climate mitigation

through biosphere management,

risks of conflict, impacts on water

quality and quantity.

Lambin, E.F. and H.J. Geist, eds. (2006). Land-Use and Land-Cover

Change. Local processes and global impacts. The IGBP Series,

Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Water use

Water stress, risks of conflict, ecolog-

ical degradation.

Bogardi et al. (2012). Water Security for a Planet under Pressure.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 1–9.

Pollution by hazardous substances

Particular concern over bioaccumula-

tive, persistent and toxic substances;

substances that interfere with repro-

duction and healthy development.

Direct human health and wellbeing

effects, indirect impacts through

ecological impacts.

UNEP (2013) Global Chemicals Outlook www.unep.org/pdf

UNEP (2013) Costs of inaction on the sound management of chemi-

cals. www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/ UNEPs-

Work/Mainstreaming/CostsofInactionInitiative

AMAP (2009) Arctic Pollution 2009. Arctic Monitoring and Assess-

ment Program, http://amap.no

Depledge M, et al. (2013) Are marine environmental pollutants

influencing global patterns of human disease? Marine Environmen-

tal Research 83, 93–95.

2.4.2 Adapting science and policy for planetary boundaries

Research on planetary boundaries

The planetary boundaries concept draws on several decades of research

on physical, biogeochemical and ecological change over multiple

timeframes, using modelling and observational tools (including palaeo

records of past changes) to explain and predict Earth system dynamics.

Rockström et al. (2009) was an expert deliberation to identify the “core

set” of processes where human perturbation is driving the system out-

side of the functional range seen in the Holocene. As an academic article,

it was intended primarily as a new strategic agenda for Earth system

science research. Accordingly, there have been research developments

in recent years.

Recently published commentaries include discussion and refinement

of the boundaries for phosphorus (Carpenter and Bennett 2011), nitro-

gen (de Vries et al. 2013), freshwater use (Rockström and Karlberg

2010), an analysis of a state shift in the global biosphere (Barnosky et al.

2012), and an integrative boundary linking land, water and terrestrial

biodiversity based on net primary productivity (Running 2012). Chemi-

cal pollution has also received further attention (Handoh and Kawai

2011, Persson et al. 2013). The complexity of chemical use and envi-

http://www.unep.org/pdf

http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/

http://amap.no


ronmental release and impacts means that a single quantitative bounda-

ry is not appropriate. However, the conditions under which chemical

pollution poses a planetary boundary threat can be defined for improved

policy application. Persson et al. (2013) argue for new proactive hazard

identification strategies that consider issues like long-range transport

and the reversibility of chemical pollution. All these studies provide evi-

dence of systemic thresholds and biophysical regime shifts, arguing in

favour of boundaries that set strong reductions in the current levels of

anthropogenic perturbation.

An expanding area of research is the better characterization of the

Holocene and Anthropocene, and the integration of human dimensions

of global change (e.g. Steffen et al. 2011, Zalasiewicz et al. 2011, Crumley

2013). In the planetary boundaries framework, protecting human well-

being is the underlying rationale for limiting the use and degradation of

natural resources in order to avoid critical transitions in Earth system

processes, but the human drivers and impacts are not explicitly set out.

Raworth (2012) has extended the planetary boundary concept to social

objectives. The “Oxfam doughnut” framework focuses explicitly on social

justice principles underpinning sustainability. Others are exploring how

to “downscale” the boundaries, in terms of a national-level attribution of

responsibility for approaching the boundaries (Nykvist et al. 2013), or

alternatively applying the issues framework at a sub-global scale. To

apply the planetary boundaries concept in practice, especially at sub-

global scales, it becomes necessary to give explicit attention to the hu-

man drivers of change and distributional issues (Raworth 2012, Steffen

and Stafford-Smith 2013).

An international Planetary Boundaries research network (PB.net)1 is

being established to support the development of new dynamic modelling

tools and conceptualisations of human-environment system interaction.

These new tools are needed to enable us to move beyond the use of stat-

ic measures to describe the state of a dynamic system. Earth system

models and integrated assessment models (as used in global assess-

ments like the IPCC reports) were developed to address just some of the

planetary boundaries issues, and so can only give a very partial picture

of the impacts of interacting processes. The enduring problem that re-

search is carried out in disciplinary “silos” means that many of these

────────────────────────── 1 PB.net currently consists of research groups in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia.

The network will have its first international workshops in Spring 2014.


interactions are still poorly characterized. The current priority is to ad-

dress the interactions of direct importance to humanity, notably in the

climate-energy-food-water nexus (for instance, in the UN Global Sus-

tainable Development Report 2013).2

2.4.3 Governance implications of the planetary boundaries

An important area of research and analysis addresses the governance

implications of the planetary boundaries (Biermann 2012, Galaz et al.

2012, Whiteman et al. 2012). These highlight the need for adaptive gov-

ernance and co-management, and polycentricity and “scale-matching” for

the complex issues arising as humanity both alters Earth system function-

ing and develops a more predictive understanding of global changes.

Table 2 and section 3.3 below summarize the policy coverage of the

planetary boundary issues. The current suite of international environ-

mental agreements broadly cover the planetary boundary issues – but

there are significant gaps in terms of the issue focus and geographical

scale of the objectives. In general terms, policies have been developed at

national and international levels to address direct and immediate im-

pacts of environmental problems. For example, water, chemical pollu-

tion and nutrient cycles (nitrogen and phosphorus) are essentially treat-

ed as local to regional concerns, even though there is growing scientific

evidence that these issues have effects on larger and longer-term scales

than that. For chemicals and nutrient flows, knowledge is still fragment-

ed, and global management is made more difficult by the rapid shifts in

global patterns of production, consumption and environmental release.

These emerging issues require improved science/policy dialogue.

Furthermore, the current suite of policies have not been developed to

handle the potentially cascading social effects, nor the emergent risks

associated with the complex interactions of biophysical processes. In

this context, the consequences of implementation gaps and missed tar-

gets are likely to be much more serious than a single-issue perspective

would indicate. There is sometimes a presumption that global problems

demand global agreements, but IEAs can not be assumed to be a sensi-

tively responsive mechanism for governance of globally important pro-

────────────────────────── 2 UN Global Sustainable Development Report 2013 http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/

index.php?menu=1621

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/


cesses. It can take a prohibitively long time to obtain the international

consensus to set and review their objectives. As Galaz et al. (2012) ar-

gue, future pathways for the management of Earth system processes

may require new attention to overarching principles and the strategic

management of multi-level institutional interactions.

The policy interest in the concept has also triggered considerable de-

bate about the role of scientific expertise in governance of global change

issues (e.g., Nordhaus et al. 2012). These debates highlight the fact that

scientific assessment, including the kinds of quantitative assessment

that underlie the planetary boundaries, is only one part of societal risks

and impacts assessments.

Tab

le 2

. Th

e P

lan

eta

ry B

ou

nd

arie

s (R

ock

strö

m e

t a

l. 2

00

9)

and

th

eir

cu

rre

nt

po

licy

con

text

Pla

ne

tary

bo

un

dar

y

Cu

rre

nt

stat

e*

Po

licy

goal

s an

d t

arge

ts?

Po

licy

con

text

Scie

nti

fic

po

licy

foru

ms

Cu

rre

nt

(glo

bal

)

gove

rnan

ce

Co

mm

en

t

Clim

ate

chan

ge

< 3

50

pp

m C

O2

in

atm

osp

her

e

< +1

W m

-2 r

adia

tive

forc

ing

~396

pp

m

+1.8

7 W

m-2

2 °

C w

arm

ing

is c

on

sist

ent

wit

h 3

50

pp

m C

O2

++

IPC

C, U

NFC

CC

SB

STA

U

NFC

CC

, Kyo

to

Pro

toco

l; V

ien

na

Co

nve

nti

on

,

Mo

ntr

eal P

roto

col;

UN

ECE

CLR

TAP

Wh

ile t

he

UN

FCC

C h

as a

co

mp

atib

le le

vel o

f am

bit

ion

(2

°C

goal

), t

he

Kyo

to P

roto

col a

nd

cu

rren

t p

led

ges

for

a fu

ture

agre

emen

t h

ave

faile

d t

o m

eet

th

is le

vel.

The

Kyo

to P

roto

-

col w

ill li

kely

be

succ

ess

fully

imp

lem

ente

d in

itse

lf, b

ut

will

no

t le

ad t

o a

chie

vem

en

t o

f th

e U

NFC

CC

ob

ject

ive.

Oce

an a

cid

ific

atio

n

CO

32

-sat

ura

tio

n s

tate

2.7

5 (

>80

% o

f p

re-

ind

ust

rial

leve

ls)

2.9

0

No

exp

licit

go

al.

Clim

ate

2 °

C g

oal

will

als

o

kee

p o

cea

n a

cid

ific

atio

n

wit

hin

th

e b

ou

nd

ary.

–

IPC

C. O

CB

, EP

OC

A.

Min

imal

att

enti

on

to d

ate

un

de

r

UN

FCC

C.

No

sp

ecif

ic IE

A in

pla

ce, b

ut

the

key

po

licy

mea

sure

wo

uld

be

mit

igat

ion

by

limit

ing

anth

rop

oge

nic

CO

2 e

mis

sio

ns,

hen

ce t

he

issu

e is

ind

irec

tly

add

ress

ed

by

the

UN

FCC

C.

Stra

tosp

her

ic o

zon

e

dep

leti

on

27

6 D

U

(< 5

% r

edu

ctio

n

in [

O3

] fr

om

pre

-

ind

ust

rial

leve

l of

29

0 D

U)

28

3 D

U

Po

licy

goal

s fr

amed

in t

erm

s

of

ph

asin

g o

ut

of

ozo

ne

dep

lete

rs (

ie, t

he

anth

rop

o-

gen

ic d

rive

rs o

f ch

ange

, no

t

the

envi

ron

men

tal e

ffec

t)

+++

U

NEP

Ozo

ne

Secr

e-

tari

at A

Ps

Vie

nn

a C

on

ven

tio

n,

Mo

ntr

eal P

roto

col

Rel

evan

t an

d q

ua

nti

fied

tar

gets

hav

e b

een

set

th

rou

gh

th

e

19

87

Mo

ntr

eal P

roto

col a

nd

th

ey h

ave

hig

h c

ove

rage

an

d

hig

her

leve

l of

amb

itio

n t

han

th

e P

B. T

he

targ

ets

are

lega

lly

bin

din

g an

d t

her

e is

a c

lear

co

mp

lian

ce m

ech

an

ism

. Th

e

Pro

toco

l has

bee

n s

ucc

ess

fully

imp

lem

ente

d, w

ith

th

e

exce

pti

on

of

un

de

sire

d c

limat

e ef

fect

s o

f su

bst

itu

te s

ub

-

stan

ces

and

ille

gal t

rad

e.

Bio

div

ersi

ty lo

ss

< 1

0 e

xtin

ctio

ns

per

mill

ion

sp

eci

es

per

yea

r

>10

0 E

/MSY

P

reve

nti

on

of

exti

nct

ion

of

kno

wn

th

reat

ened

sp

ecie

s

(CB

D A

ich

i Tar

get

12

)

++

IPB

ES, C

BD

SB

STTA

C

BD

; Ram

sar;

Bo

nn;

Ber

n; C

ITES

[m

ore

:

ww

w.c

bd

.int/

eco

lex/

]

The

Aic

hi T

arge

ts u

nd

er U

NC

BD

dir

ectl

y o

r in

dir

ect

ly a

d-

dre

ss (

asp

ect

s o

f) t

he

PB

by

spe

cify

ing

targ

ets

for

exti

nct

ion

rate

s an

d h

abit

at lo

ss. T

he

leve

l of

amb

itio

n is

mo

der

ate

to

very

hig

h, b

ut

succ

ess

in im

ple

men

tin

g p

revi

ou

s si

mila

r

targ

ets

has

be

en li

mit

ed a

nd

th

ere

is a

lack

of

har

d c

om

-

mit

men

ts s

tip

ula

tin

g h

ow

th

e ta

rget

s w

ill b

e ac

hie

ved

.

Bio

geo

chem

ical

flo

ws:

nit

roge

n an

d

ph

osp

ho

rus

Syn

thet

ic n

itro

gen

fixa

tio

n <

35 M

t N

yr-

1

Ph

osp

ho

rus

infl

ow t

o

oce

ans

<10

Mt

yr-1

(<10

tim

es b

ackg

rou

nd

wea

ther

ing

rate

)

12

1 M

t N

yr-

1

~9 M

t P

yr-

1

No

agr

eed

glo

bal

go

al.

Div

erse

nat

ion

al a

nd

reg

ion

al

targ

ets

air

and

wat

er p

oll

u-

tio

n r

edu

ctio

n. G

PN

M p

ro-

po

sed

go

al o

f im

pro

vin

g fu

ll-

chai

n u

se e

ffic

ien

cy o

f N

an

d

P f

erti

lizer

s b

y 2

0%

fro

m

curr

en

t le

vels

.

(+)

Inte

rnat

ion

al N

itro

-

gen

Init

iati

ve;

Glo

bal

Ph

osp

ho

rus

Re-

sear

ch In

itia

tive

;

UN

EP-G

lob

al P

art-

ner

ship

on

Nu

trie

nt

Man

agem

en

t; W

HO

;

FAO

; W

MO

, IP

CC

;

Reg

ion

al s

eas

(e.g

.,

Arc

tic

Co

un

cil)

.

UN

FCC

C, C

BD

(eg

,

Aic

hi T

arge

t 8

);

[UN

ECE]

CLR

TP,

Wat

er C

on

ven

tio

n;

Reg

ion

ally

–

HEL

CO

M (

Bal

tic

nat

ion

s, E

U),

OSP

AR

Co

nve

nti

on

(N

ort

h

Sea,

NE

Atl

anti

c)

No

IEA

wit

h g

lob

al c

ove

rage

exi

sts,

bu

t th

ere

are

vari

ou

s

regi

on

al a

gree

men

ts t

o r

ed

uce

nu

trie

nt

inp

uts

to

reg

ion

al

seas

. Th

e le

gal s

tatu

s an

d t

he

exte

nt

to w

hic

h t

he

se a

gre

e-

men

ts in

clu

de

qu

an

tifi

ed t

arge

ts v

ary.

It is

like

ly t

hat

th

e

com

bin

ed le

vel o

f am

bit

ion

, wh

ere

exp

ress

ed q

uan

tita

tive

-

ly, i

s si

gnif

ican

tly

low

er t

han

th

e P

Bs.

http://www.cbd.int/

http://www.cbd.int/

http://www.cbd.int/

Pla

ne

tary

bo

un

dar

y

Cu

rre

nt

stat

e*

Po

licy

goal

s an

d t

arge

ts?

Po

licy

con

text

Scie

nti

fic

po

licy

foru

ms

Cu

rre

nt

(glo

bal

)

gove

rnan

ce

Co

mm

en

t

Glo

bal

fre

shw

ate

r u

se

< 4

,00

0 k

m3

yr-

1

con

sum

pti

ve u

se o

f

run

off

re

sou

rce

s

2,6

00

km

3 y

r-1

No

exp

licit

glo

bal

go

al.

(+)

Glo

bal

Wat

er F

oru

m.

Als

o W

orl

d W

ater

Co

un

cil;

pri

ori

ty

them

es

in F

AO

,

WH

O.

Sin

ce 2

009

, Clim

ate

and

Wat

er is

a

them

e in

UN

FCC

C

pro

cess

. Mill

enni

um

Dev

elo

pmen

t G

oal

7

add

ress

es p

eop

le’s

acce

ss t

o w

ater

an

d

san

itat

ion

.

As

of

20

13

, no

IEA

wit

h p

ote

nti

al g

lob

al c

ove

rage

exi

sts.

It is

un

clea

r to

wh

at e

xten

t ex

isti

ng

bila

tera

l an

d m

ult

ilate

ral

agre

emen

ts o

n t

ran

sbo

un

dar

y w

ater

s in

clu

de

targ

ets

on

wat

er e

xtra

ctio

n, a

s o

pp

ose

d t

o p

ollu

tio

n r

edu

ctio

n. E

xtra

c-

tio

n f

rom

nat

ion

al w

ater

s is

no

t re

gula

ted

th

rou

gh a

ny

IEA

.

Lan

d u

se c

han

ge

< 1

5%

of

ice-

free

lan

d

as c

rop

lan

d

11

.7%

C

BD

Aic

hi T

arge

t 1

1 s

ets

con

serv

atio

n t

arge

ts b

y ar

ea.

UN

FCC

C h

as p

rovi

sio

ns

for

mea

suri

ng

and

mo

nit

ori

ng

LULU

CF.

Un

clea

r h

ow

th

ese

rela

te t

o P

B.

+

Glo

bal

Lan

d P

roje

ct

(wit

hin

Fu

ture

Ear

th)

CB

D

The

Aic

hi T

arge

ts u

nd

er U

NC

BD

ind

irec

tly

add

ress

(p

arts

of)

the

PB

by

spec

ifyi

ng

targ

ets

for

pro

tect

ed

are

as a

nd

red

uc-

tio

n o

f h

abit

at lo

ss. T

hei

r le

vel o

f am

bit

ion

in r

elat

ion

to

th

e

PB

is u

ncl

ear

and

it a

pp

ears

th

ere

is n

o s

tro

ng

com

plia

nce

mec

ha

nis

m.

Ch

em

ical

po

lluti

on

N

o b

ou

nd

ary

def

ine

d

No

glo

bal

go

al. P

ollu

tio

n

con

trol

s ar

e ge

ner

ally

loca

l,

ori

ente

d t

owar

ds

hum

an

hea

lth

and

ecot

oxic

olo

gy, a

nd

retr

osp

ecti

ve s

o n

ot

pre

cau

-

tion

ary

for

plan

etar

y co

nse

-

qu

ence

s (a

s th

e o

zon

e/C

FC

exp

erie

nce

dem

on

stra

ted

).

n/a

W

HO

-

Inte

rgo

vern

me

nta

l

Foru

m o

n C

hem

ical

Safe

ty, S

ETA

C, S

CI.

Seve

ral I

EAs,

incl

ud

ing

Sto

ck-

ho

lm C

on

ven

tio

n,

CLR

TAP

, etc

.

PB

tb

d, n

o c

om

pa

riso

n p

oss

ible

. No

te t

hat

sev

eral

rel

evan

t

IEA

s ex

ist

(e.g

., o

n h

aza

rdo

us

was

te, P

OP

s an

d h

eavy

met

als)

, bu

t th

ey d

o n

ot

yet

cove

r al

l ch

emic

al s

ub

sta

nce

s

of

po

ten

tial

glo

bal

/pla

net

ary

con

cern

.

Atm

osp

her

ic a

ero

sol

load

ing

No

bo

un

da

ry

def

ine

d

No

glo

bal

go

al. M

eeti

ng

exis

tin

g lo

cal a

ir q

ual

ity

targ

ets

set

wit

h h

um

an a

nd

eco

syst

em h

ealt

h o

bje

ctiv

es

is li

kely

als

o t

o p

reve

nt

pla

net

ary

regi

me

shif

ts.

n/a

G

EIA

, UN

ECE-

EMEP

,

GA

P F

oru

m

UN

ECE

CLR

TAP

;

UN

FCC

C.

PB

tbd

, no

co

mp

aris

on

po

ssib

le. N

ote

that

WH

O h

as is

sued

a

glob

al p

arti

cula

tes

guid

elin

e an

d th

ere

are

seve

ral r

egio

nal

IEA

s o

n p

arti

cula

tes

con

cen

trat

ion

an

d em

issi

ons,

bu

t th

ey a

re

pri

mar

ily b

ased

on

hea

lth

co

nce

rns

rath

er t

han

env

iro

nm

ent

and

clim

ate

con

cern

s.


2.5 A safe and just space for humanity within boundaries

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) applied the concept

of ecosystem services specifically to “human wellbeing and poverty alle-

viation,” highlighting how ecosystem services can contribute to multiple

dimensions of wellbeing including security, basic material for a good life,

health, good social relations and freedom of choice and action. The im-

pact of ecosystem services on human wellbeing can appear most tangi-

ble and obvious at the local level, but they also operate at all intermedi-

ate scales right up to the global. The planetary boundaries aim to identi-

fy the conditions under which regulating ecosystem services can be

maintained at the planetary scale. These are the Earth system processes

that maintain conditions for prosperous development, dubbed “Earth

system services” by Steffen et al. (2011).

The changing patterns of human demand for ecosystem services also

have impacts on the biosphere across all scales, often eroding natural

capital. For example, one of the main human activities is agriculture, and

the human transformation of wild ecosystems to agro-ecosystems has

enhanced the supply of many ecosystem services, such as food produc-

tion. However, it has done this at the expense of other services, such as

climate regulation and water purification (MA, 2005). As currently prac-

ticed, agriculture is a major contributor towards the overshoot of many

of the planetary boundaries (Foley et al. 2011).

Ultimately the survival of humanity depends upon the biosphere, and

the continued functioning of the global economy relies upon the reliable

supply of the ecosystem services that a stable planet provides. Mean-

while the well-being of individuals is intimately linked to their ability to

access ecosystem services, as well as the many products and services

produced by economies. Thus destabilizing the Earth system by crossing

planetary boundaries can have consequences for human wellbeing by

reducing the supply of ecosystem services, and also by impairing the

functioning of the global economy increasing the costs of maintaining

essential services needed to achieve a good life. This economic dimen-

sion requires explicit attention.

Economic valuations of ecosystem services seek to capture their ag-

gregate societal value. In reality different individuals and groups benefit

from different ecosystem services to different extents, so that changes in

ecosystem services create winners and losers. The poor are typically


more sensitive to impacts on ecosystem services, due to their greater

reliance on natural resource-based livelihoods, and their vulnerability to

natural hazards. This also applies globally, as poorer nations have suf-

fered more costs and reaped fewer rewards from environmental chang-

es (Srinivasan et al. 2008).

The contributions that ecosystem services make to wellbeing also

depend on the perspectives and circumstances of the beneficiaries. Thus,

from a poverty alleviation perspective, ecosystem services should be

appraised in terms of how poor people’s lives are actually improved

(Daw et al. 2011). For example, the wellbeing impact of food or flood

protection depends on how hungry someone is or how exposed their

wealth is to flooding. This also has implications for the way in which the

ecosystem services concept is deployed in economic policy. The financial

income from a payment for ecosystem services could have a greater

wellbeing impact on poor individuals than the same income might have

for a wealthier individual.

Thus the challenge of sustainable development is not just about the

simple existence of natural capital or remaining within planetary

boundaries. For the biosphere to support wellbeing, access to the bene-

fits from ecosystem services needs to be equitably shared. Some have

attempted to illustrate this challenge by depicting the sustainability

challenge as aiming to meet a “floor” of basic social requirements for

poverty alleviation within the biophysical constraints of the planetary

boundaries (Raworth, 2012). This approach has been depicted as a

framework shaped like a doughnut which creates a “safe and just space”

between the two, in which humanity can thrive (Figure 5).


Fig. 5. Planetary and social boundaries: a safe and just space for humanity

Source: Raworth, 2012.

3. International policy and the move towards global sustainability

There are many international environmental agreements that contribute

to the global sustainable development agenda. Most prominent are the

three Rio Conventions adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de

Janeiro, in response to the most pressing issues of environmental unsus-

tainability. These are the United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

and the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD).

With the planetary boundary framework, a scientific rationale for

linking and reinforcing these agreements is brought into the picture,

providing an Earth system “dashboard” for assessing their effectiveness

in terms of safeguarding global sustainability. By setting contemporary

environmental changes into the context of the natural processes seen

through the geological history of the planet, the planetary boundaries

concept has direct relevance to the widely-used Brundtland definition of

sustainable development: “meeting the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

It also provides an important foundation for efforts to “Protect the integ-

rity of the global environmental and development system,” as empha-

sized in the preamble of the 1992 Rio Principles.

Much needs to be learned from the experiences of earlier global col-

lective efforts towards sustainability. Prominent in these experiences,

and closely linked to the SDG process, is the development and imple-

mentation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In the follow-

ing section, we discuss the MDGs, exploring the lessons and opportuni-

ties for the SDGs.


3.1 The Millennium Development Goals

In year 2000, the UN adopted the Millennium Development Goals to

address the problems associated with poverty, in a 15-year timeframe.

The eight MDGs address different issues including extreme poverty and

hunger, universal education, gender equality, child health, maternal

health, HIV/AIDS, environmental sustainability and global partnership

to address national disparities in development. Each goal has targets

that are to be achieved by 2015. Good progress has been made in many

areas. The targets for poverty, slums and water supply have already

been reached. But projections indicate that in 2015 close to one billion

people will be living on an income of less than $1.25 per day. Hence,

abject poverty remains a global challenge, hampering people’s capacity

to meet their basic needs for nutrition, sanitation, empowerment and

health. And since 2000, many other global issues have become promi-

nent sustainability concerns deserving global attention. The MDG pro-

cess gives important insights for this process.

3.1.1 Clear overarching objectives mobilize global cooperative action

The outcome document from the UN Rio+20 conference states that SDGs

should be

“action-oriented, concise and easy to communicate, limited in number, aspi-

rational, global in nature and universally applicable to all countries while tak-

ing into account different national realities, capacities and levels of develop-

ment and respecting national policies and priorities.”

Many of these characteristics are shared with the MDGs. Importantly,

the MDGs provide easily understood, quantitative targets; with time-

bound objectives that promote awareness, political accountability, im-

proved metrics, social feedback, and public pressure for human devel-

opment goals (Sachs 2012).

3.1.2 SDGs are an opportunity to better integrate environment and human development issues

The MDGs have been criticized for focusing too narrowly on social de-

velopment, while not providing for social-ecological interactions, inno-

vation and adaptation (Waage et al. 2010). Goals 2 to 6, and to a large

extent Goal 1, focus almost entirely on the social dimensions of devel-


opment, not fully reflecting how deeply linked they are with environ-

mental and economic factors (UN Task Team 2012; see also fig 8).

MDG7 set environmental sustainability targets addressing natural re-

source depletion, biodiversity destruction, inadequate access to water

and sanitation, and the worst problems of slum environments. While

these are serious problems in many parts of the world, a very large pro-

portion of environmental unsustainability is left untouched. Also, the

MDG process frames these environmental issues in one “stand-alone”

goal. This means that many interdependent social and ecological issues

have not been prioritised, where they could have offered “win-wins”. For

example, healthy and productive ecosystems play a vital role in address-

ing hunger and nutrition. Better integration of environment and devel-

opment within goals would also ensure scrutiny of the potentially dam-

aging environmental consequences of activities towards other goals

(e.g., ODA funding).

Environmental policies have been primarily oriented towards “prob-

lem fixing,” often focused on technical and economic responses. Earth’s

degraded ecosystems and landscapes are subject to more policy protec-

tion than ever before, but the damage of the past has not been fully re-

versed. Current efforts are not enough in key areas of climate (and its

twin problem, ocean acidification; IPCC AR5 2013), destruction of eco-

systems and biodiversity (MA 2005, GBO3 2010, GEO5 2012), and the

release of polluting substances into land, water and atmosphere (UNEP

2012). Development policies need to go further to recognize the connec-

tions between (narrowly defined) economically productive actions and

effects on the environment. They also need to recognize that people are

part of the world’s ecosystems, affecting the functioning of the whole

Earth at multiple, linked scales.

Social dimensions of unsustainability have so far been most clearly

reflected in the global concern about reducing poverty. This may help

explain the tendency for the primacy of economic development in “triple

bottom line” formulations of sustainability. At Rio+20 and in debates

since then, there have been calls for more effort addressing issues of

governance and social justice. Here too, a focus on social-ecological in-

teractions can enrich understanding. Good governance and environmen-

tal justice are tightly linked, because people obtain many benefits and

services from well-functioning ecosystems. These values need to be rec-

ognized and taken into account in decision-making (TEEB 2010), even if

they do not necessarily need to be translated into monetary terms and

embedded in market mechanisms.


3.1.3 SDGs can focus on greater equity while recognizing Earth’s fundamental limits

Taking current population projections and present levels of anthropo-

genic environmental impact into account, global society faces an enor-

mous challenge in order to “live within global environmental limits.”

Since equity for human development is an underpinning concept of sus-

tainability (affirmed in Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles), it needs to be

more prominent in the SDGs than it has been in the MDGs. The MDGs

focused on meeting the most basic needs of the world’s poorest people.

Fulfilling these needs marks a baseline condition for global equity. How-

ever, equity also implies that burdens and rewards of development

should not be spread too divergently. The SDGs present an opportunity

to strengthen this dimension of equity, in accordance with the intentions

agreed in Rio 1992, and reaffirmed in Rio+20.

Several concepts have been proposed that provide a framework for rec-

ognizing both environmental limits and the principle of equity. These in-

clude environmental space (Siebert 1982, Buhrs 2009, Kitzes et al. 2008),

and Cap-and-Trade of ecological footprints (Ohl et al. 2008). The latter two

extend the ecological footprint concept (Wackernagel and Rees 1996) to

include a broader range of demands within an equity framework.

For many reasons, footprinting approaches may not be directly useful

for the design of global sustainability policy (Ayres 2000, Van den Bergh

and Verbruggen 1999, Wiedmann et al. 2006). The footprint approach

cannot easily include non-renewable resources, nor does it address key

social aspects of sustainability such as access to education and

healthcare. It is also insufficient when it comes to assessing how viable

or vulnerable the natural ecosystems providing goods and services are

(Deutsch et al. 2000). Moreover, history suggests that elites push the

burden of compliance onto marginalised groups. So while footprinting

approaches can provide important aggregate frameworks for equity in

terms of material interactions between humans and nature, the “how” of

global sharing is as important as the “what.”


3.1.4 A fairer process for developing and implementing goals

An important component of an equitable and sustainable development is

that policy should be defined and implemented with fairness, impartiali-

ty, and justice.

The MDGs recognized that inequality of opportunities between men

and women (MDG3 and 5) and among the world’s nations (MDG8) pre-

sents major barriers to sustainable development. Continuing in this spir-

it, human rights and fundamental freedoms need to be respected and

observed in the process of developing and implementing the SDGs. At

the level of individual people, addressing the enduring problems of dis-

parity and discrimination on the basis of gender will need to continue

beyond 2015. Attention is also turning to other marginalized and under-

privileged groups.

At the level of nations, progress towards MDG8 (global partnership)

has been much too weak. The UN’s 2012 Gap Task Force report is explic-

it about the extent of rhetoric: poor nations still face unsustainable debt

obligations; miniscule aid commitments have not been met; and “the

Task Force has had difficulty identifying areas of significant new pro-

gress towards the MDGs.” The need for delivery on MDG8 commitments

has been described as at “emergency proportions” (UN General Assem-

bly 2010) – the vulnerability of the poorest is rigidly institutionalized. It

is in this context futile to pursue efforts to improve the health and edu-

cation of poor individuals while their nations (and thus their post-2015

prospects) are still being crippled by inequitable institutional relations.

The UN General Assembly (e.g., UNGA 2010) has sought to learn les-

sons from the MDG process. This learning requires scrutiny of the insti-

tutional processes, documentation and monitoring of the whole process

from design to implementation (and ultimately, goal achievement), and

engagement with the stakeholders in the process. There is strong con-

sensus that more participation is needed in public decision-making pro-

cesses, especially in the case of complex issues characterized by diver-

gent norms and values and high uncertainty. Participation matters for

several reasons:


It strengthens legitimacy, as part of a transparent and democratic

process – Agenda 21 (Sors 2001, also http://habitat.igc.org/

agenda21/app.htm), Aarhus convention (Lee and Abbott 2003).

It deepens the available knowledge in the context of contested and

complex issues – precautionary approaches require engaging with

the full diversity of knowledge, creativity and perspectives (Stirling

and Gee 2002, Stirling 2009).

Ethical and normative dimensions, because people are the source of

values in society, and because participation builds inclusion and fairness.

3.1.5 Urgent, universal, unambiguous goals

A key to the relative success of the MDGs is that they are clear and simp-

ly-stated goals that address a well-recognized global problem – extreme

poverty. The SDGs would do well to structure themselves that way too.

They should not be about defining a new, multi-dimensional long-term

shared sustainability vision for the global community, because aiming for

global consensus at that scale is more likely to fail.

The SDGs should be about dealing with today’s most pressing and un-

acceptable problems, as soon as possible. Since the SDGs were first sug-

gested, the number of proposed goal areas has ebbed and flowed, often

looking like a shopping list. A challenge for the SDGs (and partly shared

by the MDGs) is that the complex architecture of the world presses

against simple, “modular” goals. Whatever the set of desirable target

areas for the SDGs might be, the real power of the concept comes from

linking them together under a single shared overarching statement. The

MDG shows how this works: the MDG targets cover a very wide range of

issues, but they are all oriented towards the unifying objective of pov-

erty alleviation.

Another challenge arising from real-world complexity is that interac-

tions among social groups, and between society and nature, are fluid,

transformative and often unpredictable. Policies for sustainability need

to be adaptive and adaptable. This also argues for a fixed-term and

probably near-term focus for the SDGs (the MDGs were time-limited,

over a 15 year period). There have been discussions about extending the

frame of the SDGs to 20+ years into the future, on the basis that funda-

mental institutional and infrastructural transformations are needed and

these take time. The problem with this argument is that the short-

termism that characterizes the world’s decision-making processes is not

going to disappear (because it is part of human behaviour and psycholo-

gy; it is an essential part of adaptive governance; it reflects cultural uni-

http://habitat.igc.org/


versals of power in politics, and for many more reasons). Long-term

objectives often simply slip down the agenda unless specific time-bound

steps are set in place – and it is precisely those steps where concerted

international action should be focused.

3.2 SDGs and developments in UN

To achieve sustainable development, it was suggested by the govern-

ments of Colombia, Guatemala and Peru that specific sustainable devel-

opment goals should be established. This proposal was discussed during

the UN Rio+20 conference, where a decision to establish SDGs was made.

Initially Colombia, together with a group of other countries, identified a

suite of priority issues that constituted the basis for first discussions.

Nations and international organisations are now working to define

what such goals should be. The UN plays an important role in these devel-

opments. A priority is to identify a post-2015 agenda, as 2015 is the year

the MDG objectives are to be achieved. Three of the SDG-linked initiatives

are the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG),3

the High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the post-2015 agenda (HLP),

and the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN).

The OWG is a 30-member group of the UN General Assembly that was

established in January 2013. Its objective is to prepare a proposal on

SDGs. They will report to the General Assembly in 2014. The HLP was

initiated by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in July 2012 to advise on the

global development framework post 2015. The report “A new global

partnership: eradicate poverty and transform economies through sus-

tainable development” was submitted to the Secretary-General in May

2013. It presents a universal agenda to eradicate extreme poverty by

2030 and underlines the importance of putting sustainable development

at the core of the agenda for the future. To achieve this a new global

partnership is needed. Twelve goals have been proposed that cover var-

ious issues including: poverty, gender equality, education, health, food

security, water and sanitation, energy, jobs, natural resources, govern-

ance, peace and a global enabling environment. The report has received

a positive response but some critique has also been expressed. For ex-

ample it does not mention the Convention on Biological Diversity and

────────────────────────── 3 See http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1549

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1549


the Aichi targets in relation to Goal 9 that aims at managing natural re-

source assets sustainably. A report by Rockström et al. (2013). “Sustain-

able Development and Planetary Boundaries,” was submitted to the HLP.

It states that

“Rather than knowingly crossing the planetary boundaries, the world can

agree and cooperate on living within the playing field they imply, by adopting

improved technologies, stabilizing the world’s population, and protecting

threatened species and ecosystems. Such a strategy would leave all regions of

the world better off than on the business-as-usual path. Placing the world on

such a ‘Sustainable Development Trajectory’…must be a central objective of

the post-2015 framework.”

Another key initiative is the SDSN, that aims to be a facilitator in support

of sustainable development problem solving by involving technical and

scientific expertise from various disciplines including not only academia

but also civil society and the private sector. There are twelve thematic

groups within SDSN that aim at identifying common solutions and find-

ing best practices within different fields. SDSN published the report “An

action agenda for sustainable development” in which they suggest a list

of ten SDGs. One of them, goal number 2, is directly related to planetary

boundaries: “Achieve development within planetary boundaries.” It

states that “All countries have a right to development that respects plan-

etary boundaries, ensures sustainable production and consumption pat-

terns, and helps to stabilize the global population by mid century.” Three

specific targets are brought forward within goal number 2:

“(1) Each country reaches at least the next income level as defined by the

World Bank; (2) Countries report on their contribution to planetary bounda-

ries and incorporate them together with other environmental and social indi-

cators into expanded GDP measures and national accounts; (3) Rapid volun-

tary reduction of fertility through the realization of sexual and reproductive

health rights in countries with total fertility rates above three children per

woman and a continuation of voluntary fertility reductions in countries

where total fertility rates are above replacement level.”

The SDGs outlined by SDSN bear a similarity to those listed in the UN

General Assembly report to the Secretary-General, “A life of dignity for

all: accelerating progress towards the Millennium Development Goals

and advancing the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015.”

In March 2013, a month before the SDSN’s proposed goals and targets,

Griggs et al. (2012) published a set of six Sustainable Development Goals

(see also Appendix 4). These two sets of SDGs have been formulated based

on the latest science, while also considering IEAs and the MDGs (see Fig-


ure 6). The six SDGs suggested by Griggs and co-workers consider both

MDGs and global sustainability objectives. The targets set within each SDG

directly address social, economic and environmental dimensions. These

goals, and the targets beneath, may be operationalized through a policy

framework across levels from international to local (see Figure 6 and 7).

One example of an already existing international environmental agree-

ment that is important in the process of establishing SDGs is the Strategic

Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, adopted at the tenth meeting of the Con-

ference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Strate-

gic Plan for Biodiversity contains a number of elements, for instance the

twenty Aichi Biodiversity Targets, which are readily available for integra-

tion into the SDGs. The incorporation of these goals, targets and indicators

into the SDGs has multiple benefits, not only ensuring policy coherence and

building on existing implementation processes, but also reflecting the politi-

cal will of the 193 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. At the

latest Trondheim Conference on Biodiversity the SDGs were discussed. In

an information document4 to the conference the proposed SDGs were divid-

ed into four different types of goals based on their linkages to biodiversity

(Figure 7). These four types have then been matched with relevant targets

and other elements of a strategic plan (Appendix 6).

────────────────────────── 4 Biodiversity and Sustainable Development – the relevance of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020

and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets for the post-2015 development agenda and the Sustainable Development

Goals. Key Messages, The seventh Trondheim Conference on Biodiversity, Trondheim, Norway, 27–31 May

2013 Document TC7/INF2


Fig. 7. Potential types of goals based on the linkages of social objectives to biodi-versity and ecosystem services

Source: Biodiversity and Sustainable Development – the relevance of the Strategic Plan for Biodiver-

sity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets for the post-2015 development agenda and the

Sustainable Development Goals. Key Messages, The seventh Trondheim Conference on Biodiversity,

Trondheim, Norway, 27–31 May 2013 Document TC7/INF2.

Fig

. 6. S

ix s

ust

ain

ab

le d

evel

op

men

t g

oa

ls (

SDG

s) fo

r in

teg

rate

d d

eliv

ery

of

Mil

len

niu

m D

evel

op

men

t G

oa

ls a

nd

pla

net

ary

“m

ust

-ha

ves”

(o

r G

lob

al S

ust

ain

ab

ilit

y O

bje

ctiv

es).

(F

rom

Gri

gg

s et

al.

20

13

. Su

sta

ina

ble

Dev

elo

pm

en

t G

oa

ls f

or

peo

ple

an

d p

lan

et. N

atu

re 4

95

, 30

5– 3

07

)

Illu

stra

tio

n: J

. Lo

kran

tz/A

zote

.


3.3 International Environmental Agreements

For the development of the post-2015 agenda and the SDG process, it is

necessary to examine how existing international environmental agreements

(IEAs) and/or policy targets can be used and to what extent they address

global sustainability goals as well as how they relate to critical Earth system

processes as outlined in the planetary boundaries framework.

The biophysical processes underpinning planetary boundaries have

partly been addressed in some IEAs (see Table 1) but even where they

are considered, that does not mean that targets have been identified.

Progress may also be restrained by the implementation gap, such as in

the situation with climate change. A success story is the Montreal Proto-

col and its effect on limiting emissions of ozone-depleting substances

(The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Lay-

er). When going through existing IEAs and institutions it becomes clear

that they can be utilized more effectively in order to calibrate policy tar-

gets in relation to the scientific evidence on PBs and global environmental

thresholds. To the extent that policy-makers wish to use this evidence to

develop new policies, implementation deficits need to be addressed

properly and the level of ambition of existing targets need to increase.

The policy context of the planetary boundaries has been examined

further in a research report by Stockholm Environment Institute and

Stockholm Resilience Centre for the Swedish EPA in which a methodolo-

gy for measuring national performance on PBs is developed (Nykvist et

al. 2013). Another relevant assessment on global environmental goals

has recently been concluded by UNEP (UNEP 2012), summarized in Ap-

pendix 2. The results from mapping out IEAs relevant to the planetary

boundaries can be considered to be consistent with the “Environment

Scorecard” coming out of UNEP’s report, where comparison is made

with environmental goals themselves and not with planetary boundaries

(see Appendix 2). An important message from these two reports is that a

range of environmental goals and targets already exist, but that there

are significant implementation deficits.

A more detailed comparison of planetary boundaries and targets

agreed under IEAs needs to consider several aspects; how relevant the

target is to the planetary boundaries, its coverage, its level of ambition,

whether the target is legally binding, whether a strong compliance mech-

anism exists, and whether the target has so far been successfully achieved.


Overall, the planetary boundaries framework does not introduce new

issues on the policy agenda as such but rather suggests specific values

for boundaries, based on scientific research. However, with the plane-

tary boundaries concept a number of new institutional issues need to be

addressed. Notably, IEAs are not equipped to manage compounded and

complex effects (e.g. the cocktail effect from different chemical pollu-

tants) or tipping points. Part of the problem is that it requires a signifi-

cant time span to review and revise targets (e.g. for emission levels or

resource extraction rates). Another part of the problem is the uncertain-

ty of how policy targets under different IEAs or institutions relate to

each other, which has been characterised as the “institutional interplay”

(Oberthür and Stokke 2011).

To avoid “problem shifting,” i.e. reducing pressure on one planetary

boundary by increasing pressure on another (e.g. by expanding feed-

stock for biofuels to mitigate climate change which leads to increased

pressure on local freshwater resources in cultivation areas), one ap-

proach that could be examined further is whether the boundaries could

be used as a set of criteria when undertaking environmental impact as-

sessment of major policies and societal investments (Nilsson and

Persson 2012). Environmental impact assessment is one of the most

established tools in the environmental governance toolbox and has in-

creasingly been used at “higher” and more strategic levels in policy-

making. In the same way, global impacts could be considered by using

planetary boundaries as benchmarks. In this way, they could be used

both in impact assessment of local or national policies and investments

and in policies and investments that have a clear transboundary dimen-

sion. The main challenge would be to agree which institution could be

given the authority to demand and propose changes in light of such im-

pact assessments, as it would likely involve a compromise with the sub-

sidiarity principle.

Among the seven quantified planetary boundaries and their control

variables, we found that six are addressed directly in IEAs, while ocean

acidification is only addressed in the Strategic Plan of the CBD.5 This may

not come as a surprise given that ocean acidification is a relatively new

scientific finding. In addition, the problem relates to climate as reduction

in anthropogenic CO2 emissions is needed to reduce the problem; this is

already addressed by the UNFCCC (see also Kim, 2012). Nevertheless,

────────────────────────── 5 Mentioned in UN CBD Aichi Target No. 10.


IEAs for specific environmental issues have generally been created for

different reasons than for the same issue being included in the planetary

boundaries framework. For example, particulates (as atmospheric aero-

sols) have been addressed for their human health effects rather than envi-

ronmental and climate effects, and phosphorus emissions for their local

eutrophication effect rather than for the global consequences it may

have.6 However, the specific issues raised in the planetary boundaries

framework are not new as such as most of the planetary boundaries have

been addressed to some extent in several IEAs in force to date. What is

new is the attempt to find boundaries and identify thresholds for various

environmental and natural resource variables of global relevance and to

put it in a framework that is useful for policy and management.

Table 1 primarily shows to what extent PBs have been addressed. As

mentioned above the planetary boundary for stratospheric ozone deple-

tion was successfully dealt with. UNEP’s Global Environmental Goals

project highlights other successfully achieved goals, such as lead in gaso-

line and the supply of safe drinking water (UNEP 2012; see Appendix 2).

Common to all these issues is that they have direct and clear human

health effects, as opposed to more environmentally mediated effects on

human well-being. This suggests that if impacts on humans can be clear-

ly communicated it is given higher priority.

In order to connect potentially harmful anthropogenic interference

with Earth system processes with visible and measurable effects on hu-

man beings, the notion of “Earth system services” could be used. Drawing

on terminology for ecosystem services, Steffen and colleagues (2011)

identify examples of provisioning, regulating and supporting Earth system

services, in an effort to concretise how societies and economies are de-

pendent on seemingly abstract and large-scale environmental processes.

Another reason why existing goals have not yet been adequately ef-

fective, according to the UNEP’s Global Environmental Goals project, is

that many are simply not specific enough; the few goals that are specific

and measurable appear to have a much better record of success than the

ones that are more aspirational (see Appendix 2).

When considering how well matched the proposed planetary bound-

aries are by existing policy responses, it should be emphasised that IEAs

may not always be a sufficient approach. As explored by Galaz and col-

────────────────────────── 6 Oceanic anoxic events occur when oceans become completely depleted of oxygen below the surface levels.

No such events have happened for millions of years, but geological records show they have happened many

times in the past and they have been associated with mass extinctions.


leagues (2012), a focus on formal international agreements alone gives a

too simplistic perspective on the features of global environmental gov-

ernance. They suggest that insights from planetary boundaries research

highlight the need to consider flexible multilevel forms of state and non-

state collaborations and partnerships; the importance of legitimate and

inclusive international and regional scientific assessments; the im-

portant role played by international organizations; and the need for

international policies that support social-ecological innovation (Olsson

and Galaz 2012, Westley et al. 2012). Surely international agreements

and national enforcement matter, but these should not be decoupled

from local and regional adaptive forms of ecosystem stewardship as

these have been proven to be critical in dealing with key features of

global change.

As an example of activities of a non-state actor, the planetary bound-

aries concept has been included in the work of the World Business

Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). To connect resilience

and the planetary boundaries concept with their business strategy, they

embarked on a collaborative project with Stockholm Resilience Centre

and other science inputs worldwide.

Overall, planetary boundaries may be viewed as an issue for multi-

level governance.

To sum up, comparing planetary boundaries and the current suite of

IEAs suggests that there are four important avenues for future engage-

ment in IEAs relevant for the development of SDGs:

Reduce implementation deficits in relation to existing targets and

commitments – Typical for climate change, biodiversity loss and land

use. The latter also suffer from a lack of more direct targets addressing

the problem that the planetary boundary is trying to capture.

Highlight the global scale and implications of problems currently

addressed regionally – Freshwater and biogeochemical cycles are dealt

with through regional approaches, failing to consider the global picture.

Extend the rationale for acting from effects on human health and well-

being to effects on ecological and Earth system resilience – Concerning

aerosols, for example, there has been progress when the problem

directly results in measurable risks to human health but less so when

it relates to (more uncertain) risks to the environment. Momentum

for “environmental” policy initiatives could be strengthened if there

is a stronger and clearer connection to human well-being, since the

latter is commonly perceived as more urgent.


Pursue other tools for international cooperation other than formal

IEAs –A range of voluntary initiatives exist and capacity-building

efforts targeted at developing countries could be an effective way of

reducing implementation deficits.

3.4 Synergising legal systems for the emerging new development agenda

The emerging Sustainable Development Goals can also benefit from link-

ing International Environmental Agreements to progressive interpreta-

tions of International Human Rights Law, in particular to the associated

environmental cross-cutting dimensions (Darcy et al. 2009). Human

rights are inalienable rights and imply State obligations of “doing” and

“not doing” towards individuals and collectives. While in the 1970s, civil

and political rights (e.g. freedom of speech and freedom of assembly)

were sometimes seen in clash with economic, social and cultural rights

(Nicholson and Chong 2011). Since the 1990, there is an increasing

recognition that civil and political rights are indivisible and interde-

pendent to economic, social and cultural rights (Howard 1983) and that

both set of rights include State’s obligations of action and inaction.

Moreover, many State’s Constitutions – the legal instrument with highest

hierarchy and legitimacy in many countries – also enshrine these rights

as well as environment-specific rights; national legal systems are espe-

cially important for providing coercive enforcement mechanisms for

these rights as international mechanisms have significant limitations

(Nicholson and Chong 2011).

Hence, the progressive recognition of crosscutting environmental

dimensions of human rights can contribute to the theoretical framing

including equity dimensions as well as providing legal basis and legiti-

macy for the SDG. For example, proposals of SDGs, linked to the biodi-

versity planetary boundary include “thriving lives and livelihoods” and

“healthy and productive ecosystems.” Article 11 under the International

Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, referring to the State’s

obligation to improving living conditions can contribute to provide legal

basis for these proposed goals and planetary boundary. This Article 11

has been interpreted to include State obligations to reduce pollution

(Churchill 1998) and ensuring that the corporate sector fulfills its asso-

ciated responsibilities. Hence, this Article could also contribute to pro-

vide legal basis to other proposed SDGs such as “clean energy” as well as

to action towards respecting other planetary boundaries.


Sustainability depends on global and local action where not only States

but also other non-State actors take action and recognise their own respon-

sibilities towards a sustainable future. Hence, synergies with voluntary

standards (e.g. Plan Vivo) as well as local norms (e.g. Community Protocols)

can contribute to secure people’s rights and healthy ecosystems.

In sum, the legal framework for the new development agenda can build

on synergies between Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Human

Rights Law (see table 3.) as well as on legal landscapes at distinct scales.

Grounding the emerging Sustainable Development Goals in crosscutting

environmental dimensions of human rights can contribute to provide legal

basis and legitimacy to action towards fostering spaces where humanity

as well as other living beings and ecosystems can thrive.

Tab

le 3

. Th

e le

gal f

ram

ew

ork

fo

r th

e n

ew

de

velo

pm

en

t ag

en

da

can

bu

ild

on

syn

erg

ies

be

twe

en

Mu

ltil

ate

ral E

nvi

ron

me

nta

l A

gre

em

en

ts a

nd

Hu

ma

n R

igh

ts L

aw

In

tern

atio

nal

tre

atie

s7 (

bin

din

g)

De

clar

atio

ns,

pri

nci

ple

s an

d g

uid

elin

es a

gre

ed

be

twe

en S

tate

s (n

on

-bin

din

g)

Envi

ron

men

t C

on

ven

tio

n o

n B

iolo

gica

l Div

ersi

ty, 1

992

/199

3.

Nag

oya

Pro

toco

l on

Acc

ess

to G

enet

ic R

eso

urc

es a

nd

the

Fair

an

d Eq

uita

ble

Shar

ing

of B

enef

its

Ari

sing

fro

m t

hei

r U

tiliz

atio

n 2

010

.

Car

tage

na P

roto

col o

n B

iosa

fety

20

00/2

003

.

The

Nag

oya

– K

uala

Lu

mp

ur S

up

ple

men

tary

Pro

toco

l on

Liab

ility

an

d R

edre

ss t

o

the

Cart

agen

a Pr

oto

col o

n B

iosa

fety

201

0.

Uni

ted

Nat

ion

s Fr

amew

ork

Co

nve

ntio

n o

n C

limat

e C

han

ge 1

992

/.

Uni

ted

Nat

ion

s C

onv

enti

on

to C

omb

at D

eser

tifi

cati

on

in T

ho

se C

ou

ntri

es E

xper

i-

enci

ng S

erio

us

Dro

ught

an

d/o

r D

eser

tifi

cati

on, P

arti

cula

rly

in A

fric

a, 1

994

/199

6.

Co

nve

nti

on

on

Wet

lan

ds

of

Inte

rnat

iona

l Im

por

tan

ce E

spec

ially

as

Wat

erfl

ow

Hab

itat

, 197

1/1

975.

Co

nve

nti

on

on

the

Inte

rnat

ion

al T

rad

e in

En

dan

gere

d Sp

ecie

s o

f W

ild F

lora

an

d

Fau

na

197

3/19

75

.8

Co

nve

nti

on

on

the

Co

nse

rvat

ion

of M

igra

tory

Sp

ecie

s o

f Wild

Flo

ra a

nd

Fau

na,

197

3/1

975

.9

Co

nve

nti

on

on

Acc

ess

to In

form

atio

n, P

ubl

ic P

arti

cip

atio

n in

Dec

isio

n-M

akin

g, a

nd

Acc

ess

to J

ust

ice

in E

nvir

on

men

tal M

atte

rs, 1

998/

2001

.

The

Inte

rnat

iona

l Tre

aty

on

Plan

t G

enet

ic R

eso

urce

s fo

r Fo

od

and

Agr

icul

ture

,

200

1/2

004

.

Sto

ckh

olm

Dec

lara

tio

n o

f th

e U

nit

ed N

atio

ns

Co

nfe

ren

ce o

n t

he

Hu

man

En

viro

nm

ent,

19

72

.

Rio

Dec

lara

tio

n o

n E

nvi

ron

me

nt

and

Dev

elo

pm

en

t, 1

99

2.

Age

nd

a 2

1, 1

99

2.

Fore

st P

rin

cip

les,

Un

ited

Nat

ion

s C

on

fere

nce

on

En

viro

nm

ent

and

Dev

elo

pm

ent

No

n-L

egal

ly B

ind

ing

Au

tho

rita

tive

Sta

tem

en

t o

f P

rin

cip

les

for

a G

lob

al C

on

sen

sus

on

th

e M

anag

em

ent,

Co

nse

rvat

ion

an

d

Sust

ain

able

De

velo

pm

en

t o

f A

ll Ty

pes

of

Fore

sts,

19

92

.

Akw

on

Vo

lun

tary

gu

idel

ines

fo

r th

e co

nd

uct

of

cult

ura

l, en

viro

nm

enta

l an

d s

oci

al im

pac

t as

sess

men

ts

rega

rdin

g d

evel

op

men

ts p

rop

ose

d t

o t

ake

pla

ce o

n, o

r w

hic

h a

re li

kely

to

imp

act

on

, sac

red

sit

es

and

on

lan

ds

and

wat

ers

trad

itio

nal

ly o

ccu

pie

d o

r u

sed

by

ind

igen

ou

s an

d lo

cal c

om

mu

nit

ies

(CB

D 2

00

4).

Ad

dis

Ab

aba

Pri

nci

ple

s an

d G

uid

elin

es f

or

the

Sust

ain

able

Use

of

Bio

div

ersi

ty (

CB

D 2

00

4).

Inte

rlak

en D

ecla

rati

on

on

An

imal

Ge

net

ic R

eso

urc

es

.

Tkar

ihw

aié:

ri C

od

e o

f Et

hic

al C

on

du

ct t

o E

nsu

re R

esp

ect

fo

r th

e C

ult

ura

l an

d In

telle

ctu

al H

erit

age

of

Ind

igen

ou

s an

d L

oca

l Co

mm

un

itie

s (C

BD

20

10

).

The

Bo

nn

Gu

idel

ines

on

Acc

ess

to G

enet

ic R

eso

urc

es a

nd

Fai

r an

d E

qu

itab

le S

har

ing

of

the

Ben

efit

s

Ari

sin

g o

ut

of

thei

r U

tiliz

atio

n (

CB

D 2

002

).

Hu

man

Rig

hts

In

tern

atio

nal

Co

ven

ant

on

Civ

il an

d P

olit

ical

Rig

hts

, 19

66

/19

76.

Inte

rnat

ion

al C

ove

nan

t o

n E

con

om

ic, S

oci

al a

nd

Cu

ltu

ral R

igh

ts, 1

96

6/1

97

6.

Inte

rnat

ion

al C

on

ven

tio

n o

n t

he

Elim

inat

ion

of

All

Form

s o

f R

acia

l Dis

crim

ina-

tio

n, 1

96

5/1

96

9.

Co

nve

nti

on

on

th

e R

igh

ts o

f th

e C

hild

, 19

89

/19

90

.

Co

nve

nti

on

on

th

e El

imin

atio

n o

f A

ll Fo

rms

of

Dis

crim

inat

ion

Aga

inst

Wo

men

.

Ind

igen

ou

s an

d Tr

ibal

Peo

ples

Co

nve

ntio

n N

o. 1

69

, 198

9/1

990

(dep

osi

tary

: ILO

).

Un

iver

sal D

ecla

rati

on

of

Hu

ma

n R

igh

ts, 1

94

8.

Dec

lara

ció

n s

ob

re e

l Der

ech

o y

Des

arr

ollo

en

lo S

oci

al, 1

96

9.

Un

ited

Nat

ion

s D

ecla

rati

on

on

th

e R

igh

t to

Dev

elo

pm

ent,

19

86

.

Dra

ft D

ecla

rati

on

of

Pri

nci

ple

s o

n H

um

an

Rig

hts

an

d t

he

Envi

ron

men

t 1

99

4.

Dec

lara

tio

n o

n t

he

Re

spo

nsi

bili

ties

of

the

Pre

sen

t G

en

erat

ion

s To

war

ds

Futu

re G

en

era

tio

ns

19

97

.

Dec

lara

tio

n o

n th

e R

ight

s o

f P

erso

ns

Bel

ong

ing

to N

atio

nal

or

Eth

nic,

Rel

igio

us

and

Lin

guis

tic

Min

ori

ties

.

Un

ited

Nat

ion

s D

ecla

rati

on

of

the

Rig

hts

of

Ind

igen

ou

s P

eop

les

20

07

.

The

Un

iver

sal D

ecla

rati

on

on

Cu

ltu

ral D

iver

sity

UN

ESC

O 2

00

1.

The

Un

iver

sal D

ecla

rati

on

on

Bio

eth

ics

and

Hu

man

Rig

hts

UN

ESC

O 2

00

5.

Sou

rce:

Itua

rte-

Lim

a, C

., Sc

hul

tz, M

., H

ahn

, T. a

nd

Cor

nel

l, S.

(201

2) “

Safe

guar

ds

in s

calin

g-u

p b

iod

iver

sity

fin

anci

ng a

nd

po

ssib

le g

uidi

ng

prin

cip

les”

, Sto

ckho

lm R

esili

ence

Cen

tre,

Info

rmat

ion

do

cum

ent

for

the

CB

D-C

on

fere

nce

of

the

Part

ies

11, (

UN

EP/C

BD

/CO

P/11

/IN

F/7)

. htt

p:/

/ww

w.c

bd

.int/

do

c/m

eeti

ngs/

cop

/co

p-1

1/i

nfo

rmat

ion

/co

p-1

1-i

nf-

07-

en.p

df

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

7 T

he

firs

t y

ear

me

nti

on

ed i

s w

hen

th

e in

tern

atio

nal

tre

aty

wa

s ad

op

ted

an

d s

eco

nd

wh

en

it e

nte

red

into

fo

rce

. 8 A

men

ded

19

79

. 9 A

men

ded

19

79

.

http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-11/information/cop-11-inf-07-en.pdf
















4. Formulating Sustainable Development Goals in the Anthropocene

4.1 An integrated framework for SDGs

As previously described a number of different initiatives, networks and

organisations around the world are currently working to provide guid-

ance and recommendations on the post-2015 development agenda. The

UN has launched a number of initiatives (see section 3.2) and the Over-

seas Development Institute provides an online and continuously updat-

ed collection of all the publicly available proposals for future SDGs.10

The scope of the current report is not to go through all these in detail

but rather to describe and review how the post-2015 agenda and formu-

lation of SDGs can incorporate the scientific insights provided by Earth

system and Resilience science. From this work three overarching in-

sights emerge:

SDGs must address the new challenge of meeting the twin universal challenge

of poverty alleviation and human wellbeing on the one hand, and global envi-

ronmental sustainability on the other. Global sustainability being an over-

arching precondition for human prosperity.

Scientific insights number 1

SDGs must go beyond the disciplinary division (pillars) of social, eco-

nomic and environmental goals, and avoid becoming a collection of sin-

gle issue-based objectives. Any accepted set of SDGs need to

acknowledge that ecological and social systems are inseparably linked

and must facilitate a deeper analysis of the multiple interconnections,

trade-offs and synergies between goals and targets. SDGs should be de-

signed to enhance the awareness of, and focus on, the role of natural

────────────────────────── 10 http://tracker.post2015.org

http://tracker.post2015.org


capital and ecosystem services within (not alongside) economic devel-

opment and poverty reduction.

In Griggs et al. (2013), it is argued that the twin priorities for the

formulation of SDGs must be the protection of Earth’s life-support sys-

tem and poverty reduction. In other words, it is not sufficient to simply

extend the MDGs, as some are suggesting, because humans are already

transforming the planet’s atmosphere, oceans, waterways, forests, ice

sheets and biodiversity in ways that could undermine development

gains. In this context, the classic model of sustainable development, of

three integrated pillars – economic, social and environmental – is re-

garded as flawed. Instead, it is suggested that sustainable development

should be redefined as “development that meets the needs of the pre-

sent while safeguarding Earth’s life-support system, on which the wel-

fare of current and future generations depends” (ibid.). Taking this

new definition of sustainable development, and using existing interna-

tional agreements, six provisional SDGs are proposed (see Figure 6,

A Unified Framework):

1. Thriving lives and livelihoods.

2. Food security.

3. Water security.

4. Clean energy.

5. Healthy and productive ecosystems.

6. Governance for sustainable societies.

Reducing poverty and hunger, improving health and well-being and cre-

ating sustainable production and consumption patterns remain driving

principles. The proposed goal of improving lives and livelihoods, for

example, would promote sustainable access to food, water and energy

while protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services. The targets be-

neath each goal include updates and expanded targets under the MDGs,

including ending poverty and hunger, combating HIV/aids, and improv-

ing maternal and child health. But also a set of planetary “must haves”:

climate stability, reducing biodiversity loss, protection of ecosystem

services, a healthy water cycle and oceans, sustainable nitrogen and

phosphorus use, clean air and sustainable material use (see Fig 8. and

Appendix 4 for a detailed list of the goals and targets).

Fig

. 8. A

n in

fog

rap

hic

des

crib

ing

th

is r

epo

rt’s

“u

nif

ied

fra

mew

ork

fo

r g

lob

al s

ust

ain

ab

ilit

y”

an

d h

ow

it r

ela

tes

to t

he

evo

luti

on

of

insi

gh

ts o

n

the

inte

ract

ion

s b

etw

een

dev

elo

pm

en

t a

nd

th

e en

viro

nm

ent

fro

m t

he

19

70

s to

th

e p

rese

nt

Illu

stra

tio

n: J

. Lo

kran

tz/A

zote

.


The “infographic” in Figure 8 summarises how an integrated approach is

part of an evolution of thinking and continuous scientific explorations

and insights on the complex interactions between human development

and the environment and the main components of such an approach.

1. It starts with the seminal “Limits to growth” report in 1972, which

was a reaction to the conventional economic view that “Land” (nature

and natural resources) was something passive and unimportant to

the production of wealth (compared to the much more important

“Labour” and “Capital”).

2. The timeline continues with the Venn diagram of sustainable

development, a concept which gained attention in 1987 and became

mainstreamed during the first Rio conference in 1992. In reality the

global sustainable development agenda has mostly focused too much

on economic development and marginalised both the social end

environmental aspects (see “Mickey Mouse sustainability” model in

the upper left corner). Likewise, the MDGs (plotted inside the circles

of the Venn diagram) have also been criticized for focusing too

narrowly on some aspects of development, while not providing for

social-ecological interactions, innovation and adaptation. Actually,

goals 2 to 6 and to a large extent goal 1, focus almost entirely on the

social dimension of development, not fully reflecting how deeply

linked they are with environmental and economic factors.

3. In 2005 and 2008 the MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) and

TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) reports

respectively, emphasised the importance of ecosystem services for

human development and this was followed in 2009 by the planetary

boundaries approach reiterating (in a new way) the biophysical

limits to economic development.

4. This framework was later adapted by the “Oxfam doughnut” which

added a “floor” of basic social requirements for poverty alleviation

within the constraints of the planetary boundaries. From 2015 we

show a possible unified framework for Sustainable Development

Goals, combining the sustainable development, ecosystem services

and planetary boundaries concepts in the adoption of a “development

within Earth limit” approach (see e.g. Griggs et al. 2013). This unified

framework even redefines sustainable development as “development

that meets the needs of the present while safeguarding Earth’s life-

support system, on which the welfare of current and future

generations depends.”


5. The pie chart in the upper right corner shows one example of how a

SDG for sustainable food security could be framed based on this

unified framework. It is an example of how the post-2015 agenda and

formulation of SDGs can incorporate the scientific insights provided

by Earth system and Resilience science, meeting the twin universal

challenge of poverty alleviation and human wellbeing on the one

hand, and global sustainability on the other.

The United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN)

has proposed a list of ten transformations needed in the “A Framework

for Sustainable Development” document:11

1. Ending Extreme Poverty and Promoting Sustainable Growth.

2. Promoting Healthy Lives and Sustainable Fertility.

3. Promoting Quality Education, Job Skills, and Decent Work.

4. Promoting Gender Equality, Personal Security, and Wellbeing.

5. Averting Dangerous Climate Change and Industrial Pollution.

6. Ensuring Food Security and Sustainable Food Supplies.

7. Protecting Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

8. Building Smart, Healthy and Resilient Cities.

9. Fulfilling the Promise of Technologies for Sustainable Development.

10. Ensuring Good Governance and Accountability.

While there is substantial overlap with the set of SDGs suggested by

Griggs et al. 2013, the SDSN develops the traditional three pillars of sus-

tainable development – economic, social, and environmental – by adding

good governance and personal security as a fourth dimension “to high-

light several enabling conditions for sustainable development, including

transparency, effective institutions, the rule of law, participation and

personal security, accountability, and adequate financing for public

goods.” They also conclude that well-crafted post-2015 goals should

“promote integrated thinking and put to rest the futile debates that pit

one dimension of sustainable development against another.” See Appen-

dix 5 for detailed list of the goals and targets.

────────────────────────── 11 http://unsdsn.org/files/2012/12/121220-Draft-Framework-of-Sustainable-Development.pdf

http://unsdsn.org/files/2012/12/121220-Draft-Framework-of-Sustainable-Development.pdf


The SDGs must be made operational through a bottom-up approach with

scalable indicators.


Measuring progress on the SDGs will require agreed sets of indicators

for use at national, regional and international levels and in developed

and developing countries. Although environmental indicators have been

developed since the 1960s (OECD 1998), they have in the past been

treated separately from social and economic indicators. While significant

advances toward developing indicators for multidimensional policy tar-

gets have been made, much work remains to be done (e.g. Attaran 2005,

McArthur et al. 2005, Walpole et al. 2009, Reyers et al. 2013). Principal-

ly, two major obstacles are impeding further progress: (1) inadequate

data with which to measure changes in the biosphere, human well-being,

poverty, and other components relevant to policy targets (Scholes et al.

2008, Reyers et al. 2013), and (2) the difficulty in actually measuring the

policy target of interest, often on account of poorly understood, unquan-

tified, and complex concepts (e.g. ecosystem services, poverty, and well-

being). In the rush to address the first obstacle, data inadequacy issues,

the second obstacle has been largely overlooked. This has resulted in a

plethora of measures and indicators (based on existing data) that fre-

quently fall short of their intended purpose (Mace and Baillie 2007, Rey-

ers et al. 2013).

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) developed a

framework that allowed for the use of a wide range of indicators (Perei-

ra et al. 2005), although these still lacked integration and were not scal-

able. Indicators were originally designed to span national to global

scales (Butchart et al. 2010, GBO3 2010) but it has been repeatedly em-

phasized that there is a need for a set of scalable indicators, which could

be used for upscaling of observations from local to global scales as well

as downscaling (SCBD 2011). A global observation network with the aim

of providing the data and indicators needed by the scientific community,

international conventions and IPBES, is now being developed under the

auspices of the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation

Network (Scholes et al. 2012, Pereira et al. 2013).

The task of developing more integrated and scalable indicators will be

crucial for SDGs, since it is important to base information on the results of

localized interactions. Using indicators that make sense on a local scale

and then possible to scale up on a regional and global scale opens up the

possibility to engage local stakeholder, citizen groups, indigenous groups

and many other knowledge holders in the monitoring, reporting and de-


velopment of the SDGs. One example which aims to do this is the IPBES

decision to base assessments on the enriched picture provided by multi-

ple knowledge holders and recognition of multiple sources of evidence for

understanding drivers of change and responses in social-ecological sys-

tems, the Multiple Evidence Base approach MEB (Box 4).

MEB implies that different knowledge systems are viewed as generat-

ing equally valid evidence for interpreting change, trajectories, and

causal relationships in ecosystem assessments. A peer-review process

for a MEB approach takes into account that different criteria of valida-

tion should be applied to data and information originating from different

knowledge systems (Duraiappah et al. 2012). Placing insights from

knowledge systems side by side will enable an enriched understanding

of the social-ecological system or the issues at hand, such as understand-

ing effects of climate change in the Arctic, rangeland dynamics, or the

role of sacred sites for human well-being (Berkes, 2007, Moller et al.

2004). A MEB approach can serve as a learning platform for generating

insights and triangulation across knowledge systems, as well as a basis

for further co-production of knowledge (see Figure 9 in Box 4).

Box 4. The Multiple Evidence Base (MEB)

Within IPBES, the member states have demanded that the platform “should rec-

ognize and respect the contribution of indigenous and local knowledge to the

conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems”, as a means of

contributing to the platforms four objectives; perform assessments, generate

knowledge, identify policy relevant tools, and capacity building. In response to

these demands, and similar demands from other assessments and processes, a

Multiple Evidence Base (MEB) approach has been developed (Tengö et al. 2013)

for diverse knowledge systems to contribute on their own terms to an enriched

picture based on qualitative and quantitative knowledge and understanding. To

secure the legitimacy, credibility, and salience the approach is developed as a

dialogue process in partnership between researchers, representatives of indige-

nous peoples and local communities (and their networks and organizations),

practitioners, and governmental, international and intergovernmental institu-

tions (Tengö et al. 2013).


Fig. 9. Outlining the Multiple Evidence Base Process, where diverse knowledge systems are viewed as generating different manifestations of valid and useful forms of knowledge, and complementarities and innovations to be gained from cross-fertilization


The SDGs must consider economic targets and indicators.


Many argue that we will never achieve sustainable development unless

we change the current economic paradigm, which is a fundamental

cause of the current crises (e.g. Costanza et al. 2012). Hence, it is im-

portant to consider GDP and other current measures of national income


accounting in the context of sustainable development goals. Such

measures are “notorious for overweighting market transactions, under-

stating resource depletion, omitting pollution damage, and failing to

measure real changes in well-being” (ibid.). In the words of Dasgupta

and Duraiappah (2012) “we are mis-measuring our lives by using per

capita GDP as a yardstick for progress.” A number of alternative

measures have been proposed (and to some extent applied) to integrate

environmental social aspects in measures of well-being on the national

level, e.g. inclusive wealth, genuine savings, Index of Sustainable Eco-

nomic Welfare (ISEW) and the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). How-

ever, as noted by Stiglitz et al. (2009) there is a risk of integrating too

many aspects in aggregated measures, implying that urgently needed

measures centred on people’s well-being and sustainability must be

plural. There is no single measure that can summarize the full complexi-

ty of human well-being in different socio-economic and geographic con-

texts. What ever system we choose it should not just measure average

levels of well-being within a given community, and how they change

over time, but also document the diversity of peoples’ experiences and

the linkages across various dimensions of people’s life (ibid.).

In summary, the unified framework for the post-2015 agenda and

formulation of SDGs that is suggested in this report implies another ad-

dition to the evolution of the economic model, beyond the “Green Econ-

omy Model” and complementing the “Ecological Economics Model” de-

scribed by Costanza et al. (2012). Such incorporation of the scientific

insights provided by Earth system and resilience science could be called

a “Biosphere Economics Model” (see table 4).


Table 4. Basic characteristics of the current economic model, the “green economy” model, the “eco-logical economics” model and the “biosphere economics” model (adapted from Costanza et al. 2012)

Current Economic

Model

Green Economy

Model

Ecological Econo-

mics Model

Biosphere Econo-

mics Model

Primary

policy goal

More:

Conventional

economic growth

measured by GDP.

Assumption is that

growth will ultimate-

ly allow the solution

of all other prob-

lems. More is always

better.

More but with lower

impact:

GDP growth “de-

coupled” from

carbon and from

other material and

energy impacts

Better:

Focus must shift

from merely growth

to “development” in

the real sense of

improvement in

sustainable human

wellbeing. More is

not always better.

More resilient:

Integrating the role

of the biosphere and

global resilience in

macro-economic

models to safe-

guard well-being in

an increasingly

turbulent world.

Primary

measure of

progress

GDP Still GDP, but

recognizing impacts

on natural capital

Index of Sustainable

Economic Welfare

(ISEW)/Genuine

Progress Indicator

(GPI) (or other

improved measures

of real welfare)

Plural welfare

measures centred

on sustainability, no

single measure can

capture the full

complexity of

human well-being

and its relation to

the biosphere.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

Based on this overview of the state of the art, our conclusions and rec-

ommendations are:

First: We recommend the adoption of a “development within Earth limits”

approach in the further process of designing SDGs. We argue that the twin

priorities for the formulation of SDGs must be the protection of the biosphere

– society’s non-negotiable “life-support systems” – and the reduction of pov-

erty as an essential part of a fair and just global society.

Second: We believe it is important to build the further development on inte-

grating what we already have, respecting the fact that any SDG development

needs to build on the MDGs, learning from experiences of the MDGs, ensuring

that their advances towards poverty eradication are achieved.

Together, these recommendations require a deeper analysis of the multiple

interconnections, trade-offs and synergies between SDGs. Measuring pro-

gress in reaching the targets for the SDGs must require an agreed set of scal-

able indicators that should be inclusive of different knowledge systems,

building data and knowledge from local to national, regional and internation-

al levels. The environmental targets should be based on the latest research

on the dynamics of the Earth system, and benefit from learning and early

warning and monitoring activities emerging in multiple knowledge systems.

Third: There are many existing global environmental agreements (such as the

Aichi-Biodiversity Targets, see also Table 1) that link closely to planetary

boundaries. These form the foundations of a robust policy framework for

both the formulation of the SDGs and their implementation. Better integra-

tion across the social and environmental dimensions can provide the needed

impetus towards closing the current implementation gap.

6. References

Arctic Council (2013). Arctic Resilience Interim Report 2013. Stockholm Environ-ment Institute and Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm.

Attaran, A. (2005). An immeasurable crisis? A criticism of the Millennium Develop-ment Goals and why they cannot be measured. PLoS Med 2: e318; doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020318.

Ayres, R. U. (2000). Commentary on the utility of the footprint concept. Ecological Economics 32(3) 347–349.

BalticSTERN (2013). The Baltic Sea – Our Common Treasure: Economics of Saving the Sea. Report by the BalticSTERN secretariat and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, 2013.

Barnosky, A., Hadly, E., Bascompte, J., Berlow, E., Brown, J., Fortelius, M. and Smith, A. (2012). Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature, 486, 52–58.

Beer, C., Reichstein, M., Tomelleri, E., Ciais, P., Jung, M., et al. (2010). Terrestrial Gross Carbon Dioxide Uptake: Global Distribution and Covariation with Climate. Science, 329, 834–838. DOI:10.1126/science.1184984

Berkes, F. (2007). Sacred Ecology (2nd ed., p. 336). New York: Routledge.

Biermann, F. (2012) Planetary boundaries and earth system governance: Exploring the links. Ecological Economics. 81: 4–9.

Buhrs, T. 2009. Environmental Space as a Basis for Legitimating Global Governance of Environmental Limits. Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 9, No. 4, 111–135.

Butchart, S.H.M. et al. (2010). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science 328: 1164–1168.

Carpenter, S., Bennett, E. (2011) Reconsideration of the planetary boundary for phosphorus. Environ. Res. Lett. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014009

Churchill, R. (1998) Environmental Rights in Existing Human Rights Treaties, A Boyle and M Anderson eds, Clarendon Press Oxford.

Convention on Biological Diversity (2010). Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, Montreal, Canada, https://www.cbd.int/gbo3/

Costanza, R., Alperovitz, G., Daly, H., E., Farley, J., Franco, J., Jackson, T., Kubiszewski, I., Schor, J. and Victor, P. (2012). Building a Sustainable and Desirable Economy-in-Society-in-Nature. New York: United Nations Division for Sustainable Development.

Crumley, C. (2013). New Paths into the Anthropocene. Oxford Handbook of Historical Ecology and Applied Archaeology, Christian Isendahl and Daryl Stump, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crutzen, P. (2002). The effects of industrial and agricultural practices on atmospheric chemistry and climate during the Anthropocene. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 37, 423–424.

Darcy, S., McLoughlin, S., Winters, N., Ealai, N., Smith, T., Powderly, J. (2009) Human Rights and the Natural and Cultural Environment: A New Frontier of Protection?, Irish Centre for Human Rights National University of Ireland, Shelton, D. 1991. Hu-man Rights, Environmental Rights and the Right to Environment, Stanford Journal of International Law.

https://www.cbd.int/gbo3/


Dasgupta, P. and Duraiappah, A. (2012). Well-being and wealth. In UNU-IHDP and UNEP. Inclusive Wealth Report 2012. Measuring progress toward sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Daw, T., Brown, K., Rosendo, S. and Pomeroy, R. (2011). Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environmental Conservation 38, 370–379.

de Vries, W. et al. (2013) Assessing planetary and regional boundaries related to food security and adverse environmental impacts. COSUST 5: 392–402.

Deutsch, L., Jansson, Å., Troell, M., Rönnbäck, P., Folke, C. and Kautsky, N. (2000). “The ‘ecological footprint’ – communicating human dependence on nature’s work.” Ecological Economics 32:351–355.

Duraiappah, A.K., Nakamura. K., Takeuchi. K., Watanabe. M. and Nishi. M. (2012). Satoyama–Satoumi Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Socio-Ecological Produc-tion Landscapes of Japan. UNU Press.

ECE, ESCAP, UNDESA, UNEP, UNFCCC (2012). UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda. Building on the MDGs to bring sustainable devel-opment to the post-2015 development agenda. Thematic Think Piece. www.un.org/ millenniumgoals/pdf/Think%20Pieces/17_sustainable_development.pdf

Ellis, E. C. and Ramankutty, N. (2008) Putting people in the map: Anthropogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6:439–447.

Elmqvist et al. (eds.), 2013. Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Chal-lenges 1 and Opportunities: A Global Assessment, Springer Open. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_1

Fisher, B., Turner, R.K. and Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 68, 643–653.

Foley, J. A. et al. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478: 337–342.

Folke, C., Jansson, Å., Rockström, J., Olsson, P., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., III, Crep-in, A.-S., Daily, G., Danell, K., Ebbesson, J., Elmqvist, T., Galaz, V., Moberg, F., Nilsson, M., Österblom, H., Ostrom, E., Persson, Å., Peterson, G., Polasky, S., Steffen, W., Walker, B., Westley, F. (2011). Reconnecting to the biosphere. Ambio, 40, 719–738. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y

Galaz, V., Biermann, F., Crona, B. et al. (2012) “Planetary boundaries” – exploring the challenges for global environmental governance. COSUST 4: 80–87.

Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M.C., Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G., Kanie, N. and Noble, I. (2013). Sustainable Development Goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305–307.

Handoh, I. and Kawai, T. (2011) Bayesian uncertainty analysis of the global dynamics of persistent organic pollutants: towards quantifying the planetary boundaries for chemical pollution. In: Interdisciplinary Studies on Environmental Chemistry – Ma-rine Environmental Modeling & Analysis, Eds. K. Omori, et al., pp. 179–187.

Howard, R. (1983) The Full-Belly Thesis: Should Economic Rights Take Priority over Civil and Political Rights? Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Human Rights Quar-terly, 5(4): 467–490.

IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I contribu-tion to the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Final Draft, 30 Sep 2013.

Kim, R.E. (2012). Is a New Multilateral Environmental Agreement on Ocean Acidifica-tion Necessary? Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 21(3): 243–258.

http://www.un.org/


Kitzes, J., Wackernagel, M., Loh, J., Peller, A., Goldfinger, S., Cheng, D. and Tea, K. (2008) Shrink and share: humanity’s present and future Ecological Footprint. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 363 467–475.

Kumar, P., (ed) (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). Earthscan, UK.

Lee, M. and Abbott, C. (2003) The usual suspects? Public participation under the Aarhus convention. The Modern Law Review, 66(1) 80–108.

Mace, G.M. and Baillie, J.E.M. (2007). The 2010 biodiversity indicators: challenges for science and policy. Conservation Biology 21: 1406–13.

McArthur, J.W., Sachs, J.D. and Schmidt-Traub, G. (2005). Response to Amir Attaran. PLoS Med 2: e379; doi:10.1371/journal.pmed. 0020379.

McGranahan, G. and Satterthwaite, D. (2003). Urban centers: An assessment of sus-tainability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 243–274.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P. O. and Kislalioglu, M. (2004). Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co‐management. Ecology and Society 9(3): 2.

Nicholson and Chong (2011), Jumping on the Human Rights Bandwagon: How Rights-based Linkages Can Refocus Climate Politics, Global Environmental Politics, 11(3): 121–136.

Nilsson, M. and Persson, Å. (2012). Can Earth system interactions be governed? Governance functions for linking climate change mitigation with land use, freshwa-ter management and biodiversity protection. Ecological Economics, 75: 61–71.

Nordhaus, T. et al. (2012) The planetary boundaries hypothesis. The Breakthrough Institute.

Norström, A.V., Dannenberg, A., McCarney, G., Milkoreit, M., Diekert, F., Engström, G., Fishman, R., Gars, J., Kyriakopolou, E., Manoussi, V., Meng, K., Metian, M., Sanctuary M., Schlüter, M., Schoon, M., Schultz, L. and Sjöstedt, M. (in review) Three necessary conditions for establishing effective Sustainable Development Goals in the Anthro-pocene. Sustainability.

Nykvist, B., Persson, Å., Moberg, F., Persson, L., Cornell, S. and Rockström, J. (2013) National Environmental Performance on Planetary Boundaries. Swedish Environ-mental Protection Agency.

Oberthür, S. and Stokke, O., (eds) (2011) Managing Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. MIT Press.

OECD (1997) Better understanding our cities: the role of urban indicators. OECD Publication, Paris, France.

OECD (1998). Towards sustainable development: Environmental indicators. Paris, France. www.oecd.org/dataoecd

Ohl, B., Wolf S. and Anderson, W. (2008) A modest proposal: global rationalization of ecological footprint to eliminate ecological debt. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy 4(1) http://ejournal.nbii.org

Olsson, P. and Galaz, V. (2012). “Social-ecological innovation and transformation”, in Social Innovation: Blurring Sector Boundaries and Challenging Institutional Ar-rangements. Nicholls, A., Murdoch, A. (eds). Palgrave MacMillan.

Pereira, H.M. et al. (2013) Essential Biodiversity Variables. Science 339: 277–278.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd

http://ejournal.nbii.org


Persson, L. et al. (2013) Confronting unknown planetary boundary threats from chemical pollution. Environ. Sci. Technol. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/23980998

Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D. and Bennett, E.M. (2010). Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(11), 5242–7.

Raworth, K. (2012). A Safe and Just Operating Space for Humanity: Can We Live Within the Doughnut? Oxford. Oxfam Discussion Papers.

Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G.S., Elmqvist, T., Hejnowicz, A.P. and Polasky, S. (2013). Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social-ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment doi:10.1890/120144

Ribot, J.C., and Peluso, N.L. (2003). A Theory of Access. Rural Sociology 68, 153–181.

Rockström, J. et al., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461(7263): 472–475.

Rockström, J. et al., 2009. Planetary Boundaris: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2:32).

Rockström, J., Karlberg, L. (2010), The quadruple squeeze: defining the safe operat-ing space for freshwater use to achieve a triply green revolution in the Anthropo-cene. Ambio 39(3): 257–265.

Rockström, J., Sachs, J.D., Öhman, M.C., Schmidt-Traub, G. (2013) Sustainable Devel-opment and Planetary Boundaries – Paper for the UN High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, pp 45.

Running, S. (2012). A measurable planetary boundary for the biosphere. Science 337: 1458–1459.

Sabine, C.L., Feely, R.A., Gruber, N., Key, R.M, Lee, K.H., Bullister, J.L., Wanninkhof, R., Wong, C.S., Wallace, D.W.R., Tilbrook, B., Millero, F.J., Peng, T.-H., Kozyr, A., Ono, T. and Rios, A. F. (2004). The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2. Science 305: 367–371.

Sachs, J.D. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet, 379(9832), 2206–11.

SCBD (2011) Report of the AHTEG on indicators for the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada.

Scholes, R.J., Mace, G.M., Turner, W., et al. (2008). Toward a global biodiversity ob-serving system. Science 321: 1044–45.

Seitzinger, S., et al. (2012). Planetary stewardship in an urbanizing world: Beyond city limits. AMBIO, 41, 787–794. doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0353-7

Siebert, H. (1982) Nature as a life support system. Renewable resources and envi-ronmental disruption. J. Econ. 42(2) 133–142.

Sors, J.C. (2001). Public participation in Local Agenda 21: a review of traditional and innovative tools. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Nota de Lavoro 17:2001.

Srinivasan, U.T., Susan, P.C., Eric, H., Paul, A.T.H., Amber, C.K., Laura, E.K., Adam, B.S., Reg, W., John, H., and Richard, B.N. (2008). The debt of nations and the distribution of ecological impacts from human activities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 1768–1773.

Steffen, W., Crutzen, P.J., and McNeill, J.R. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature. Ambio: 36, 614–621.

Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P.D., Jäger, J., Matson, P., Moore, B. III, Oldfield, F., Richardson, K., et al. 2004. Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure. The IGBP Global Change Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 336 pp.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/


Steffen, W. and Stafford-Smith, M. (2013). Planetary boundaries, equity and global sustainability: why wealthy countries could benefit from more equity. COSUST 5: 1–6.

Steffen, W., et al. (2011) The Anthropocene: From Global Change to Planetary Stew-ardship. Ambio 40: 739–761.

Stiglitz J.E., Sen, A., Fitoussi, J.P. (2009). Report of the Commission on the Measure-ment of Economic Performance and Social Progress (CMEPSP), pp. 149.

Stirling, A. and Gee, D. (2002) Science, precaution, and practice. Public Health Re-ports 117 (6) 521–533.

Stirling, A. (2009) Participation, precaution and reflexive governance for sustainable

development. In: Governing sustainability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.193–225.

Söderqvist, T. et al. (2010) Baltic Survey ‒ a study in the Baltic Sea countries of pub-lic attitudes and use of the sea. Summary of main results. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Report 6382.

TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommenda-tions of TEEB.

Tengö, M., Malmer, P., Brondizio, E., Elmqvist, T., Spierenburg, M. (2013). The Multi-ple Evidence Base as a framework for connecting diverse knowledge systems in the IPBES. Discussion paper 2013-06‐04. Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC), Stock-holm University, Sweden.

UN General Assembly (2010). Keeping the promise: a forward-looking review to promote an agreed action agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. Report of the Secretary-General, 64th Session. A/64/665, 12 February 2010.

UN (2013). The Millenium Developments Goals Report 2013. United Nations, New York. pp 68.

UNEP (2011). Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication – A synthesis for policy makers. www.unep.org/greeneconomy

UNEP (2012). Global Chemicals Outlook – Towards Sound Management of Chemi-cals. Synthesis Report for Decision Makers. Nairobi, UNEP.

UNEP (2012) Global Environment Outlook 5. www.unep.org/geo

UNEP (2012) Measuring Progress: Environmental Goals and Gaps. Nairobi, UNEP. www.unep.org/geo/pdfs/geo5/Measuring_progress.pdf

van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Verbruggen, H., 1999. Spatial sustainability, trade and indica-tors: an evaluation of the “ecological footprint”. Ecological Economics 29 (1), 61–72.

Vörösmarty, C.J., McIntyre, P.M., Gessner, M.O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A. et al. (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467, 555–561 doi:10.1038/nature09440

Waage J, Banerji R, Campbell O, et al. 2010. The Millennium Development Goals: A cross-sectoral analysis and principles for goal-setting after 2015; The Lancet, 376 991–1023.

Wackernagel, M. and W. Rees. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Walpole, M. et al. (2009) Tracking Progress Toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target and Beyond. Science 325: 1503–1504.

Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D.,

Thompson, J.,Nilsson, M., Lambin, E., Sendzimir, J., Banarjee, B., Galaz, V., & van der Leeuw, S. (2011). Tipping towards sustainability: Emerging pathways of transfor-mation. Ambio 40: 762–780.

http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy

http://www.unep.org/geo

http://www.unep.org/geo/pdfs/geo5/Measuring_progress.pdf


Whiteman, G., Walker, B. and Perego, P. (2012) Planetary Boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. J. Management Studies, 50: 307–336.

Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., Barrett, J. and Wackernagel, M. (2006). Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption categories with input-output analysis. Ecological Economics 56: 28–48.

Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Steffen, W. and Crutzen, P. (2010). The New World of the Anthropocene. Environmental Science & Technology, 44: 2228–2231.

7. Svensk sammanfattning

Hur ska FN jobba vidare med hållbar utveckling efter att millenniemålen

gått ut 2015? Vad kan den tvärvetenskapliga forskningen om ekosystem-

tjänster, resiliens och planetens hållbara gränser bidra med i denna pro-

cess? Detta diskussionsunderlag från Stockholm Resilience Centre vid

Stockholms Universitet (som togs fram under perioden mars–oktober

2013) undersöker sambanden mellan mänskligt välbefinnande och bio-

sfären, och beskriver hur och varför dessa länkar bör påverka utform-

ningen av de nya hållbarhetsmålen. Rapporten är finansierad av Nor-

diska ministerrådet och utgör en uppföljning av ett tidigare diskussions-

underlag, som presenterades för de nordiska miljöministrarna under

deras möte i Jukkasjärvi den 7 februari 2013.

Att utarbeta globala hållbarhetsmål – Sustainable Development Goals

(SDGs) – var ett av de viktigaste besluten som togs under Rio+20, FNs

konferens om hållbar utveckling som hölls i Brasilien i juni 2012. Denna

process utgör ett gyllene tillfälle för det internationella samfundet att ta

itu med både sociala behov och miljömässiga utmaningar på en och

samma gång. Erfarenheterna av arbetet med millenniemålen visar att

samordnade ansträngningar för att hantera globala problem kan ge posi-

tiva resultat, öka medvetenheten och utkräva globalt politiskt ansvar.

Millenniemålen har på så sätt varit framgångsrika när det gäller att

uppmärksamma en rad frågor kopplade till extrem fattigdom, men de

har inte varit lika lyckosamma när det gäller att koppla de globala miljö-

och klimatutmaningarna till fattigdomsbekämpning och människors

välbefinnande.

Denna uppföljningsrapport analyserar både vad vi kan lära oss av ar-

betet med millenniemålen, och hur befintliga internationella överens-

kommelser bör återspeglas i utvecklingen av en ny global utvecklingsa-

genda efter år 2015. Rapporten syftar också till att bidra till utarbetan-

det av de faktiska hållbarhetsmålen, inklusive processorienterade mål

och skalbara indikatorer, som lämpar sig för att mäta mänsklig utveckl-

ing och global hållbarhet i en alltmer föränderlig omvärld.

Utifrån rapportens genomgång av den senaste forskningen om kopp-

lade sociala och ekologiska system dras tre övergripande slutsatser om

utformningen av de nya globala hållbarhetsmålen:


De måste bygga på ett synsätt som betonar ”utveckling inom planetens

hållbara gränser”

Vi hävdar att de två huvudprioriteringarna i formuleringen av de nya

målen måste vara skyddet av biosfären (samhällets icke

förhandlingsbara ”livsuppehållande system”) och minskning av

fattigdomen som en avgörande del av ett rättvist globalt samhälle.

De måste bygga vidare på erfarenheterna från arbetet med

millenniemålen så att deras framsteg mot att utrota bland annat

fattigdom och hunger verkligen uppnås

Tillsammans kräver dessa rekommendationer att de nya

hållbarhetsmålen måste gå ett steg längre än den klassiska

uppdelningen i sociala, ekonomiska och miljömässiga mål, och

undvika att bli en samling enfrågemål. Målen måste istället bygga på

insikten att ekologiska och sociala system är oskiljaktigt

sammanlänkade och underlätta en djupare analys av alla de

kopplingar, avvägningar och synergier som finns mellan olika mål

och indikatorer.

Genom att utveckla indikatorer som fungerar på lokal nivå och sedan

skala upp dem på regional och global nivå ges möjligheten att

engagera lokala intressenter, medborgargrupper, urbefolkningar och

många andra kunskapsbärare i övervakning, rapportering och

utveckling av hållbarhetsmålen.

Målen och indikatorerna bör baseras på den senaste forskningen om

dynamiken i jordens klimat- och ekosystem, och dra nytta av lärande

och kunskap om tillståndet i miljön och tidiga varningssignaler som

växer fram i flera olika kunskapssystem (alltifrån forskningsbaserad

kunskap till praktiska erfarenheter bland resursnyttjare och

lokalbefolkningar).

De bör även integrera de många befintliga globala

miljööverenskommelser som redan är nära kopplade till planetens

hållbara gränser

Överenskommelser som t ex Aichimålen för biologisk mångfald bildar

grunden för ett robust ramverk för både utformningen av de nya

hållbarhetsmålen och deras genomförande. Genom bättre integration

mellan de sociala och miljömässiga dimensionerna kan de nya

hållbarhetsmålen ge den nödvändiga drivkraften för att överkomma

det nuvarande genomförandegapet mellan många föreslagna

åtgärder och satta mål.

8. Appendix

8.1

A

pp

end

ix 1

List

of

eco

syst

em

se

rvic

es,

as

de

fin

ed

in t

he

Mill

en

niu

m E

cosy

ste

m A

sse

ssm

en

t (a

dap

ted

fro

m W

orl

d R

eso

urc

es

Inst

itu

te, 2

00

8)

Serv

ice

Su

bca

tego

ry

De

fin

itio

n

Exam

ple

s

Pro

visi

on

ing

serv

ice

s: T

he

go

od

s o

r p

rod

uct

s o

bta

ined

fro

m e

cosy

ste

ms

such

as

foo

d, t

imb

er

and

fib

er.

Foo

d

Cro

ps

Cu

ltiv

ated

pla

nts

or

agri

cult

ura

l pro

du

ce t

hat

are

har

vest

ed

by

pe

op

le f

or

hu

man

or

anim

al c

on

sum

pti

on

as

foo

d

Gra

ins

Veg

etab

les

Fru

it

Live

sto

ck

An

imal

s ra

ised

fo

r d

om

esti

c o

r co

mm

erci

al c

on

sum

pti

on

or

use

C

hic

ken

Pig

s

Cat

tle

Cap

ture

fis

her

ies

Wild

fis

h c

aptu

red

th

rou

gh t

raw

ling

and

oth

er n

on

farm

ing

met

ho

ds

Co

d

Cra

bs

Tun

a

Aq

uac

ult

ure

Fi

sh, s

hel

lfis

h, a

nd

/or

pla

nts

th

at a

re b

red

an

d r

eare

d in

po

nd

s, e

ncl

osu

res,

an

d

oth

er f

orm

s o

f fr

esh

wat

er o

r sa

ltw

ater

co

nfi

nem

ent

for

pu

rpo

ses

of

har

vest

ing

Shri

mp

Oys

ters

Salm

on

Wild

fo

od

s Ed

ible

pla

nt

and

an

imal

sp

ecie

s ga

ther

ed o

r ca

ptu

red

in t

he

wild

Fr

uit

an

d n

uts

Fun

gi

Bu

shm

eat

Fib

er

Tim

ber

an

d o

ther

wo

od

fib

er

Pro

du

cts

mad

e fr

om

tre

es

har

vest

ed f

rom

nat

ura

l fo

rest

eco

syst

em

s, p

lan

tati

on

s,

or

no

nfo

rest

ed la

nd

s

Ind

ust

rial

ro

un

dw

oo

d

Wo

od

pu

lp

Pap

er

Oth

er f

iber

s (e

.g.,

cott

on

, h

emp

, silk

) N

on

wo

od

an

d n

on

fuel

fib

ers

extr

acte

d f

rom

th

e n

atu

ral e

nvi

ron

men

t fo

r a

vari

ety

of

use

s

Text

iles

(clo

thin

g, li

nen

, acc

esso

ries

)

Co

rdag

e (t

win

e, r

op

e)

Bio

mas

s fu

el (

wo

od

fu

el)

Bio

logi

cal m

ater

ial d

eriv

ed f

rom

livi

ng

or

rece

ntl

y liv

ing

org

anis

ms

– b

oth

pla

nt

and

an

imal

– t

hat

ser

ves

as a

so

urc

e o

f en

erg

y

Fuel

wo

od

an

d c

har

coal

Gra

in f

or

eth

ano

l pro

du

ctio

n

Du

ng

Fres

hw

ater

In

lan

d b

od

ies

of

wat

er, g

rou

nd

wat

er, r

ain

wat

er, a

nd

su

rfac

e w

ater

s fo

r h

ou

se-

ho

ld, i

nd

ust

rial

, an

d a

gric

ult

ura

l use

s

Fres

hw

ater

fo

r d

rin

kin

g, c

lean

ing,

co

olin

g,

ind

ust

rial

pro

cess

es, e

lect

rici

ty g

ener

atio

n, o

r

mo

de

of

tran

spo

rtat

ion

Serv

ice

Su

bca

tego

ry

De

fin

itio

n

Exam

ple

s

Gen

etic

res

ou

rces

G

enes

an

d g

enet

ic in

form

atio

n u

sed

fo

r an

imal

bre

edin

g, p

lan

t im

pro

vem

ent,

an

d

bio

tech

no

logy

Gen

es u

sed

to

incr

ease

cro

p r

esis

tan

ce

Bio

chem

ical

s, n

atu

ral m

edic

ines

, an

d p

har

ma

ceu

tica

ls

Med

icin

es,

bio

cid

es, f

oo

d a

dd

itiv

es,

an

d o

ther

bio

logi

cal m

ater

ials

der

ive

d f

rom

eco

syst

ems

for

com

mer

cial

or

do

mes

tic

use

Ech

inac

ea, g

inse

ng,

gar

lic

Pac

litax

el a

s b

asis

fo

r ca

nce

r d

rugs

Tree

ext

ract

s u

sed

fo

r p

est

co

ntr

ol

Re

gula

tin

g se

rvic

es

incl

ud

ing

sup

po

rtin

g se

rvic

es:

Re

gula

tin

g se

rvic

es

are

th

e b

ene

fits

ob

tain

ed

fro

m a

n e

cosy

ste

m’s

co

ntr

ol o

f n

atu

ral p

roce

sse

s su

ch a

s cl

imat

e, d

ise

ase

, ero

sio

n, w

ate

r fl

ow

s, a

nd

po

llin

atio

n, a

s w

ell

as p

rote

ctio

n f

rom

na

tura

l

haz

ard

s. R

egu

lati

ng

serv

ice

s n

orm

ally

incl

ud

e a

lso

Su

pp

ort

ing

serv

ice

s, i.

e. t

he

nat

ura

l pro

cess

es s

uch

as

nu

trie

nt

cycl

ing

an

d p

rim

ary

pro

du

ctio

n t

hat

mai

nta

in t

he

oth

er

serv

ice

s.

Air

qu

alit

y re

gula

tio

n

Infl

uen

ce e

cosy

ste

ms

hav

e o

n a

ir q

ual

ity

by

emit

tin

g ch

emic

als

to t

he

atm

osp

her

e

(i.e

., se

rvin

g as

a “

sou

rce”

) o

r ex

trac

tin

g ch

em

ical

s fr

om

th

e at

mo

sph

ere

(i.e

.,

serv

ing

as a

“si

nk”

).

Lake

s se

rve

as a

sin

k fo

r in

du

stri

al e

mis

sio

ns

of

sulp

hu

r co

mp

ou

nd

s

Veg

etat

ion

fir

es e

mit

par

ticu

late

s, g

rou

nd

-lev

el

ozo

ne,

an

d v

ola

tile

org

anic

co

mp

ou

nd

s

Clim

ate

regu

lati

on

G

lob

al

Infl

uen

ce e

cosy

ste

ms

hav

e o

n g

lob

al c

limat

e b

y em

itti

ng

gree

nh

ou

se g

ases

or

aero

sols

to

th

e at

mo

sph

ere

or

by

abso

rbin

g gr

een

ho

use

gas

es

or

aero

sols

fro

m t

he

atm

osp

her

e

Fore

sts

cap

ture

an

d s

tore

car

bo

n d

ioxi

de

Cat

tle

and

ric

e p

add

ies

emit

met

ha

ne

Reg

ion

al a

nd

loca

l In

flu

ence

eco

syst

em

s h

ave

on

loca

l or

regi

on

al t

emp

erat

ure

, pre

cip

itat

ion

, an

d

oth

er c

limat

ic f

acto

rs

Fore

sts

can

imp

act

regi

on

al r

ain

fall

leve

ls

Lake

s re

gula

te h

um

idit

y le

vels

an

d in

flu

ence

freq

uen

cy o

f fr

ost

s, im

po

rtan

t fo

r ag

ricu

ltu

re

C

arb

on

se

qu

est

rati

on

Th

e ex

trac

tio

n o

f ca

rbo

n d

ioxi

de

fro

m t

he

atm

osp

he

re s

ervi

ng

as a

sin

k Ex

pan

din

g ar

eas

of

bor

eal f

ore

sts,

incr

ease

s th

e

sin

k

Def

ore

stat

ion

in t

he

tro

pic

s, d

ecre

ases

th

e si

nk

Oce

an c

arb

on

seq

ues

trat

ion

Wat

er r

egu

lati

on

In

flu

ence

eco

syst

em

s h

ave

on

th

e ti

min

g an

d m

agn

itu

de

of

wat

er r

un

off

, flo

od

ing,

and

aq

uif

er r

ech

arge

, par

ticu

larl

y in

ter

ms

of

the

wat

er s

tora

ge p

ote

nti

al o

f th

e

eco

syst

em o

r la

nd

scap

e

Per

mea

ble

so

il fa

cilit

ates

aq

uif

er r

ech

arg

e

Riv

er f

loo

dp

lain

s an

d w

etla

nd

s re

tain

wat

er –

wh

ich

can

dec

rea

se f

loo

din

g d

uri

ng

run

off

pea

ks

– re

du

cin

g th

e n

eed

fo

r en

gin

eere

d f

loo

d c

on

tro

l

infr

astr

uct

ure

Ero

sio

n r

egu

lati

on

R

ole

veg

etat

ive

cove

r p

lays

in s

oil

rete

nti

on

V

eget

atio

n su

ch a

s gr

ass

and

tree

s p

reve

nts

soil

loss

du

e to

win

d a

nd

rain

an

d si

ltat

ion

of

wat

er-

way

s

Fore

sts

on

slop

es h

old

soil

in p

lace

, th

ereb

y

pre

ven

ting

lan

dsl

ides

Wat

er p

uri

fica

tio

n a

nd

was

te t

reat

me

nt

Ro

le e

cosy

stem

s p

lay

in t

he

filt

rati

on

an

d d

eco

mp

osi

tio

n o

f o

rgan

ic w

aste

s an

d

po

lluta

nts

in w

ater

; as

sim

ilati

on

an

d d

eto

xifi

cati

on

of

com

po

un

ds

thro

ugh

so

il an

d

sub

soil

pro

cess

es

Wet

lan

ds

rem

ove

har

mfu

l po

lluta

nts

fro

m w

ater

by

trap

pin

g m

etal

s an

d o

rgan

ic m

ater

ials

Soil

mic

rob

es

deg

rad

e o

rgan

ic w

aste

, ren

der

ing

it

less

har

mfu

l

Serv

ice

Su

bca

tego

ry

De

fin

itio

n

Exam

ple

s

Dis

ease

reg

ula

tio

n

Infl

uen

ce t

hat

eco

syst

ems

hav

e o

n th

e in

cid

ence

an

d ab

und

ance

of

hum

an p

ath

ogen

s

Som

e in

tact

fo

rest

s re

du

ce t

he

occ

urr

ence

of

stan

din

g w

ater

―a

bre

edin

g ar

ea f

or

mo

squ

i-

toes

―w

hic

h lo

wer

s th

e p

reva

len

ce o

f m

alar

ia

Pes

t re

gula

tio

n

Infl

uen

ce e

cosy

stem

s ha

ve o

n th

e p

reva

len

ce o

f cr

op

and

lives

tock

pes

ts a

nd

dise

ases

P

red

ato

rs f

rom

nea

rby

fore

sts

– su

ch a

s b

ats,

toad

s, a

nd

sn

ake

s –

con

sum

e cr

op

pe

sts

Po

llin

atio

n

Ro

le e

cosy

stem

s p

lay

in t

ran

sfer

rin

g p

olle

n f

rom

mal

e to

fem

ale

flo

we

r p

arts

B

ees

fro

m n

earb

y fo

rest

s p

olli

nat

e cr

op

s

Nat

ura

l haz

ard

reg

ula

tio

n

Cap

acit

y fo

r ec

osy

stem

s to

red

uce

th

e d

am

age

cau

sed

by

nat

ura

l dis

aste

rs s

uch

as

hu

rric

anes

an

d t

o m

ain

tain

nat

ura

l fir

e fr

equ

ency

an

d in

ten

sity

Man

gro

ve f

ore

sts

and

co

ral r

eefs

pro

tect

co

ast-

lines

fro

m s

torm

su

rge

s

Bio

logi

cal d

eco

mp

osi

tio

n p

roce

sse

s re

du

ce

po

ten

tial

fu

el f

or

wild

fire

s

Nu

trie

nt

cycl

ing

Ro

le e

cosy

stem

s p

lay

in t

he

flo

w a

nd

rec

yclin

g o

f n

utr

ien

ts (

e.g.

, nit

rog

en, s

ulp

hu

r,

ph

osp

ho

rus,

car

bo

n)

thro

ugh

pro

cess

es s

uch

as

dec

om

po

siti

on

an

d/o

r ab

sorp

tio

n

Dec

om

po

siti

on

of

org

anic

mat

ter

con

trib

ute

s to

soil

fert

ility

Cu

ltu

ral s

erv

ice

s: T

he

no

nm

ate

rial

be

ne

fits

ob

tain

ed

fro

m e

cosy

ste

ms

such

as

recr

eati

on

, sp

irit

ual

val

ue

s, a

nd

aes

the

tic

enjo

ymen

t.

Rec

reat

ion

an

d e

coto

uri

sm

Rec

reat

ion

al p

lea

sure

peo

ple

de

rive

fro

m n

atu

ral o

r cu

ltiv

ated

eco

syst

em

s

Hik

ing,

cam

pin

g, a

nd

bir

d w

atch

ing

Go

ing

on

saf

ari

Spir

itu

al, r

elig

iou

s an

d e

thic

al v

alu

es

Spir

itu

al, r

elig

iou

s, a

esth

etic

, in

trin

sic,

“ex

iste

nce

”, o

r o

ther

val

ue

s p

eop

le a

ttac

h t

o

eco

syst

ems,

lan

dsc

apes

, or

spec

ies

Spir

itu

al f

ulf

ilmen

t d

eriv

ed f

rom

sa

cre

d la

nd

s an

d

rive

rs

Bel

ief

that

all

spec

ies

are

wo

rth

pro

tect

ing

rega

rdle

ss o

f th

eir

uti

lity

to p

eop

le –

“b

iod

iver

si-

ty f

or

bio

div

ersi

ty’s

sak

e”

Aes

thet

ic v

alu

es

The

bea

uty

an

d a

esth

etic

val

ues

of

nat

ure

in a

ll it

s ap

pea

ran

ces.

B

eau

ty o

f n

atu

re, f

rom

a m

ole

cule

to

a f

low

er t

o

a fo

rest

8.2

A

pp

end

ix 2

Th

e U

NE

P r

epo

rt M

easu

rin

g P

rogr

ess:

En

viro

nm

enta

l G

oal

s an

d G

aps,

12 o

utl

ines

fin

din

gs f

rom

a U

NE

P s

tud

y t

hat

has

cat

a-

logu

ed a

nd

an

aly

zed

exi

stin

g “G

lob

al E

nvi

ron

men

tal

Go

als”

co

nta

ined

in

in

tern

atio

nal

agr

eem

ents

an

d c

on

ven

tio

ns.

It

ask

s th

e

fun

dam

enta

l qu

esti

on

as

to w

hy

the

aim

s an

d g

oal

s o

f th

ese

po

licy

in

stru

men

ts h

ave

oft

en f

alle

n f

ar s

ho

rt o

f th

eir

ori

gin

al a

mb

i-

tio

n a

nd

in

ten

tio

ns.

On

e p

oss

ible

rea

son

is

that

man

y o

f th

e go

als

are

sim

ply

no

t sp

ecif

ic e

no

ugh

; th

e fe

w g

oal

s th

at a

re s

pe

cifi

c

and

mea

sura

ble

ap

pea

r to

hav

e a

mu

ch b

ette

r re

cord

of

succ

ess.

Are

a G

lob

al E

nvi

ron

me

nt

Go

al

IEA

P

rogr

ess

Atm

osp

her

e

Clim

ate

:

...d

eep

cu

ts in

glo

bal

gre

enh

ou

se g

as e

mis

sio

ns

are

req

uir

ed a

cco

rdin

g to

sci

en

ce .

.. w

ith

a v

iew

to

red

uci

ng

glo

bal

gre

enh

ou

se g

as e

mis

sio

ns

so a

s to

ho

ld t

he

incr

ease

in g

lob

al a

vera

ge t

emp

era

ture

bel

ow

2°C

ab

ove

pre

-in

du

stri

al le

vels

.

The

Can

cun

Agr

eem

ents

, De

cisi

on

1/C

P.1

6 o

f th

e C

on

fere

nce

of

the

Par

ties

of

the

UN

Fra

mew

ork

Co

nve

n-

tio

n o

n C

limat

e C

han

ge

Litt

le o

r n

o p

rogr

ess

St

rato

sph

eric

ozo

n:

Det

erm

ined

to

pro

tect

th

e o

zon

e la

yer

by

taki

ng

pre

cau

tio

na

ry m

easu

res

to c

on

tro

l eq

uit

ably

to

tal g

lob

al

emis

sio

ns

of

sub

stan

ces

that

dep

lete

it, w

ith

th

e u

ltim

ate

ob

ject

ive

of

thei

r el

imin

atio

n.

Mo

ntr

eal P

roto

col o

n S

ub

stan

ces

that

Dep

lete

th

e O

zon

e La

yer,

Pre

am

ble

Sign

ific

ant

pro

gres

s

Le

ad

in g

aso

line:

Red

uce

re

spir

ato

ry d

isea

ses

and

oth

er h

ealt

h im

pac

ts r

esu

ltin

g fr

om

air

po

lluti

on

, wit

h p

arti

cula

r at

ten

-

tio

n t

o w

om

en a

nd

ch

ildre

n, b

y...

sup

po

rtin

g th

e p

has

ing

ou

t o

f le

ad in

gas

olin

e

Joh

ann

esb

urg

Pla

n o

f Im

ple

men

tati

on

,

par

a. 5

6(b

)

Sign

ific

ant

pro

gres

s

O

utd

oo

r a

ir p

ollu

tio

n:

Enh

ance

co

op

erat

ion

at

the

inte

rnat

ion

al, r

egio

nal

an

d n

atio

nal

leve

ls t

o r

ed

uce

air

po

lluti

on

, in

clu

din

g

tran

sbo

un

dar

y ai

r p

ollu

tio

n [

and

] ac

id d

epo

siti

on

.

Joh

ann

esb

urg

Pla

n o

f Im

ple

men

tati

on

,

par

a. 3

9

Som

e p

rogr

ess

In

do

or

air

po

lluti

on

:

[Ass

ist]

dev

elo

pin

g co

un

trie

s in

pro

vid

ing

affo

rda

ble

en

ergy

to

ru

ral c

om

mu

nit

ies,

par

ticu

larl

y to

red

uce

dep

end

ence

on

tra

dit

ion

al f

uel

so

urc

es

for

coo

kin

g an

d h

eati

ng,

wh

ich

aff

ect

the

hea

lth

of

wo

men

an

d

child

ren

Joh

ann

esb

urg

Pla

n o

f Im

ple

men

tati

on

,

par

a. 5

6(d

)

Litt

le o

r n

o p

rogr

ess

Bio

div

ersi

ty

Exti

nct

ion

risk

of

spec

ies:

Red

uce

bio

div

ersi

ty lo

ss, a

chie

vin

g, b

y 2

01

0,

a si

gnif

ican

t re

du

ctio

n in

th

e ra

te o

f lo

ss

Mill

enn

ium

Dev

elo

pm

en

t G

oal

7,

Targ

et B

Litt

le o

r n

o p

rogr

ess

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

1

2 U

NE

P (

20

12

) M

easu

rin

g P

rogr

ess

: En

vir

on

me

nta

l Go

als

and

Gap

s, N

airo

bi,

UN

EP

. htt

p:/

/ww

w.u

nep

.org

/ge

o/p

dfs

/geo

5/M

easu

rin

g_p

rog

ress

.pd

f











Are

a G

lob

al E

nvi

ron

me

nt

Go

al

IEA

P

rogr

ess

N

atu

ral H

ab

ita

ts:

By

20

20

, th

e ra

te o

f lo

ss o

f al

l nat

ura

l hab

itat

s, in

clu

din

g fo

rest

s, is

at

leas

t h

alve

d a

nd

wh

ere

fea

sib

le

bro

ugh

t cl

ose

to

zer

o, a

nd

deg

rad

atio

n a

nd

fra

gme

nta

tio

n is

sig

nif

ican

tly

red

uce

d

Aic

hi B

iod

iver

sity

Tar

get

5

Litt

le o

r n

o p

rogr

ess

In

vasi

ve a

lien

sp

ecie

s:

By

202

0, i

nva

sive

alie

n sp

ecie

s an

d pa

thw

ays

are

iden

tifi

ed a

nd

pri

ori

tize

d, p

rio

rity

sp

ecie

s ar

e co

ntro

lled

or

erad

icat

ed, a

nd

mea

sure

s ar

e in

pla

ce t

o m

anag

e p

athw

ays

to p

reve

nt t

hei

r in

tro

du

ctio

n a

nd

est

ablis

hm

ent

Aic

hi B

iod

iver

sity

Tar

get

9

Som

e p

rogr

ess

on

po

licy

resp

on

ses,

littl

e o

r n

o p

rogr

ess

on

tren

ds

in in

vasi

ve

alie

n s

pec

ies

A

cces

s a

nd b

enef

it s

har

ing:

By

201

5, t

he

Nag

oya

Pro

toco

l on

Acc

ess

to G

enet

ic R

eso

urc

es a

nd

the

Fair

and

Eq

uit

able

Sh

arin

g of

Ben

efit

s

Ari

sing

fro

m t

hei

r U

tiliz

atio

n is

in f

orc

e an

d o

per

atio

nal

, co

nsi

sten

t w

ith

nat

ion

al le

gisl

atio

n.

Aic

hi B

iod

iver

sity

Tar

get

16

So

me

pro

gre

ss

P

rote

cted

are

as:

By

202

0, a

t le

ast

17%

of

terr

estr

ial a

nd

inla

nd

wat

er, a

nd

10%

of

coas

tal a

nd

mar

ine

area

s, e

spec

ially

are

as o

f

par

ticu

lar

imp

ort

ance

for

bio

dive

rsit

y an

d e

cosy

stem

ser

vice

s, a

re c

on

serv

ed t

hro

ugh

effe

ctiv

ely

and

equi

ta-

bly

man

aged

, eco

logi

cally

rep

rese

ntat

ive

and

wel

l co

nn

ecte

d sy

stem

s o

f p

rote

cted

are

as a

nd

oth

er e

ffec

tive

area

-bas

ed c

on

serv

atio

n m

easu

res,

an

d in

tegr

ated

into

th

e w

ider

lan

dsc

apes

an

d se

asca

pes

.

Aic

hi B

iod

iver

sity

Tar

get

11

Som

e p

rogr

ess

Su

sta

ina

bly

ma

na

ged

pro

du

ctio

n a

rea

s:

By

20

20

area

s u

nd

er

agri

cult

ure

, aq

ua

cult

ure

an

d f

ore

stry

are

man

aged

su

stai

nab

ly, e

nsu

rin

g co

nse

rva-

tio

n o

f b

iod

iver

sity

Aic

hi B

iod

iver

sity

Tar

get

7

Litt

le o

r n

o p

rogr

ess

Sp

ecie

s h

arv

este

d f

or

foo

d a

nd

med

icin

e:

By

20

20

, th

e ge

net

ic d

iver

sity

of

cult

ivat

ed p

lan

ts a

nd

far

med

an

d d

om

esti

cate

d a

nim

als

and

of

wild

rela

tive

s, in

clu

din

g o

ther

so

cio

-eco

no

mic

ally

as

wel

l as

cult

ura

lly v

alu

able

sp

ecie

s, is

mai

nta

ined

, an

d

stra

tegi

es h

ave

bee

n d

evel

op

ed a

nd

imp

lem

en

ted

fo

r m

inim

izin

g ge

net

ic e

rosi

on

an

d s

afeg

uar

din

g th

eir

gen

etic

div

ersi

ty

Aic

hi B

iod

iver

sity

tar

get

13

Litt

le o

r n

o p

rogr

ess

Fi

sh s

tock

s:

To a

chie

ve s

ust

ain

able

fis

her

ies.

.. m

ain

tain

or

rest

ore

sto

cks

to le

vels

th

at c

an p

rod

uce

th

e m

axim

um

sust

ain

able

yie

ld w

ith

th

e ai

m o

f ac

hie

vin

g th

ese

goal

s fo

r d

eple

ted

sto

cks

on

an

urg

en

t b

asis

an

d w

her

e

po

ssib

le n

ot

late

r th

an 2

01

5

Joh

ann

esb

urg

Pla

n o

f Im

ple

men

tati

on

,

par

a. 3

1 (

a)

Furt

he

r d

ete

rio

rati

on

Ch

em

ical

s an

d w

aste

s So

un

d c

hem

ica

ls m

an

ag

emen

t:

Ren

ew t

he

com

mit

me

nt,

as

adva

nce

d in

Age

nd

a 2

1, t

o s

ou

nd

man

agem

ent

of

chem

ical

s th

rou

gho

ut

thei

r lif

e cy

cle.

.. a

imin

g to

ach

ieve

, by

20

20

, th

at c

hem

ical

s ar

e u

sed

an

d p

rod

uce

d in

way

s th

at le

ad t

o

the

min

imiz

atio

n o

f si

gnif

ican

t ad

vers

e ef

fect

s o

n h

um

an h

ealt

h a

nd

th

e e

nvi

ron

me

nt.

..

Joh

ann

esb

urg

Pla

n o

f Im

ple

men

tati

on

,

par

a. 2

3

Som

e p

rogr

ess

,

insu

ffic

ien

t d

ata

to

asse

ss g

lob

ally

H

eavy

met

als

:

Pro

mo

te r

edu

ctio

n o

f th

e ri

sks

po

sed

by

hea

vy m

etal

s th

at a

re h

arm

ful t

o h

um

an

hea

lth

an

d t

he

envi

ron

me

nt.

..

Joh

ann

esb

urg

Pla

n of

Impl

emen

tati

on

,

par

a. 2

3(g)

Som

e p

rogr

ess

Are

a G

lob

al E

nvi

ron

me

nt

Go

al

IEA

P

rogr

ess

P

ersi

sten

t o

rga

nic

pol

luta

nts

:

Each

Par

ty s

hal

l... p

roh

ibit

an

d/o

r ta

ke t

he

lega

l an

d a

dm

inis

trat

ive

mea

sure

s n

ece

ssar

y to

elim

inat

e it

s

pro

du

ctio

n a

nd

use

of

the

chem

ical

s lis

ted

in A

nn

ex A

[se

lect

ed p

ersi

sten

t o

rgan

ic p

ollu

tan

ts]

sub

ject

to

the

pro

visi

on

s o

f th

at A

nn

ex.

Sto

ckh

olm

Co

nve

nti

on

on

Per

sist

en

t

Org

anic

Po

lluta

nts

, art

icle

3.1

(a)(

i)

Som

e p

rogr

ess

So

un

d w

ast

e m

an

ag

emen

t:

Det

erm

ined

to

pro

tect

, by

stri

ct c

on

tro

l, h

um

an h

ealt

h a

nd

th

e en

viro

nm

ent

agai

nst

th

e ad

vers

e ef

fect

s

wh

ich

may

res

ult

fro

m t

he

gen

erat

ion

an

d m

anag

emen

t o

f h

azar

do

us

was

tes

and

oth

er w

aste

s.

Bas

el C

onv

enti

on

on

the

Co

ntro

l of

Tran

sbo

un

dary

Mo

vem

ents

of

Haz

ard

ous

Was

tes

and

Thei

r D

isp

osa

l, P

ream

ble

Som

e p

rogr

ess

,

insu

ffic

ien

t d

ata

to

asse

ss g

lob

ally

R

adio

act

ive

was

te:

The

ob

ject

ive

s o

f th

is C

on

ven

tio

n a

re (

i) t

o a

chie

ve a

nd

mai

nta

in a

hig

h le

vel o

f sa

fety

wo

rld

wid

e in

sp

en

t

fuel

an

d r

adio

acti

ve w

aste

man

agem

en

t...

(ii)

to

en

sure

... e

ffe

ctiv

e d

efen

ses

agai

nst

po

ten

tial

haz

ard

s...

(iii)

to

pre

ven

t ac

cid

ents

wit

h r

adio

logi

cal c

on

seq

uen

ces.

Join

t C

on

ven

tio

n o

n t

he

Safe

ty o

f Sp

ent

Fuel

Man

agem

ent

and

on

th

e Sa

fety

of

Rad

ioac

tive

Was

te M

anag

emen

t,

Art

icle

1

Som

e p

rogr

ess

Lan

d

Acc

ess

to f

oo

d:

Hal

ve, b

etw

een

19

90

an

d 2

01

5, t

he

pro

po

rtio

n

of

peo

ple

wh

o s

uff

er

fro

m h

un

ger

Mill

enn

ium

Dev

elo

pm

en

t G

oal

1,

Targ

et C

Som

e p

rogr

ess

on

red

uci

ng

hu

nge

r,lit

tle

or

no

pro

gres

s o

n

ensu

rin

g su

stai

nab

le

foo

d s

up

ply

D

eser

tifi

cati

on

an

d d

rou

gh

t:

...co

mb

at d

ese

rtif

icat

ion

an

d m

itig

ate

the

effe

cts

of

dro

ugh

t in

co

un

trie

s ex

per

ien

cin

g se

rio

us

dro

ugh

t

and

/or

des

erti

fica

tio

n, p

arti

cula

rly

in A

fric

a.

Un

ited

Nat

ion

s C

on

ven

tio

n t

o C

om

bat

Des

ert

ific

atio

n (

UN

CC

D),

Art

icle

2(1

)

Litt

le o

r n

o p

rogr

ess

D

efo

rest

atio

n:

Rev

erse

th

e lo

ss o

f fo

rest

co

ver

wo

rld

wid

e th

rou

gh s

ust

ain

able

fo

rest

man

agem

en

t, in

clu

din

g p

rote

ctio

n,

rest

ora

tio

n, a

ffo

rest

atio

n a

nd

ref

ore

stat

ion

, an

d in

crea

se e

ffo

rts

to p

reve

nt

fore

st d

egra

dat

ion

Gen

eral

Ass

em

bly

re

solu

tio

n 6

2/9

8 o

f

31

Jan

uar

y 2

00

8, s

ecti

on

IV, G

lob

al

Ob

ject

ive

1

Som

e p

rogr

ess

W

etla

nds:

The

Co

ntra

ctin

g P

arti

es s

hal

l fo

rmul

ate

and

impl

emen

t th

eir

plan

nin

g so

as

to p

rom

ote

the

con

serv

atio

n of

the

wet

lan

ds

incl

ud

ed in

th

e Li

st, a

nd

as f

ar a

s p

oss

ible

th

e w

ise

use

of w

etla

nd

s in

th

eir

terr

ito

ry

Ram

sar

Co

nve

nti

on

on

Wet

lan

ds,

arti

cle

3(1

)

Furt

he

r d

ete

rio

rati

on

Ec

osy

stem

ser

vice

s:

To im

pro

ve r

eco

gnit

ion

of

the

soci

al, e

con

om

ic a

nd

eco

logi

cal v

alu

es o

f tr

ees

, fo

rest

s an

d f

ore

st la

nd

s, in

clu

din

g th

e co

nse

qu

ence

s o

f th

e d

amag

e ca

use

d b

y

the

lack

of

fore

sts;

to

pro

mo

te m

eth

od

olo

gies

wit

h a

vie

w t

o in

corp

ora

tin

g so

cial

, eco

no

mic

an

d e

colo

gi-

cal v

alu

es o

f tr

ees,

fo

rest

s an

d f

ore

st la

nd

s in

to t

he

nat

ion

al e

con

om

ic a

cco

un

tin

g sy

stem

s...

Age

nd

a 2

1, C

hap

ter

11

,

par

agra

ph

21

(a)

Litt

le o

r n

o p

rogr

ess

Wat

er

Dri

nki

ng

wa

ter:

Hal

ve, b

y 2

01

5, t

he

pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

eop

le w

ith

ou

t su

stai

nab

le a

cce

ss t

o s

afe

dri

nki

ng

wat

er

Mill

enn

ium

Dev

elo

pm

en

t G

oal

7,

Targ

et C

Sign

ific

ant

pro

gres

s,

mo

re p

rogr

ess

in

urb

an t

han

in r

ura

l

area

s

Are

a G

lob

al E

nvi

ron

me

nt

Go

al

IEA

P

rogr

ess

Sa

nit

ati

on

:

Hal

ve, b

y 2

01

5, t

he

pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

eop

le w

ith

ou

t

sust

ain

able

acc

ess

to

... b

asic

san

itat

ion

Mill

enn

ium

Dev

elo

pm

en

t G

oal

7,

Targ

et C

Som

e p

rogr

ess

G

rou

nd

wa

ter

dep

leti

on

:

To s

top

th

e u

nsu

stai

nab

le e

xplo

itat

ion

of

wat

er r

eso

urc

es b

y d

evel

op

ing

wat

er m

anag

eme

nt

stra

tegi

es a

t

the

regi

on

al, n

atio

nal

an

d lo

cal l

evel

s, w

hic

h p

rom

ote

bo

th e

qu

itab

le a

cces

s an

d a

deq

uat

e su

pp

lies

Mill

enn

ium

Dec

lara

tio

n, G

ene

ral

Ass

emb

ly r

eso

luti

on

55

/2 o

f 1

8 S

ep

-

tem

be

r 2

00

0, p

ara.

23

Litt

le o

r n

o p

rogr

ess

on

gro

un

dwat

er p

ollu

tio

n

and

mo

nit

ori

ng,

furt

her

det

erio

rati

on

on

gro

un

dwat

er s

up

ply

W

ate

r u

se e

ffic

ien

cy:

Imp

rove

th

e ef

fici

ent

use

of

wat

er r

eso

urc

es a

nd

pro

mo

te t

hei

r al

loca

tio

n a

mo

ng

com

pet

ing

use

s in

a

way

th

at g

ives

pri

ori

ty t

o t

he

sati

sfac

tio

n o

f b

asic

hu

ma

n n

eed

s.

Joh

ann

esb

urg

Pla

n o

f Im

ple

men

tati

on

,

par

a. 2

6(c

)

Som

e p

rogr

ess

Fr

esh

wa

ter

po

lluti

on:

Inte

nsi

fy w

ater

po

lluti

on

pre

ven

tio

n t

o r

ed

uce

hea

lth

haz

ard

s an

d p

rote

ct e

cosy

ste

ms

by

intr

od

uci

ng

tech

no

logi

es f

or

affo

rda

ble

san

itat

ion

an

d in

du

stri

al a

nd

do

me

stic

was

tew

ater

tre

atm

ent,

by

mit

igat

ing

the

effe

cts

of

gro

un

dw

ater

co

nta

min

atio

n a

nd

by

esta

blis

hin

g, a

t th

e n

atio

na

l lev

el, m

on

ito

rin

g sy

ste

ms

and

eff

ecti

ve le

gal f

ram

ewo

rks

Joh

ann

esb

urg

Pla

n o

f Im

ple

men

tati

on

,

par

a. 2

5(d

)

Insu

ffic

ien

t da

ta t

o

asse

ss

M

ari

ne

po

lluti

on

:

Stat

es s

hal

l tak

e al

l mea

sure

s n

eces

sary

to

pre

ven

t, r

edu

ce a

nd

co

ntr

ol p

ollu

tio

n o

f th

e m

arin

e en

viro

n-

men

t re

sult

ing

fro

m t

he

use

of

tech

no

logi

es u

nd

er t

hei

r ju

risd

icti

on

or

con

tro

l.

Un

ited

Nat

ion

s C

on

ven

tio

n o

n t

he

Law

of

the

Sea,

art

icle

19

6, p

ara.

1

Litt

le o

r n

o p

rogr

ess

C

ora

ls:

Stat

es s

ho

uld

iden

tify

mar

ine

eco

syst

ems

exhi

biti

ng h

igh

leve

ls o

f bi

od

iver

sity

an

d p

rod

ucti

vity

an

d o

ther

crit

ical

hab

itat

are

as a

nd

sho

uld

pro

vid

e n

eces

sary

lim

itat

ion

s o

n u

se in

th

ese

area

s, t

hro

ugh

, in

ter

alia

,

des

ign

atio

n of

pro

tect

ed a

reas

. Pri

orit

y sh

oul

d b

e ac

cord

ed, a

s ap

pro

pri

ate

to: (

a) c

ora

l ree

f ec

osy

stem

s...

Age

nd

a 2

1, C

hap

ter

17

, par

a. 8

5

Joh

ann

esb

urg

Pla

n o

f Im

ple

men

tati

on

,

par

a. 1

34

Furt

he

r d

ete

rio

rati

on

Ex

trem

e ev

ents

:

Sup

po

rt e

ffo

rts

to p

reve

nt

and

mit

igat

e t

he

imp

acts

of

nat

ura

l dis

aste

rs..

.

So

me

pro

gre

ss in

dis

aste

r re

spo

nse

an

d

risk

red

uct

ion

,

furt

her

det

erio

rati

on

in d

isas

ter

imp

acts

Po

licie

s an

d p

rogr

am

me

s En

viro

nm

enta

l po

licie

s:

Acc

ord

ingl

y, w

e as

sum

e a

colle

ctiv

e re

spo

nsi

bili

ty t

o a

dva

nce

an

d s

tren

gth

en

th

e in

terd

epen

den

t an

d

mu

tual

ly r

ein

forc

ing

pill

ars

of

sust

ain

able

dev

elo

pm

ent

– ec

on

om

ic d

evel

op

men

t, s

oci

al d

evel

op

men

t

and

en

viro

nm

enta

l pro

tect

ion

– a

t th

e lo

cal,

nat

ion

al, r

egio

nal

an

d g

lob

al le

vels

Joh

ann

esb

urg

Dec

lara

tio

n o

n S

ust

ain

a-

ble

Dev

elo

pm

en

t, p

ara.

5

Som

e p

rogr

ess

Su

sta

ina

ble

dev

elo

pm

ent

in c

ou

ntr

y p

olic

ies/

pro

gra

mm

es:

Inte

grat

e th

e p

rin

cip

les

of

sust

ain

able

dev

elo

pm

en

t in

to c

ou

ntr

y p

olic

ies

and

pro

gram

mes

...

Mill

enn

ium

Dev

elo

pm

en

t G

oal

7,

Targ

et A

Insu

ffic

ien

t da

ta t

o

asse

ss


8.3 Appendix 3

Comparison between proposed planetary boundary areas with how

UNEP chooses to bundle existing Global Environmental Goals, GEGs.13

Proposed planetary boundary areas UNEP bundles of GEGs

Athmospheric aerosol loading Air pollution and air quality

Biodiversity loss Biodiversity

Chemical pollution Chemicals and wastes

Climate change Climate change

Energy

Forests

Global freshwater use Freshwater

Ocean acidification Oceans and seas

Land system change Soil, land use, land degradation and desertification

Environmental governance

Perturbed biochemical flows (N2 & P)

Stratospheric ozone depletion

────────────────────────── 13 UNEP (2012) Compilation of Internationally Agreed Environmental Goals and Objectives, Nairobi, UNEP.


8.4 Appendix 4

Six Sustainable Development Goals proposed by researchers in a com-

mentary article in Nature.14

Goal Target

Goal 1: Thriving lives and liveli-

hoods. End poverty and improve

well-being through access to

education, employment and

information, better health and

housing, and reduced inequality

while moving towards sustainable

consumption and production.

This extends many targets of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on

poverty, health and urban environments and applies them to developed

nations. It should include targets on clean air that build on World Health

Organization guidelines for pollutants such as black carbon6; reductions in

emissions of stratospheric ozone-depleting substances in line with projections

from the Montreal Protocol; critical loads for man-made chemical compounds

and toxic materials; and sustainable practices for extraction, use and recycling

of scarce minerals and metals and other natural resources.

Goal 2: Sustainable food security.

End hunger and achieve long-term

food security – including better

nutrition – through sustainable

systems of production, distribu-

tion and consumption.

The MDG hunger target should be extended and targets added to limit

nitrogen and phosphorus use in agriculture3,7,8. Nutrient-use efficiency

should improve by 20% by 2020; no more than 35 million tonnes of nitro-

gen per year should be extracted from the atmosphere; phosphorus flow to

the oceans should not exceed 10 million tonnes a year; and phosphorus

runoff to lakes and rivers should halve by 2030.

Goal 3: Sustainable water security.

Achieve universal access to clean

water and basic sanitation, and

ensure efficient allocation through

integrated water-resource

management.

This would contribute to MDG health targets, restrict global water runoff to

less than 4,000 cubic kilometres a year and limit volumes withdrawn from

river basins to no more than 50–80% of mean annual flow3,9.

Goal 4: Universal clean energy.

Improve universal, affordable

access to clean energy that

minimizes local pollution and

health impacts and mitigates

global warming.

This contributes to the UN commitment to sustainable energy for all, and

addresses MDG targets on education, gender equity and health. To ensure

at least a 50% probability of staying within 2°C warming10, sustainability

targets should aim for global greenhouse-gas emissions to peak in 2015–20,

drop by 3–5% a year until 2030, and fall by 50–80% by 2050.

Goal 5: Healthy and productive

ecosystems. Sustain biodiversity

and ecosystem services through

better management, valuation,

measurement, conservation and

restoration.

This combines the MDG environmental targets with 2030 projections of the

Aichi Targets adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (see

www.cbd.int/sp/ targets). Extinctions should not exceed ten times the

natural background rate. At least 70% of species in any ecosystem and 70%

of forests should be retained. Aquatic and marine ecosystems should be

managed to safeguard areas crucial for biodiversity, ecosystem services and

fisheries.

Goal 6: Governance for sustaina-

ble societies. Transform govern-

ance and institutions at all levels

to address the other five sustain-

able development goals.

This would build on MDG partnerships and incorporate environmental and

social targets into global trade, investment and finance4. Subsidies on fossil

fuels and policies that support unsustainable agricultural and fisheries practic-

es should be eliminated by 2020; product prices should incorporate social and

environmental impacts. National monitoring, reporting and verification

systems must be established for sustainable-development targets; and open

access to information and decision-making processes should be secured at all

levels.

────────────────────────── 14 Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M.C., Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G.

Kanie, N and Noble, I. (2013). Sustainable Development Goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305–307).

http://www.cbd.int/sp/

8.5

A

pp

end

ix 5

Sust

ain

able

De

velo

pm

en

t G

oal

s an

d t

arge

ts p

rop

ose

d b

y th

e S

ust

ain

able

De

velo

pm

en

t So

luti

on

s N

etw

ork

15

Go

al

Go

al d

efi

nit

ion

Ta

rge

ts m

igh

t co

ver

Go

al 1

: En

d E

xtre

me

Po

vert

y B

y 2

03

0 ex

trem

e p

ove

rty

in a

ll it

s fo

rms

(as

def

ine

d b

y

the

MD

Gs)

sh

ou

ld b

e el

imin

ate

d e

very

wh

ere

, wit

h

frag

ile s

tate

s re

ceiv

ing

the

spec

ial s

up

po

rt t

hey

nee

d.

Red

uct

ion

to

[ze

ro]

in in

com

es b

elo

w $

1.2

5-p

er-d

ay.

[Su

itab

ly u

pd

ated

an

d e

xpan

ded

Tar

gets

of

MD

Gs

1–7

incl

ud

ed u

nd

er

the

goal

s b

elo

w].

Enh

ance

d s

up

po

rt f

or

hig

hly

vu

lner

able

sta

tes.

Go

al 2

: A

chie

ve D

evel

op

men

t w

ith

in P

lan

etar

y

Bo

un

dar

ies

All

cou

ntr

ies

hav

e a

righ

t to

dev

elo

pm

en

t th

at r

esp

ect

s

pla

net

ary

bo

un

dar

ies

and

th

at h

elp

s to

sta

bili

ze t

he

glo

bal

po

pu

lati

on

by

mid

-ce

ntu

ry.

Each

co

un

try

rea

che

s at

leas

t th

e n

ext

leve

l in

th

e W

orl

d B

ank

cou

ntr

y cl

assi

fica

tio

n.

Co

un

trie

s re

spec

t p

lan

etar

y b

ou

nd

ari

es in

nat

ion

al p

olic

ies

and

inco

rpo

rate

th

em in

to a

n

exp

and

ed m

easu

re o

f G

DP

.

All

hig

h-f

erti

lity

cou

ntr

ies

enco

ura

ge

the

rap

id v

olu

nta

ry r

edu

ctio

n o

f to

tal f

erti

lity

rate

s.

Go

al 3

: A

chie

ve G

end

er E

qu

alit

y, H

um

an R

igh

ts

and

th

e R

ule

of

Law

All

cou

ntr

ies

ensu

re t

he

del

iver

y o

f p

ub

lic s

ervi

ces

and

rule

of

law

irre

spec

tive

of

gen

de

r, e

thn

icit

y, n

atio

nal

or

soci

al o

rigi

n, t

o e

nd

dis

crim

inat

ion

an

d r

edu

ce

ineq

ual

ity.

En

sure

fre

edo

m f

rom

all

form

s o

f vi

ole

nce

,

esp

ecia

lly f

or

wo

men

an

d c

hild

ren

.

Gen

der

eq

ual

ity

in a

cces

s to

pu

blic

ser

vice

s a

nd

par

tici

pat

ion

in t

he

eco

no

my

and

gove

rna

nce

.

Erad

icat

ion

of

dis

crim

inat

ion

ba

sed

on

eth

nic

, nat

ion

al o

r so

cial

ori

gin

, in

clu

din

g in

th

e

del

iver

y o

f p

ub

lic s

ervi

ces

and

th

e ru

le o

f la

w.

Elim

inat

ion

of

all f

orm

s o

f vi

ole

nce

aga

inst

eve

ry s

egm

en

t o

f th

e p

op

ula

tio

n, e

spec

ially

wo

men

an

d c

hild

ren

.

Go

al 4

: Ach

ieve

Fo

od

Sec

uri

ty a

nd

Rur

al P

rosp

erit

y C

ou

ntr

ies

en

able

th

eir

farm

ers

to a

do

pt

imp

rove

d

farm

ing

pra

ctic

es a

nd

te

chn

olo

gies

to

rai

se f

oo

d y

ield

s

wit

h r

edu

ced

en

viro

nm

enta

l im

pac

ts.

Foo

d lo

sses

will

be

low

an

d a

ll p

eop

le w

ill e

njo

y h

ealt

hy

die

ts. T

he

rura

l sec

tor

will

pro

vid

e d

ece

nt

job

s an

d u

niv

ersa

l

acce

ss t

o b

asic

infr

astr

uct

ure

(w

ater

, sa

nit

atio

n,

tran

spo

rt, e

ne

rgy,

an

d c

on

nec

tivi

ty).

End

hu

ng

er in

clu

din

g st

un

tin

g o

f yo

un

g ch

ildre

n

Sust

ain

able

cro

p a

nd

an

imal

pro

du

ctio

n s

yste

ms

that

ach

ieve

hig

her

yie

lds

wit

h lo

wer

inp

uts

of

wat

er, e

ner

gy, a

nd

so

il n

utr

ien

ts a

nd

low

er p

ost

-har

vest

loss

es, a

nd

a h

alt

to

fore

st a

nd

wet

lan

d c

on

vers

ion

to

agr

icu

ltu

re.

Pro

vid

e u

niv

ersa

l acc

ess

to b

asic

infr

astr

uct

ure

ser

vice

s in

ru

ral a

reas

(w

ater

, san

itat

ion

,

mo

der

n e

ner

gy, t

ran

spo

rt, b

road

ban

d).

Go

al 5

: Em

po

wer

Incl

usi

ve, P

rod

uct

ive

and

Res

ilien

t C

itie

s

All

citi

es b

eco

me

soci

ally

incl

usi

ve, e

con

om

ical

ly

pro

du

ctiv

e, a

nd

res

ilien

t to

clim

ate

chan

ge. T

hey

will

imp

rove

go

vern

an

ce a

nd

po

licym

akin

g to

su

pp

ort

rap

id u

rban

tra

nsf

orm

atio

n.

Ever

y ci

ty m

ain

stre

am c

limat

e ch

ange

, dis

aste

r ri

sk r

edu

ctio

n, a

nd

en

viro

nm

enta

l

sust

ain

abili

ty in

to o

ngo

ing

and

pla

nn

ed in

vest

men

ts.

Ever

y ci

ty e

nsu

re u

niv

ersa

l acc

ess

to

infr

astr

uct

ure

in w

ater

, san

itat

ion

, en

ergy

,

tran

spo

rt, a

nd

was

te m

anag

em

ent.

Ever

y ci

ty r

edu

ce u

rban

air

an

d w

ater

po

lluti

on

to

saf

e le

vels

.

Go

al 6

: A

chie

ve H

ealt

h a

nd

Wel

lbei

ng

at a

ll A

ges

Ever

y co

un

try

en

sure

s u

niv

ersa

l acc

ess

to

pri

mar

y

hea

lth

car

e fo

r co

mm

un

icab

le a

nd

no

n-c

om

mu

nic

able

dis

ease

s, a

nd

pro

mo

tes

hea

lth

y an

d s

ust

ain

able

beh

avio

rs b

y al

l in

div

idu

als.

Rea

ch u

niv

ersa

l acc

ess

to p

rim

ary

hea

lth

care

th

at in

clu

des

rep

rod

uct

ive

hea

lth

ser

vice

s

and

co

ntr

ol o

f co

mm

un

icab

le a

nd

no

n-c

om

mu

nic

able

dis

ease

s.

Red

uce

ch

ild m

ort

alit

y to

no

mo

re t

han

[2

5]

per

1,0

00

an

d m

ater

nal

mo

rtal

ity

to n

o

mo

re t

han

[3

0]

per

10

0,0

00

bir

ths.

Co

un

trie

s re

po

rt in

dic

ato

rs o

f su

bje

ctiv

e w

ellb

ein

g an

d s

oci

al c

apit

al.

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

──

1

5 S

DSN

(2

01

3)

An

Act

ion

Age

nd

a fo

r S

ust

ain

able

Dev

elo

pm

ent,

a r

ep

ort

to

th

e U

N S

ecre

tary

Gen

eral

.

Go

al

Go

al d

efi

nit

ion

Ta

rge

ts m

igh

t co

ver

Go

al 7

: En

sure

Eff

ect

ive

Lear

nin

g fo

r Ev

ery

Ch

ild

for

Life

an

d L

ivel

iho

od

Each

co

un

try

ensu

res

that

all

child

ren

rec

eive

ear

ly

child

ho

od

ed

uca

tio

n a

nd

car

e, a

nd

pri

mar

y an

d

seco

nd

ary

edu

cati

on

, to

pre

par

e th

em f

or

the

cha

l-

len

ges

of

mo

der

n li

fe a

nd

fo

r d

ecen

t liv

elih

oo

ds.

All

girl

s an

d b

oys

rec

eive

qu

alit

y p

rim

ary

and

sec

on

dar

y ed

uca

tio

n, a

chie

vin

g st

age

-

app

rop

riat

e le

arn

ing

leve

ls.

All

girl

s an

d b

oys

hav

e ac

cess

to

ear

ly c

hild

ho

od

car

e an

d e

du

cati

on

pro

gra

ms.

You

th u

nem

plo

yme

nt

is b

elo

w [

10

] p

erce

nt.

Go

al 8

: C

urb

Hu

man

-In

du

ced

Clim

ate

Ch

ang

e

Each

co

un

try

red

uce

s gr

een

ho

use

gas

em

issi

on

s fr

om

ene

rgy,

agr

icu

ltu

re, a

nd

lan

d-u

se c

han

ge t

o b

e co

n-

sist

ent

wit

h g

lob

al e

ffo

rts

to c

urb

clim

ate

chan

ge.

Dec

arb

on

ize

the

ener

gy s

yste

m b

y 2

05

0 w

ith

inte

rmed

iate

tar

gets

fo

r 2

02

0 a

nd

20

30

.

Red

uce

no

n-e

ner

gy r

elat

ed e

mis

sio

ns

of

gree

nh

ou

se g

ases

th

rou

gh im

pro

ved

pra

ctic

es

in a

gric

ult

ure

, lan

d u

se, a

nd

in

du

stry

.

The

ado

pti

on

of

mar

ket-

ba

sed

ince

nti

ves

and

co

rre

ctiv

e p

rici

ng

to a

ccel

erat

e th

e tr

ansi

-

tio

n t

o lo

w-c

arb

on

en

ergy

sys

tem

s.

Go

al 9

: Sec

ure

Eco

syst

em S

ervi

ces

and

Bio

dive

rsit

y Ea

ch c

ou

ntr

y su

stai

nab

ly m

anag

es it

s m

arin

e an

d

terr

est

rial

eco

syst

ems

to e

nsu

re t

he

con

tin

uat

ion

of

rob

ust

pla

net

ary

life

sup

po

rt s

yste

ms,

tak

ing

into

acco

un

t o

ngo

ing

clim

ate

chan

ge,

eme

rgin

g d

isea

ses,

inva

sive

sp

ecie

s, h

abit

at f

ragm

enta

tio

n, a

nd

oth

er

dri

vers

of

glo

bal

ch

ange

.

Po

llute

rs p

ay t

he

full

soci

al c

ost

s o

f th

eir

po

lluti

on

an

d e

nvi

ron

men

tal r

eso

urc

e u

se.

All

cou

ntr

ies

ado

pt

po

licie

s fo

r al

l eco

syst

ems,

incl

ud

ing

oce

ans,

co

asta

l, fo

rest

s, w

et-

lan

ds,

an

d o

ther

s, t

o a

dd

ress

clim

ate

chan

ge,

em

ergi

ng

dis

ease

s, in

vasi

ve s

pec

ies,

ove

r-

extr

acti

on

, an

d o

ther

dri

vers

of

hab

itat

an

d b

iod

iver

sity

loss

.

All

cou

ntr

ies

inve

nto

ry t

he

bio

div

ersi

ty, e

cosy

ste

m f

un

ctio

ns,

an

d e

cosy

ste

m s

ervi

ces

at

bio

me

and

nat

ion

al s

cale

s.

Go

al 1

0:

Tran

sfo

rm G

ove

rna

nce

fo

r Su

stai

nab

le

Dev

elo

pm

en

t

All

pu

blic

an

d p

riva

te s

take

ho

lder

s co

mm

it t

o t

ran

s-

par

ency

, acc

ou

nta

bili

ty a

nd

go

od

go

vern

ance

. T

he

inte

rnat

ion

al r

ule

s go

vern

ing

inte

rnat

ion

al f

inan

ce,

trad

e, a

nd

inte

llect

ual

pro

pe

rty

are

refo

rme

d a

nd

mad

e co

nsi

sten

t w

ith

su

stai

nab

le d

evel

op

men

t. T

he

fin

anci

ng

of

po

vert

y re

du

ctio

n a

nd

glo

bal

pu

blic

go

od

s

incl

ud

ing

clim

ate

chan

ge a

re s

tren

gth

en

ed

an

d b

ased

on

a g

rad

uat

ed s

et o

f gl

ob

al r

igh

ts a

nd

res

po

nsi

bili

ties

.

Ever

y st

akeh

old

er c

om

mit

s to

ach

ievi

ng

the

SDG

s, w

ith

go

vern

men

ts (

nat

ion

al a

nd

loca

l)

and

maj

or

com

pan

ies

rep

ort

ing

on

per

form

ance

.

Ad

equ

ate

pu

blic

fin

ance

fo

r p

ove

rty

erad

icat

ion

, in

clu

din

g th

e go

al o

f 0

.7%

of

targ

ets

for

all h

igh

-in

com

e co

un

trie

s, a

nd

glo

bal

pu

blic

go

od

s:

Inte

rnat

ion

al t

rad

e, in

vest

men

t, t

ax, i

nte

llect

ual

pro

per

ty, a

nd

dis

clo

sure

ru

les

refo

rmed

to b

e co

nsi

sten

t w

ith

th

e Su

stai

nab

le D

eve

lop

me

nt

Go

als.

8.6

A

pp

end

ix 6

Tab

le A

. Pro

po

sed

SD

Gs

div

ide

d in

to f

ou

r ty

pe

s b

ase

d o

n t

he

ir li

nka

ges

to b

iod

ive

rsit

y*

Typ

e

Gri

ggs

et

al.

(20

13

) B

olt

z e

t al

. (2

01

3)

Co

lom

bia

/Gu

ate

mal

a p

rop

osa

l (D

ESA

, 20

12)

Typ

e 1

: G

oa

ls t

hat

rel

ate

to c

on

stit

uen

ts o

r

det

erm

ina

nts

of

hu

ma

n w

ell-

bei

ng

tha

t

dir

ectl

y d

epen

d o

n, a

nd

imp

act

, bio

div

ersi

ty

an

d e

cosy

stem

s

Go

al 2

: Su

stai

nab

le f

ood

sec

uri

ty. E

nd

hu

nger

an

d

ach

ieve

long

-ter

m f

oo

d se

curi

ty –

incl

udi

ng

bet

ter

nu

trit

ion

– th

roug

h su

stai

nab

le s

yste

ms

of

pro

du

ctio

n, d

istr

ibu

tio

n an

d co

nsu

mpt

ion

.

Go

al 3

: Su

stai

nab

le w

ater

sec

uri

ty. A

chei

ve

un

iver

sal a

cces

s to

cle

an w

ater

and

bas

ic s

anit

a-

tion

, an

d en

sure

eff

icie

nt

allo

cati

on

thro

ugh

inte

grat

ed w

ater

res

ou

rce

man

agem

ent.

Go

al 4

: Uni

vers

al c

lean

ene

rgy.

Impr

ove

un

iver

sal,

affo

rdab

le a

cces

s to

cle

an e

ner

gy t

hat

min

imiz

es

loca

l pol

luti

on

and

hea

lth

imp

acts

an

d m

itig

ates

glob

al w

arm

ing.

Foo

d s

ecu

rity

fo

r a

ll: p

hys

ical

an

d e

con

om

ic

acce

ss t

o s

uff

icie

nt,

nu

trit

ion

ally

ad

equ

ate

and

safe

fo

od

an

d it

s ef

fect

ive

uti

liza

tio

n;

fou

nd

ed

up

on

eco

logi

cally

su

stai

nab

le a

gric

ult

ure

,

fish

erie

s an

d r

ura

l dev

elo

pm

ent

po

licie

s an

d

pra

ctic

es.

Wa

ter

secu

rity

fo

r a

ll: a

cces

s to

saf

e d

rin

kin

g

wat

er a

nd

san

itat

ion

, sec

ure

en

viro

nm

en

tal

flo

ws

to s

ust

ain

hu

man

an

d e

cosy

stem

hea

lth

,

and

pro

tect

ion

aga

inst

wat

er-r

elat

ed h

aza

rds.

Hea

lth

fo

r al

l: h

ealt

h e

qu

ity,

hea

lth

se

curi

ty a

nd

hea

lth

y en

viro

nm

ents

, en

suri

ng

acce

ss t

o

trea

tmen

t fo

r in

fect

iou

s d

isea

se a

nd

fam

ily

hea

lth

, mit

igat

ing

the

emer

gen

ce a

nd

inci

de

nce

of

dis

ease

.

Sust

ain

ab

le e

ner

gy

for

all:

un

iver

sal a

cces

s to

ene

rgy,

wit

h in

crea

sed

sh

are

of

ren

ewab

le

ene

rgy

sou

rce

s an

d im

pro

ved

en

ergy

eff

icie

ncy

.

Ad

van

cin

g F

oo

d S

ecu

rity

Ener

gy,

incl

ud

ing

fro

m r

enew

ab

le s

ou

rces

Typ

e 2

: G

oa

ls t

hat

rel

ate

to c

on

stit

uen

ts o

r

det

erm

ina

nts

of

hu

ma

n w

ell-

bei

ng

tha

t d

o n

ot

dir

ectl

y d

epen

d o

n, o

r im

pa

ct, b

iodi

vers

ity

an

d

eco

syst

ems

O

pp

ort

un

itie

s fo

r a

ll: r

edu

ced

po

vert

y an

d

ineq

ual

ity,

acc

ess

to

so

cial

ser

vice

s an

d s

ecu

rity

.

Pea

ce a

nd

just

ice

for

all:

per

son

al s

ecu

rity

,

po

litic

al v

oic

e, t

ran

spar

ent

and

eq

uit

able

gove

rna

nce

an

d a

cce

ss t

o f

air

just

ice.

Pro

mo

tin

g S

ust

ain

ab

le H

um

an

Set

tlem

ent

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e 3

: G

oa

ls t

hat

rel

ate

to t

he

mai

nte

na

nce

of

the

pla

net

’s li

fe s

up

po

rt s

yste

m

Go

al 5

: H

ealt

hy

an

d p

rod

uct

ive

eco

syst

ems.

Sust

ain

bio

div

ersi

ty a

nd

eco

syst

em s

ervi

ces

thro

ug

h b

ette

r m

an

ag

emen

t, v

alu

atio

n, m

eas-

ure

,em

t, c

on

serv

ati

on

an

d r

esto

rati

on

.

Eart

h s

yste

m s

ecu

rity

: p

olic

ies

and

ince

nti

ves

for

an e

ffec

tive

glo

bal

pro

gram

me

of

eco

syst

em

con

serv

atio

n, r

esto

rati

on

an

d lo

w e

mis

sio

ns

to

avo

id h

arm

ful o

r ir

reve

rsib

le d

amag

e to

eco

sys-

tem

s.

Bio

div

ersi

ty a

nd

Fore

sts

Oce

an

s

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Typ

e 4

: O

vera

rch

ing

go

als

th

at e

nco

mp

ass

mu

ltip

le d

imen

sio

ns

of

sust

ain

ab

le d

evel

op

-

men

t.

Go

al 1

: Th

rivi

ng

lives

an

d liv

elih

oo

ds.

En

d

po

vers

ty a

nd

imp

rove

wel

l-b

ein

g th

rou

gh a

cce

ss

to e

du

cati

on

, em

plo

yme

nt

and

info

rmat

ion

,

bet

ter

hea

lth

an

d h

ou

sin

g, a

nd

red

uce

d in

equ

al-

ity

wh

ile m

ovi

ng

tow

ard

s su

stai

nab

le c

on

sum

p-

tio

n a

nd

pro

du

ctio

n.

Go

al 6

: G

ove

rna

nce

fo

r su

sta

ina

ble

soci

etie

s.

Tran

sfo

rm g

ove

rnan

ce a

nd

inst

itu

tio

ns

at a

ll

leve

ls t

o a

dd

ress

th

e o

ther

fiv

e su

stai

nab

le

dev

elo

pm

ent

goal

s.

C

om

ba

tin

g P

ove

rty

Ch

an

gin

g C

on

sum

pti

on

Pa

tter

ns

* B

iod

iver

sity

an

d S

ust

ain

ab

le D

evel

op

men

t –

the

rele

van

ce o

f th

e St

rate

gic

Pla

n f

or

Bio

div

ersi

ty 2

01

1-2

02

0 a

nd

th

e A

ich

i Bio

div

ersi

ty T

arge

ts f

or

the

po

st-2

01

5 d

evel

op

me

nt

agen

da

an

d t

he

Sust

ain

ab

le D

evel

op

me

nt

Go

als.

Key

Mes

sage

s, T

he

sev

enth

Tro

nd

hei

m C

on

fere

nce

on

Bio

div

ersi

ty, T

ron

dh

eim

, No

rway

, 27

–31

May

20

13

Do

cum

en

t TC

7/I

NF2

.

Tab

le B

. Ho

w t

he

Str

ate

gic

Pla

n f

or

Bio

div

ers

ity

20

11

–20

20

an

d t

he

Aic

hi t

arge

ts c

an b

e in

tegr

ate

d in

to d

iffe

ren

t ty

pe

s o

f p

rop

ose

d S

DG

s*

Typ

e

Mo

dal

ity

for

inte

grat

ion

of

bio

div

ers

ity

Re

leva

nt

targ

ets

an

d o

the

r e

lem

en

ts o

f th

e

Stra

tegi

c P

lan

Exam

ple

In

dic

ato

rs

Typ

e 1

: G

oa

ls t

hat

rel

ate

to c

on

stit

uen

ts o

r

det

erm

ina

nts

of

hu

ma

n w

ell-

bei

ng

tha

t

dir

ectl

y d

epen

d o

n, a

nd

imp

act

, bio

div

ersi

ty

an

d e

cosy

stem

s

Targ

ets

or

ind

icat

ors

rel

ated

to

bio

div

ers

ity

cou

ld b

e in

tegr

ate

d u

nd

er t

his

typ

e o

f go

al

Targ

ets

5, 6

, 7, 8

, 9, 1

3

E.g

for

foo

d:

Div

ersi

ty o

f cr

op

s an

d li

vest

ock

in p

rod

uct

ion

.

Fert

ilize

r u

se e

ffic

ien

cy.

Pes

tici

de

use

.

Wat

er u

se.

Lan

d u

se c

han

ge.

Cat

ch p

er

un

it e

ffo

rt (

fish

erie

s).

Typ

e 2

: G

oa

ls t

hat

rel

ate

to c

on

stit

uen

ts o

f

det

erm

ina

nts

of

hu

ma

n w

ell-

bei

ng

tha

t d

o n

ot

dir

ectl

y d

epen

d o

n, o

r im

pa

ct, b

iodi

vers

ity

an

d

eco

syst

ems

Info

rmat

ion

(b

ut

no

sp

ecif

ic r

efer

ence

in t

he

fram

ewo

rk)

Targ

et 1

, tar

get

18

Typ

e 3

: G

oa

ls t

hat

rel

ate

to t

he

mai

nte

na

nce

of

the

pla

net

’s li

fe s

up

po

rt s

yste

m

The

Go

al it

self

co

uld

be

a b

iod

iver

sity

go

al

wh

ich

co

uld

be

der

ived

fro

m t

he

Vis

ion

of

the

Stra

tegi

c P

lan

. Th

is c

ou

ld b

e su

pp

ort

ed

by

mo

re

spe

cifi

c ta

rgte

s an

d in

dic

ato

rs.

Vis

ion

sta

tem

ent

Po

ten

tial

ly a

ll ta

rget

s, b

ut

esp

ecia

lly T

5, T

10

,

T11

, T1

2, T

13

, T1

4, T

15

Fore

st a

rea.

Wet

lan

d a

rea.

Pro

tect

ed

are

as.

Ab

un

dan

ce (

LPI;

fish

sto

cks)

Thre

ate

ne

d s

pe

cies

sta

tus.

Typ

e 4

: O

vera

chin

g g

oa

ls t

hat

en

com

pa

ss

mu

ltip

le d

imen

sio

ns

of

sust

ain

ab

le d

evel

op

-

men

t.

Targ

ets

or

ind

icat

ors

rel

ated

to

bio

div

ers

ity

cou

ld b

e in

tegr

ate

d t

o t

his

typ

e o

f go

al.

Vis

ion

sta

tem

ent

Targ

et 4

: R

efer

ence

to

su

stai

nab

le c

on

sum

pti

on

and

pro

du

ctio

n (

Go

al o

r Ta

rget

)

Go

al A

an

d t

arge

ts 1

–4

Bro

ad b

ase

d m

easu

res

of

soci

etal

pro

gres

s –

bey

on

d G

DP

(In

dic

ato

r) in

lin

e w

ith

targ

et 2

* B

iod

iver

sity

an

d S

ust

ain

ab

le D

evel

op

men

t –

the

rele

van

ce o

f th

e St

rate

gic

Pla

n f

or

Bio

div

ersi

ty 2

01

1–2

02

0 a

nd

th

e A

ich

i Bio

div

ersi

ty T

arge

ts f

or

the

po

st-2

01

5 d

evel

op

me

nt

agen

da

an

d t

he

Sust

ain

ab

le D

evel

op

me

nt

Go

als.

Key

Mes

sage

s, T

he

sev

enth

Tro

nd

hei

m C

on

fere

nce

on

Bio

div

ersi

ty, T

ron

dh

eim

, No

rway

, 27

–31

May

20

13

Do

cum

en

t TC

7/I

NF2

.

Global Sustainability & Human Prosperity– contribution to the Post-2015 agenda and the development of Sustainable Development Goals

Ved Stranden 18DK-1061 Copenhagern Kwww.norden.org

The development of a Post-2015 agenda and Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs, provide a global window of opportunity to address both social needs and environmental challenges together. This discussion paper by the Stockholm Resilience Centre looks into the links between human wellbeing and the biosphere, and describes why and how these links should influence the formulation of the new SDGs. It explores what we can learn from the MDGs, and how existing international agreements can be reflected in the Post-2015 MDG process. The paper also seeks to contribute to the elaboration of targets, including process-oriented targets and scalable indicators suitable for a rapidly changing world.

Global Sustainability & Human Prosperity

TemaN

ord 2014:527

TemaNord 2014:527ISBN 978-92-893-2770-1ISBN 978-92-893-2771-8 (EPUB)ISSN 0908-6692

TN2014527 omslag.indd 1 09-04-2014 12:05:59

http://www.norden.org

Ved Stranden 18 Global Sustainability & Human...

Documents

Transcript of Ved Stranden 18 Global Sustainability & Human...