No abstract

In 2015, the United Nations agreed on 17 Sustainable Development Goals as the central normative framework for sustainable development worldwide. The effectiveness of governing by such broad global goals, however, remains uncertain, and we lack comprehensive meta-studies that assess the political impact of the goals across countries and globally. We present here condensed evidence from an analysis of over 3,000 scientific studies on the Sustainable Development Goals published between 2016 and April 2021. Our findings suggests that the goals have had some political impact on institutions and policies, from local to global governance. This impact has been largely discursive, affecting the way actors understand and communicate about sustainable development. More profound normative and institutional impact, from legislative action to changing resource allocation, remains rare. We conclude that the scientific evidence suggests only limited transformative political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals thus far.

The need to mainstream land degradation issues into national policies and frameworks is encouraged by international mechanisms such as the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs, 2000). However, mainstreaming has faced a number of interrelated institutional, financial, legal, knowledge and policy barriers. As such, despite 15 years of existence of the UNCCD, successes in reversing and/or preventing land degradation are widely perceived to be limited. This paper highlights the nature of these barriers to mainstreaming and identifies ways in which specific limitations that hamper mainstreaming of land degradation into national, regional and international activities and policies may be overcome. It also identifies institutional infrastructures through which scientific findings may more effectively enter policy, suggesting that scientific bodies are required to strategise, coordinate and stimulate the global scientific research community to support mainstreaming and the up-scaling of efforts to combat land degradation. Such a scientific body could also stimulate national cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder knowledge exchange. The paper then moves to the national level to examine mainstreaming processes in Namibia, a country particularly advanced in taking a more integrated approach. Although the Namibia case study shows an impressive degree of integration, there are still many lessons to be learned in order to further strengthen mainstreaming processes. These lessons form the basis of our conclusion and recommendations, which outline a potential way forward.

In the International Organizations classroom, students learn a lot about the nuts and bolts of international organizations in theory, but do not always have the opportunity to understand how international organizations work in practice. Understanding negotiations, diplomacy and interstate relations is essential in understanding the strengths of weaknesses of international organizations. To this end, the use of in-class simulations, where each student represents a different country, can be an effective tool in teaching students about international organizations and global governance. This article describes a simulation run in an International Organizations class in the Fall 2002 semester. It involved a fictitious serious terrorist attack in Singapore during a performance of ''Kiddush for Naomi'' performed by the Israel Habima Theatre Company. The article describes the goals of the simulation, the preparation the students undertook throughout the semester, the implementation of the simulation itself, and the post-simulation debriefing and assessment of the students and lessons learned for future in-class simulations.