Going Beyond Global Indicators—Policy Relevant Indicators for SDG 6 Targets in the Context of Austria

Abstract

Bringing forward sustainable transformation as envisioned within the Agenda 2030 requires comprehensive monitoring of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) formulated therein. To monitor and report progress on goal 6 on clean water and sanitation and its eight pertinent targets, 11 indicators were stipulated in an elaborated process. Yet, through continuous scientific and public scrutiny and debate several gaps and weaknesses were identified. Amongst others, these globally defined indicators are found to reflect weakly the diversity of national realities, capacities and levels of development. To translate the targets into national contexts and fully cover all aspects of the SDG 6 targets, the utilization of complementary indicators is recommended. Within this paper, following a critical appraisal of the SDG 6 indicators, possible complementary indicators are collected from literature and screened based on their quality, relevance for the national context and data availability. A deepened status quo of the SDG 6 targets and corresponding problem areas are outlined for the context of Austria, where water and sanitation infrastructure as well as regulation and governance of water bodies are widely established. Despite increasing the monitoring effort, it is concluded that complementary indicators are practicable to support coherent policy-making and ultimately contribute to the Agenda 2030’s aspiration that all countries take action.

Quantifying Progress Made in Achieving Sustainable Development Goal 6 in Chile: A Holistic and Local Approach

“…If not, an alternative indicator was proposed and quantified using a proxy variable when needed. Moreover, a specific aspiration level was proposed for Chile for all indicators for which there is not a clear target (i.e., is not attainable), as suggested by Germann and Langergraber [15] and according to the three 2030 Agenda principles, using the underlying principles of the proposed indicator or a benchmark approach if necessary.…”

Dietary Change and Global Sustainable Development Goals

“…A recent review provides a critical examination of SDG 6 and its indicators (Germann and Langergraber, 2022). Current food systems are the largest consumer of global freshwater resources and to achieve the water scarcity reduction (target 6.4 of the SDG 6), there is need to improve their water use efficiency.…”

“…As shown in Supplementary Table S1, indicators used in the past dietary change studies did not always align with global SDG indicator framework (United Nations, 2021). In future, the indicator identification could consider a SMART manner (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-based) and learn from the representative case studies in different regions (Germann and Langergraber, 2022). In the end, all indicative numbers are tools to help capture the benchmark, progress, as well as the complexity of sustainability, with the ultimate goal being locally feasible actions in real world.…”

“…In the end, all indicative numbers are tools to help capture the benchmark, progress, as well as the complexity of sustainability, with the ultimate goal being locally feasible actions in real world. The scope of this review was to provide an overview of the studies that have shown how changing our current diets can help us make progress toward six different SDGs, but future studies should carry out an indepth quantitative analysis on the potential of dietary change to contribute toward progress on individual SDG indicators (Germann and Langergraber, 2022).…”

Indicators to complement global monitoring of safely managed on-site sanitation to understand health risks

“…Beard et al highlighted the challenges to assessing on-site systems and the need for revised categories for improved sanitation facilities, yet they did not review indicators related to safe management across the service chain 19 . One paper proposed complementary indicators for safely managed sanitation services for national monitoring in Austria 20 . This provided valuable insights for high-income contexts with predominately sewerage services, yet was less applicable for low- and middle-income countries with predominantly on-site sanitation.…”