The environment and the Sustainable Development Goals: ‘We are on a road to nowhere’

Scholtz, Werner; Barnard, Michelle

doi:10.4337/9781786438768.00017

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As for the United Nations Environment Programme, some studies indicate that its influence might have become more limited since the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals, partially because of the integrated nature of the 17 goals and the now wider set of actors, institutions and norms that engage with environmental concerns (Elder and Olsen 2019;McInerney 2017). Others observe a further division of policy concerns in the three components of atmosphere, land and water, as they are distinctly covered in Goal 13 on climate change, Goal 14 on life below water and Goal 15 on life on land (Scholtz and Barnard 2018). Some studies indicate that the United Nations Environment Programme has been unable to fully use the potential of the new United Nations Environment Assembly, now with universal membership, to steer the global environmental agenda in support of the Sustainable Development Goals.…”

Section: Global Environmental Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Global Governance

Beisheim¹,

Bernstein²,

Biermann

et al. 2022

The Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

marianne beisheim and steven bernstein contributing authors frank biermann, pamela chasek, melanie van driel, felicitas fritzsche, carole-anne se ´nit and silke weinlich Many observers expected the Sustainable Development Goals to strengthen the institutional architecture of global sustainability governance within the United Nations system and beyond. This ambition was already part of the negotiations of the goals. Here, the United Nations General Assembly had created an 'open working group' of only 30 countries, driven by fears that negotiations with universal participation would not lead to an agreement. However, when over 70 countries wanted to join this group, the United Nations found an innovative way to accommodate them by sharing the 30 seats among 'duos' and 'trios' of countries. In another innovation, the open working group first went through a 'stocktaking' process to create a common understanding of the issues and to create legitimacy among governments and stakeholders (Chasek and Wagner 2016; Dodds, Donoghue and Roesch 2016; Kamau, Chasek and O'Connor 2018). However, some studies criticized these negotiations for being 'unpolitical' and brushing over conflicts (Rivera 2017; Thérien and Pouliot 2020).The academic literature has characterized the 2030 Agenda as 'governing through goals' (Kanie and Biermann 2017: ix). Typical features include a goalsetting process that aims to be broadly inclusive; the non-legally binding nature of the goals; reliance on weak institutional arrangements to promote and implement the goals; and extensive leeway for states or other actors and institutions in responding to the goals (Biermann, Kanie and Kim 2017; Vijge et al. 2020: 256). Some studies argued that goal-setting can be impactful and that the Sustainable Development Goals encapsulate 'seeds for transformation' (Stevens and Kanie 2016). Yet, global governance through goals remains a contested strategy (Kanie et al. 2017: 6; Young 2017: 38). Legal scholars emphasize that goals that are aspirational need additional mechanisms to reach beyond the fragmented and compartmentalized system of international law (Kim 2016: 17). In principle, such mechanisms can be found in the other parts of the 2030 Agenda, especially in the sections on the means of implementation and on the follow-up and review.

show abstract

Section: Global Environmental Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Global Governance

Beisheim¹,

Bernstein²,

Biermann

et al. 2022

The Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As for the United Nations Environment Programme, some studies indicate that its influence might have become more limited since the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals, partially because of the integrated nature of the 17 goals and the now wider set of actors, institutions and norms that engage with environmental concerns McInerney 2017). Others observe a further division of policy concerns in the three components of atmosphere, land and water, as they are distinctly covered in Goal 13 on climate change, Goal 14 on life below water and Goal 15 on life on land (Scholtz and Barnard 2018). Some studies indicate that the United Nations Environment Programme has been unable to fully use the potential of the new United Nations Environment Assembly, now with universal membership, to steer the global environmental agenda in support of the Sustainable Development Goals.…”

Section: Global Environmental Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Written by an international team of over sixty experts and drawing on over three thousand scientific studies, this is the first comprehensive global assessment of the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals, which were launched by the United Nations in 2015. It explores in detail the political steering effects of the Sustainable Development Goals on the UN system and the policies of countries in the Global North and Global South; on institutional integration and policy coherence; and on the ecological integrity and inclusiveness of sustainability policies worldwide. This book is a key resource for scholars, policymakers and activists concerned with the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, and those working in political science, international relations and environmental studies. It is one of a series of publications associated with the Earth System Governance Project. For more publications, see www.cambridge.org/earth-system-governance. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

show abstract