The Design of Environmental Priorities in the SDGs
| Date | 01 January 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12596 |
| Published date | 01 January 2019 |
The Design of Environmental Priorities in the
SDGs
1
Mark Elder and Simon Høiberg Olsen
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan
Abstract
This article argues that the environment was extensively incorporated into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with
broad and ambitious targets, reflecting environmental concerns throughout the SDGs. Many environment-related targets –
including some of the most important ones –were placed under ‘non-environmental’goals. The SDGs also adopted the view
that economic growth can be made environmentally sustainable using ‘decoupling’and ‘resource efficiency’as key technolog-
ical solutions. Governments rejected a more transformative objective ‘beyond GDP’, the concept of planetary boundaries, and
strong implementation mechanisms. Most disappointing, the environmental elements in many targets were not included in
indicators, or the indicators lacked ambition, or were watered down. Key factors in achieving the strong and integrated
approach to environment and development at the level of goals and targets were: (1) the role of new ideas on the impor-
tance of the environment and an integrated approach to sustainable development which was promoted by the science and
research community; (2) a group of norm entrepreneurs, who promoted these ideas; and (3) the institutional structure and
working modalities of the Open Working Group (which drafted the text of the SDGs) whose special characteristics facilitated
the final agreement. The dilution of the indicators resulted from a very different institutional structure and process with differ-
ent actors and from the development focused legacy of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that had not resulted in
sufficient capacity for thoroughly measuring environmental concerns.
How to incorporate the environment was one of the central
issues in the creation of the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). This article aims to explain how the environment
was incorporated into the SDGs, and why it was incorpo-
rated in this way. It also discusses how goal setting and
quantification influenced the environment’s prioritization.
The linkage between environment and development has
long been controversial. In the traditional ‘3 pillars’approach,
the environment was one pillar of development, alongside
the economic and social pillars (Farley and Smith, 2013). In
principle, the environment appears essential. However, in
practice, many governments and experts have often priori-
tized the economic and social pillars, and believed in a basic
‘trade-off’between the environment and the economy. This
became a rationale to avoid major strengthening of environ-
mental protections. The common strategy was to grow first
and clean up later (O’Connor, 1996). The 3 pillars framework
also obscured synergies and tradeoffs between the environ-
ment and the other pillars, and encouraged a silo and sector
based approach to development. Others argued for an inte-
grated approach, based on the concept that the environment
is the basic foundation for development and human well-
being, as a way to advocate for stronger environmental pro-
tection measures (Brundtland, 2000; Sachs, 2015).
Governments agreed to strengthen environmental protec-
tion and promote a more integrated approach through a
series of global UN conferences on ‘environment and devel-
opment’starting with the Stockholm Conference on the
Human Environment in 1972. Two decades later, Agenda 21
included a long list of goals, actions and means of
implementation. However, as Klaus Topfer (2000) observed,
‘most of the world’s problems are still getting worse’,soit
was followed up by the Johannesburg Plan of Implementa-
tion (JPOI), adopted in 2002.
Later, environment and development substantially
diverged under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Created in 2000 by development experts under the auspices
of the UN Secretary General, MDGs prioritized social and
economic goals. Only one narrow environmental goal was
included which was generally considered quite weak (Fehl-
ing et al., 2013).
In addition to the failure of the MDGs to strongly reflect
environmental concerns, many felt that the Rio process
‘failed to deliver on many of [its] promises’(Tollefson and
Gilbert, 2012), and some criticized the Commission on Sus-
tainable Development (CSD), charged with implementing
Agenda 21, as a ‘talk shop’(Speth, 2004). The Rio process
had lost its integrative character, involving mainly environ-
mental issues and weak environment ministries, making it
difficult to interest more powerful ministries, which focused
on the MDGs instead. At Rio+20, governments recognized
that progress had been ‘uneven’and ‘insufficient’, making it
necessary to ‘raise the level of commitment’to ‘accelerate’
progress (United Nations, 2012).
The future relationship between the environment and
development was a core issue of Rio+20. Ultimately, govern-
ments decided to reunite them by creating SDGs, merging
the MDG’s separate development agenda back into Agenda
21’s environment and development process. While prioritiz-
ing poverty reduction, the SDGs aimed to revitalize
©2019 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Global Policy (2019) 10:Suppl.1 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12596
Global Policy Volume 10 . Supplement 1 . January 2019
70
Special Issue Article
To continue reading
Request your trial