Learning to Innovate

Biological Diversity ◽

Convention On Biological Diversity ◽

Governance System ◽

Development Goals ◽

Aichi Biodiversity Targets ◽

Taking Action ◽

Biodiversity Governance

What is the likelihood of science and technology progress for biodiversity from the sustainable development goals? This chapter argues that it is higher than it may seem as a result of scientific developments ready for wide application and a structure of biodiversity governance able to spread innovation. The chapter initially argues that there are three potential fields for innovation under the specific targets of the sustainable development goals: integration of biodiversity with other spheres, ecosystem-based management, and remote sensing. Next, it argues that innovation is likely because the biodiversity governance system has developed localized centers for developing innovation with a system for transferring those findings across scales. It focuses specifically on the importance of the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the expert systems developed at the international level, and the ability of international organizations to implement innovative approaches to biodiversity governance. The conclusion is that there is a high potential for innovation, but that taking action after the Aichi biodiversity targets end in 2020 will be key.

Sustainable Development, Ocean Governance and Marine Protected Areas

Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy ◽

10.1163/24519391-00402002 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 4 (2) ◽

pp. 127-141

Author(s):

David Freestone

Keyword(s):

Sustainable Development ◽

Biological Diversity ◽

Environmental Law ◽

Sustainable Use ◽

Convention On Biological Diversity ◽

Ocean Governance ◽

National Jurisdiction ◽

Development Goals ◽

Aichi Biodiversity Targets

By 2020, at least ten percent of the global oceans should be subject to area-based protection according to the target agreed by the parties to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010 (Aichi Biodiversity Targets) and reiterated in 2015 Sustainable Development Goal 14.5. This paper looks at the Sustainable Development Goals and the evolution of the concept of Sustainable Development, distinguishing it from international environmental law. Then it looks at the way in which the goals relate to ocean governance and the current lacunae in the system established by the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and the negotiations within the UN to address the issue of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in area beyond national jurisdiction. In particular, it looks at the sectoral approaches to area-based protection in areas beyond national jurisdiction, where currently iucn reports that only 1.18% is protected.

The Sustainable Development Goals and Multilateral Agreements

Governing through Goals ◽

10.7551/mitpress/9780262035620.003.0010 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Arild Underdal ◽

Rakhyun E. Kim

Keyword(s):

Sustainable Development ◽

Goal Setting ◽

Global Governance ◽

Governance System ◽

Development Goals ◽

Overall Performance ◽

The Impact

This chapter explores goal setting, as exemplified by the Sustainable Development Goals, as a governance strategy for reforming or rearranging existing international agreements and organizations so as to enhance their overall performance in promoting sustainable development. It discusses the political and entrepreneurial challenges peculiar to bringing existing international institutions into line, and identifies the conditions under which goal setting could be an effective tool for orchestration. The chapter concludes that, because of their ecumenical diversity and soft priorities, the Sustainable Development Goals are not likely to serve as effective instruments for fostering convergence. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development provides neither an overarching norm that can serve as a platform for more specific goals nor an integrating vision of what long-term sustainable development in the Anthropocene means. In the absence of such an overarching principle and vision, the impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on global governance will likely materialize primarily as spurring some further clustering of existing regimes and organizations within crowded policy domains. The Sustainable Development Goals cannot be expected to generate major architectural reforms that will significantly reduce the fragmentation of the global governance system at large.

A Scoping Review of Ontologies Relevant to Design Strategies in Response to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Sustainability ◽

10.3390/su131810012 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (18) ◽

pp. 10012

Author(s):

Jyh-Rong Chou

Keyword(s):

Sustainable Development ◽

Scoping Review ◽

Research Practice ◽

Design Strategies ◽

2030 Agenda ◽

Starting Point ◽

Development Goals ◽

Taking Action

Since the initiation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015, academia and industry have been taking action to seek how to address the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) via research, practice, and community engagement. Due to the UN SDGs comprising comprehensive domain-centric ontologies for reaching a consensus on their achievement, so far there has been a literature gap on how and what product design strategies can help achieve which of the SDGs. Inspired by the implication of creating a better world with design, this study conducted a scoping review to synthesize existing design strategies toward the implementation of the SDGs. More than 110 design strategies/methods were collected and synthesized as evidence to map onto the ontological domains of the SDGs. The results indicate that Goals 8, 9, 11, and 12 can be correspondingly addressed by the current body of design strategies, whereas a gap exists in the design strategies to address Goals 15, 16, and 17. Most of the corresponding strategies can be workable to Goals 3, 4, 6, and 7 to a certain extent and, in a broad sense, are in line with the contextual implications of Goals 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, and 14. This study provides a useful starting point for researchers to explore how design has been contributing to the sustainability goals. It also contributes to existing knowledge of the design discipline by providing methodological guidance for researchers and practitioners to conduct further research and practice on the UN SDGs.

Analysis of national and local governance systems to achieve the sustainable development goals: case studies of Japan and Indonesia

Sustainability Science ◽

10.1007/s11625-019-00739-z ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 179-202 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Kanako Morita ◽

Mahesti Okitasari ◽

Hiromi Masuda

Keyword(s):

Sustainable Development ◽

Case Studies ◽

Local Governance ◽

Legal Framework ◽

Strategy Development ◽

Governance System ◽

Governance Systems ◽

Development Goals

Abstract To achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs), all countries’ efforts are essential, and each country needs to recognize their level of achievement in terms of the SDGs, identify the goals and targets that require more effort, and build more effective and well-performed governance systems to accelerate their efforts toward achieving the SDGs. This study identifies different governance system structures for achieving the SDGs and the challenges they face in improving their performance using a new matrix tool to evaluate governance systems for the SDGs. We use Japan and Indonesia as case studies to provide perspectives from countries at different levels of economic development. The results show that the governance systems for the SDGs are structurally and functionally different in the two countries, which face different challenges. Japan has relatively well-structured “vision and objective setting”, “research and assessment”, and “strategy development”, but faces challenges in relation to “implementation” and “monitoring, evaluation, and review”, while Indonesia has relatively well-structured “research and assessment”, “strategy development”, and “monitoring, evaluation, and review.” However, Indonesia faces challenges in relation to “vision and objective setting” and “implementation.” We found that the differences in the governance systems for the SDGs have arisen in relation to three key elements: differences in the development of governance systems for the SDGs, differences in the lead ministries, and the existence or otherwise of a supportive legal framework. We argue that the proposed matrix tool is useful in identifying the structure of governance systems for the SDGs and the challenges that must be overcome to improve the performance of these systems. However, some analytical limitations must be overcome before the tool can be applied to other countries.

Apples for Oranges: Disparities in Offset Legislation and Policy among Jurisdictions and its Implications for Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development in Australia

Environmental Management and Sustainable Development ◽

10.5296/emsd.v8i1.14081 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

pp. 172

Author(s):

Linda Abdo ◽

Sandy Griffin ◽

Annabeth Kemp

Keyword(s):

Sustainable Development ◽

Environmental Protection ◽

Biological Diversity ◽

Convention On Biological Diversity ◽

Agenda 21 ◽

International Obligation ◽

Biodiversity Offsets ◽

International Obligations ◽

Development Goals

As a signatory to Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (including the Sustainable Development Goals) and the Convention on Biological Diversity, Australia has an international obligation to ensure sustainable development. Biodiversity offsets are one tool used by Australian regulators to allow development to continue, whilst ensuring international obligations for sustainable development are met. In this study, legislation, policy and published guidelines for the Australian Commonwealth, states and territories were analysed to determine if the application of biodiversity offsets was consistent with the principles of sustainable development (environmentally, socially, economically) and if the allowance of biodiversity offsets in different jurisdictions created gaps in biodiversity and environmental protection across Australia. Regulation of biodiversity offsets was found to be inconsistent between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, with most jurisdictions having less than 50% similarity. This inconsistency in offset policy and legislation between jurisdictions could lead to loss of biodiversity. Additionally, jurisdictions did not adequately consider the social and economic aspects of sustainability in relation to biodiversity offsets, meaning that, through the allowance of biodiversity offsets, Australia may not be meeting their international obligations related to sustainable development. Further legislative development for biodiversity offsets is required in Australia to improve environmental protection and to adequately consider all aspects of sustainability. The Council of Australian Governments is a mechanism that could be used to ensure all jurisdictions consider the aspects of sustainability consistently in relation to biodiversity offsets.